Questions About Raines Raised Before; Was the Writing on the Wall?

EDITOR AND PUBLISHER ONLINE ^ | JUNE 09, 2003 | Greg Mitchell

[Liz]

NEW YORK -- We should have seen it coming. In fact, with 20/20 hindsight, we did see it coming. Howell Raines' downfall came suddenly, but hints that this could happen go back even before he occupied the executive editor's office at The New York Times.

More than a year ago, for example, Alex S. Jones, in E&P, wrote of Raines: "His high expectations and bursting ambition scare some people at the Times. They're afraid of him. ... His empowerment of the paper's assistant managing editors has promoted muttering among the various desks that their authority has been undermined, in favor of central control."

Further back, in a May 28, 2001, cover story in E&P, the week after Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appointed Raines to the top slot, Joe Strupp observed that when Raines ran the paper's Washington bureau from 1988 to 1992, "he emphasized aggressive reporting, mobilized quickly for big stories, and let rising stars flourish, say former colleagues and observers." Critics accused him of playing favorites, "almost to the point of pet status." One former bureau employee told Strupp: "He really transformed the culture into one where you were in or you were out."

All of this became standard operating procedure at the Times, for better and worse, after Raines took control.

Alex Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center at Harvard, told us at that time to expect an "aggressive" Raines reign: "I know he has had a vision of what he wants to do with the Times for many years. Now his moment has arrived and -- stand back!"

Raines, meanwhile, told us that while he found that one of the "great joys of doing journalism during this period of my career has been the infusion of literary narrative quality into reportage ... but The New York Times is famous for great fact-based reporting, and that will remain the core of what we do ... there has been an emphasis on fine writing and readability, achieved without any diminution of the accuracy of the reporting. And that's where we'll be."

Less than a year later, in early April 2002, I interviewed Raines, with much of the talk focusing on an hour-by-hour account of how he spent his day on Sept. 11, 2001. It was the first time he had talked at length about it for print, and it was riveting (two weeks later, the paper would win a record seven Pulitzers, mainly for its 9/11 coverage).

However, he also described the huge responsibility of his new job, calling it "a sense of stewardship ... to take a newspaper that is already great and operating with the highest levels of journalistic principle and intellectual penetration, and preserve those standards and that tradition and improve it and pass it on to the next person."

Raines also revealed that he was most concerned about "the competitive metabolism" of the paper -- that feeling that the Gray Lady "could do things with a higher energy level."

In an incisively balanced sidebar for that issue, Alex Jones observed that Raines operated with an "aura of destiny." Running the world's greatest newspaper was "somehow his karma." Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising therefore that he was already "breaking some eggs." Promises of re-assigning reporters sent "tremors of fear throughout the paper."

Other Jones insights:

* "When he is sharply focused on something important, he resembles an aroused and furious hawk, which can scare the pants off people."

* "But the focused Raines is not the one people need to fear. It is the Raines whose face communicates disappointment in how a job was done that should be feared, because he does have stupendous ambitions for his editorship."

* "Raines does not require to be loved. He would prefer it, of course. But his larger need is to be the greatest editor the Times has ever had."

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P.

[Liz]

Raines, meanwhile, told us that while he found that one of the "great joys of doing journalism during this period of my career has been the infusion of literary narrative quality into reportage ... but The New York Times is famous for great fact-based reporting, and that will remain the core of what we do ... "

Then Jayson Blair came into the picture. Glib, gullible, privileged elitist Howell. The big lug let his left-leaning tendencies influence him. And now he's out. Good to see a liberal dupe like Howell get taken down by another liberal dupe like Pinch.

[proxy_user]

Many managers at many companies have this problem. It is simple egomania. How can one man know more than hundreds of people who have been doing the job successfully for many years? If you want to make changes, you should learn from them and figure out what is going on. But these guys have to learn the hard way.

[TheGeezer]

I agree with your sentiments. Irony - especially when it involves liberals tripping over their own hypocrisy, or an internal contradiction of philosophy - is especially delicious.

Most sinister of Raines' goals, however, was the "infusion of literary narrative quality into reportage". This characteristic of the "new" NYT under Raines was a slippery slope. The emphasis upon literary quality became "journitalizing", where opinion embedded as tone of expression became more important than simple expression of fact. Editorials began to appear on page one, but these were made to appear as "reportage" because of literary narrative quality.

As for the Pulitzers: well, they go to junky outfits as well as excellent ones, apparently. How can the members of a profession obtain sound judgment, when to be a respected member of the profession one has to adopt and promote the same bankrupt, postmodern, relativistic philosophy that journalistic fashion demands of its devotees?

I pray for my friends' children. I pray that they become polticians rather than journalists, or maybe go into used car sales...

[aristeides]

Clinton argued against firing Times' editor Raines, sources say.

[RJayneJ]

Quote of the Day by Brainhose

[Tamzee]

The emphasis upon literary quality became "journitalizing"

Yep, that's where you see it all come pouring out in all that loaded descriptive terminology. That needs to go and also the condescending attitude where journalists believe that have to put every detail or action into "context" for the brainless news consumer. Objective facts become the oil paints the journalists work with to paint a masterpiece, rather than the facts being the simple product themselves.

[gaspar]

So Raines was a raging monomaniac. So what else is new at the Times?

[Liz]

It was tough but somehow we managed to get a copy of The NY Times Journalistic Credo:

1. Capitalism creates oppression; government creates opportunity.

2. Traditional gender roles are artificial but feminism and homosexuality are government-protected lifestyles.

3. Self-esteem is paramount; government must undertake to guarantee each citizen-victim self-esteem no matter the cost.

4. The ACLU is good, because destroying religion and silencing believers are protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment; The NRA is bad because it defends the Constitution;

5. Standardized IQ tests are racist; racial quotas and affirmative action are not.

6. Conservatives are racists; everybody knows that black people can't make it on their own without big-buck government assistance programs and Big Media to proselytize the message 24/7.

[Liz]

I agree with your sentiments. Irony - especially when it involves liberals tripping over their own hypocrisy, or an internal contradiction of philosophy - is especially delicious.

Mmmmmm. Yummy. Some would say schadenfreud.

[q_an_a]

I saws Mitchell the editor of this magazine on PBS. He is certain that the "ideology" of the reader is what is causeing the news to look slanted and thata some of the rightwing media enflames this view by the viewer/reader. He doubts that there is any bias in news.

[Liz]

Some more of that muddled liberal thinking. When will they ever learn?