May 11, 2003
I read the NY Times pretty much 7 days a week. While I don't always agree with some of its liberal views, I respect the times for its accuracy and complete reporting, expecting to be well informed on the issue at hand.However, I was quite surprised when I read this article on Jayson Blair today. I was also surpirsed by how long it is. Most articles in the times are 1 to 2 pages, with occasionally a need for 3. This one is 10 pages long! Basically, they talk about Mr. Blair who resigned on May 1 and who has a long history of reporting outright lies and inaccuracies. The Times is furious as they should be, and are going through great lengths to apologize. They mention on page 10 that "Mr. Blair is no longer welcome in the newsroom" and "There has never been a systematic effort to lie and cheat as a reporter at The New York Times comparable to what Jayson Blair seems to have done."I'm sure this is an isolated event. Supposedly, nothing like this has happened at the newspaper before. I will continue reading The New York Times, but I must say that I'm a bit unpleasantly surprised.
Posted by charr at 10:37 AM
Reader Comments
I had heard about this last week on NPR. Back when he was hired, just out of college, the paper was bragging about how he was the perfect example of affirmative action and his great writing skills. I just surprised that it went on for so long. Also, from the sounds of it, he had plenty of opportunity to straighten up his act and fly right. I doubt highly that he'll be working in the industry any time soon.
I'm stunned that this happened at the New York Times, given the prestige their name carries.I would not be surprised if a lawsuit against the New York Times is filed on Mr. Blair's behalf immediately. It will, of course, state that he was fired because of race and this is just another example of oppression.
That's possible, but I think there's so much evidence that he was employed a lot longer than he should have been, that he wouldn't have much of a case. It's almost racism in the opposite direction -- giving him chance after chance just because he is black. Rather, I could see suits come against the Times from the Washington Post or the San Antonio paper that were both plagiarized.
He had so many second chances I can't imagine he'd have a chance in court.I pity the newspaper's top two editors who stuck their neck out for him, thinking he had changed.
|
I had heard about this last week on NPR. Back when he was hired, just out of college, the paper was bragging about how he was the perfect example of affirmative action and his great writing skills. I just surprised that it went on for so long. Also, from the sounds of it, he had plenty of opportunity to straighten up his act and fly right. I doubt highly that he'll be working in the industry any time soon.
Posted by jason at May 12, 2003 6:23 AM