As journalists dissect the epic scandal at The New York Times, their findings have troubled a key group of specialists: news researchers and newspaper librarians.
They tend archives, the treasure trove of information from which they pull all manner of data to help journalists examine trends and developments.
They groom databases to yield impeccable details for current and future generations. They have no tolerance for inaccuracy because, like the news staff they support, their credibility is forever at stake.
Count them among those who were angered to learn that former Times reporter Jayson Blair had committed extensive plagiarism and falsification of facts.
Many journalists can tell horror stories about errors made years before that keep reappearing because later generations of reporters are working off material that contained the original error.
At the Star-Telegram and other newspapers, corrections are attached to electronic files, and still-existing paper files will carry notes attempting to prevent the repeating of known errors.
Blair’s case raises exactly those kinds of concerns.
As the Times explained in a 14,000-word May 11 narrative about the scandal, Blair “fabricated comments. He concocted scenes. He stole material from other newspapers and wire services. He selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not.”
A team of journalists found problems in at least 36 of Blair’s articles that had run in the previous six months. Eight of the stories had been published in the Star-Telegram.
Blair, 27, a national desk reporter with a history of inaccurate work, had resigned May 1 in the midst of discoveries that he had plagiarized parts of a San Antonio Express-News article about a South Texas family.
No one knows whether more tainted articles by Blair will be found in archives at the Times or The Boston Globe, where Blair once interned.
And no one knows how much of Blair’s potentially questionable material resides unattributed in stories that blended reports from several wire services, including the New York Times News Service.
Blair has refused to help the Times identify such material, but the newspaper has asked the public for help. Anyone who knows of problems in Blair’s work may report them to retrace@nytimes.com.
While Blair-related controversies torment the Times, news researchers and librarians — especially those at newspapers that subscribe to the Times news service — face a dilemma in how to protect readers from discredited work.
They wonder, for example, whether to delete the bylined material, keep it in the archives with a disclaimer attached or hide it.
Charles Robinson, Times director of information services, said the paper is “still in the evaluation phase” on how to handle Blair material.
At the Star-Telegram, chief librarian Stacy Garcia says Blair’s bylined work will remain in the archive, tagged with a warning, which reads in part: “Before using any information in this article, please read ‘Star-Telegram ran some of former reporter’s work’ (5/11/03, 16A) and ‘Problems found in at least 36 of reporter’s pieces’ (5/11/03, 1A).’”
Similar steps are being taken at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Salt Lake Tribune and the Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel.
However, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has removed eight of Blair’s articles from its archives.
LexisNexis, a vast research resource used by journalists worldwide and a repository of content from many newspapers around the world, declined to comment on the matter, referring queries to The New York Times.
Meanwhile, Michael Jesse, library director for The Indianapolis Star and chairman of the news division of the Special Libraries Association, notes: “You can’t change the fact that you published [discredited work], nor should you hide that fact. But lies and known falsehoods just do not belong in our regular, day-to-day public archives.”
Tom Pellegrene Jr., manager of news technologies for The Journal Gazette in Fort Wayne, Ind., adds: “I hope, as you do, that this never happens again. It’s likely, however, that it will. And that’s the scariest part of all.”
