Jayson Blair, the former and now disgraced reporter for The New York Times, wrote articles that were a reporter’s dream but in reality have become journalism’s nightmare.
On Dec. 22, The San Diego Union-Tribune was among newspapers that carried a front-page story by the 27-year-old Blair. It said that investigators in the sniper case in the Washington, D.C. area had found evidence that led them to conclude the triggerman was John Lee Malvo, the 17-year-old protg of John Allen Muhammed, 41. “Little if any indicates” that any of the shots were fired by Muhammed, said the article that explained how the evidence would affect the case against the older man.
On May 11, in an extraordinary apology that began on the front page and that covered four inside pages, The New York Times said Blair had not been in Centreville, Va., the day he reported the story. Records showed that Blair made calls to Centreville from New York. But that wasn’t the worst of it. The Times also reported that some evidence cited in the story did not exist.
There were “problems” in at least 36 of the 73 stories Blair wrote between October and his departure from the paper, the Times reported. “The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper,” the Times said.
The Union-Tribune ran another front-page sniper article by Blair. It did not carry his byline but carried his imprint of misinformation. Two more articles, including another on the sniper case that carried Blair’s byline, appeared inside the A-section and have been discredited.
The front-page article without his byline appeared Oct. 30 and was combined with a Knight Ridder News Service article about the filing of charges in the sniper case. In his portion of the article, Blair quoted officials who said Muhammad was on the verge of confessing and was discussing the “roots of his anger.” Neither statement was true, and the article drew a conclusion not warranted by the reporting, the Times said.
Other articles include a story April 4 datelined Palestine, W. Va., and was about Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who was rescued from her captors in Iraq. In the story, Blair, who apparently was not in West Virginia, lifted a quotation from an Associated Press story. The Union-Tribune also carried a Nov. 11 story datelined Washington, D.C. about the sniper case. The Times said records show that Blair was not in Washington at the time the article was written. None of the fabricated quotes appeared in the Union-Tribune story.
Blair is not a problem for just The New York Times. He is journalism’s nightmare because he violated every canon sacred to journalists, primary among them being to report the truth. And, because his articles were distributed by The New York Times News Service, his lies were passed off as the truth by unsuspecting newspapers.
But his lies and plagiarism didn’t just hurt the newspapers that carried his stories. They hurt the credibility of journalists everywhere. The truth is that you can’t believe everything you read in a newspaper because some information is obtained from people who lie to reporters. That’s one reason reporters seek more than one source. But, for reporters to deliberately lie, to make up information, to steal from other writers, is intolerable in a profession where credibility is everything.
Much has been written and speculated about what went wrong with Blair, whether his superiors at The New York Times should have recognized that he was a journalistic disaster. Questions have been raised about why he was given important assignments after at least one editor at the Times wrote a memo recommending that Blair should not be permitted to continue writing for the newspaper.
Blair’s deceptions, his brand of perverted journalism were stunning. That he managed to do this while at The New York Times, among the most respected newspapers in the world, is incredible. I don’t know what happened; I don’t know what it is in the culture of The New York Times newsroom that allowed him to flourish until his career crashed and sullied the newspaper’s reputation.
What I do know is that the Times does not have an ombudsman or readers representative, which is what my position is called at the Union-Tribune. It would be hubristic to say an ombudsman would have prevented the Blair fiasco. It might, however, have helped alert editors that they had a serious problem. Because I do corrections for the Union-Tribune, I would be aware of any reporter with excessive errors; Blair had an abysmal correction history, far worse than any Union-Tribune reporter. An ombudsman is also there to talk to subjects of news stories who say they have been misquoted or unfairly treated.
Ombudsmen exist at fewer than 40 newspapers in the United States. It’s not because newspapers that have them have more problems. It is because those publishers and editors take credibility to heart and know they need someone who will listen to readers.
The Times has felt it unnecessary in the past to have an ombudsman. That was the job of editors, they said. Now, a newspaper committee reportedly is looking into it.
