So, newsrooms have been buzzing over the mess at The New York Times for a week now – blaming, gloating and trying to understand how a young reporter was able to dupe so elaborately the world’s most respected news organization.
In the week since The Times printed essentially a four-page correction of Jayson Blair’s months of deceitful reporting, some long-festering issues have also been hung out to dry. Besides the obvious ethical debate, Blair’s work has given all sorts of journalists the opportunity to criticize and analyze the old-boy network, diversity-driven hiring practices, overachieving upstarts, blame-dodging editors, the pitfalls of brown-nosing and the sorry state of the news media’s credibility.
For journalists, it’s been kind of cathartic trying to fathom the dynamics that allowed Blair’s plagiarism and fabrications to go unchecked for so long. But most of the debates are just that, a lot of talk: The old boys aren’t going away any time soon. Diversity as a goal isn’t the problem, poor hiring and managing is. To suggest otherwise is just racist. There is a place for young talent in big newsrooms, but it definitely needs guidance. And high-handed editors should check themselves because they can debilitate a news staff.
Not to minimize the insult of pathological misreporting, what amazed me about this scandal is that some of the people Blair weaved into his fabrications didn’t even bother to alert The Times about the misinformation. People misquoted in some stories didn’t even question the newspaper. They didn’t even care enough to call.
My editor argues that these people, victims and families directly affected by the war in Iraq and the sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., area – the national news events Blair was assigned to cover – had far more important things to worry about than some minor misinformation printed in a newspaper. But for me, the whole episode is a sad statement about the mainstream news media’s relationship with its audience, a relationship in which the public accepts misquotes and lies as the norm.
Could such a tangle of deceit happen here? Well, yes, it could happen anywhere. The Courant has had its share of ethical missteps. But unlike The New York Times, The Courant since 1984 has had an ombudsman, an advocate for readers’ complaints, questions and concerns. Some of those complaints, questions and concerns have helped The Courant keep its ethical standards on track. The Times might want to consider an ombudsman. Certainly, Courant readers can call any reporter or editor directly when an accuracy problem arises, but the fact that there is a position in the newsroom devoted to readers speaks to a commitment to accountability.
Deputy State Desk Editor David Drury, who assists in overseeing The Courant’s local news reporters, said: “Any organization can be duped by an unscrupulous reporter, but it seems like [The Times'] whole accounting system broke down. Here, we do evaluations of reporters and editors annually. Our newest reporters are evaluated every six months. Accuracy is always a stated goal. … In my experience – in Middletown and New Britain – readers would always call when something was wrong. I can’t imagine getting things wrong in these towns and not hearing from readers. Overall, I just see us having checks and balances that [don't allow] something like that to happen over an extended amount of time.”
Clearly, readers are an integral part of the process.
None of Blair’s stories have appeared in The Courant. This newspaper doesn’t subscribe to The New York Times News Service. But that doesn’t matter. Blair’s work will have an effect on the newsroom for a while. I imagine that new hires – young or seasoned – will undergo a little closer scrutiny. I know there will be more skepticism about fantastic details. I hope editors will push a little harder for that second source on a great scoop.
Blair’s might be the fraud of the week, but we all could learn from the credibility check.
