A week ago, The New York Times published a report laying out in remarkable detail egregious deceptions by a young Times reporter that had upended that storied institution. His fraud included plagiarizing, fabricating and in other ways manipulating material for his stories, some of them on significant topics of national interest.
Times editors continue to examine the extent of wrongdoing by the reporter, Jayson Blair. Last Sunday, The Oregonian published corrections of Blair stories that had appeared in this newspaper.
Readers who look to newspapers for solid information and understanding of the immediate and broader world around them, to help inform their thinking on topics from school board elections to international outbreaks of a frightening virus, have a stake in the core of the matter: reliability and accuracy.
On Wednesday, the publisher, the executive editor and the managing editor of The Times met with the newsroom staff. They heard anger and sadness and more anger that the situation had been allowed to develop as it did.
Blair, 27, had been able to avoid detection even though the editors had reprimanded him for sloppiness and inaccuracy since he became a reporter.
What do these events say about readers local newspapers, including The Oregonian? That is an inevitable question that readers have a right to ask.
The question is asked inside The Oregonians newsroom as well. Sandy Rowe, editor, urged staff members to read The Times story and to talk about it, to ask questions about this newsrooms practices in reporting, writing and editing, about communication and openness.
That sometimes frank discussion remained underway at weeks end.
The Oregonians editors are confident in the their staff and methods. Confident but not smug. No one is fully immune to determined deceit.
The Times had left itself vulnerable to the deceptions of an engaging, if troubled, con man. Several top editors ignored multiple warnings of his behavior.
In addition, reporting and editing practices left the door open for someone willing to fabricate hot news that would catch the attention of editors.
One of those practices involves the use of unidentified sources. Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman, said The Times has no formal policy on the use of anonymous sources.
The executive editor, she said, can ask who the sources are. However, she said, the question might not be asked, depending on the importance of the story and the track record of the writer.
Blairs track record was poor. He had had dozens of corrections but was moved to the National desk to help cover the East Coast sniper case, a story of obvious import.
Blair quickly impressed national editors with two Page One stories. Both used unidentified sources; in fact, one relied almost entirely on five different unidentified law enforcement sources. Both stories drew heated criticism and accusations of inaccuracy.
The loose use of anonymous sources can be a lazy and dangerous course. That five distinct unidentified voices should make up the heart of an important story is a horrendous lapse.
Nevertheless, in neither case, The Times reported, did Blairs editors ask him to identify those sources not before publication, and not after.
Instead, after the first story, Howell Raines, executive editor, praised Blair, who then was given responsibility for leading sniper coverage.
Rewarding good work makes sense. On the other hand, if it contains more flash and dash than substance, it is another problem for editors to address.
Blair known for his sense of office politics saw an opening and exploited it. After all, as Raines put it in The Times report, This guys hungry.
With a taste for plagiarism and fraud.
After Blairs May 1 resignation, Times executives rightly placed the primary responsibility on the young reporter. They also noted a communications failure.
However, they did not clearly address the larger newsroom leadership and culture issues until subjected to the white-hot glare of the national spotlight.
Last week the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., along with Raines and Gerald M. Boyd, managing editor, wrote to their staff: … our organizational safeguards and our individual responses were insufficient. Howell, Gerald and I accept the responsibility for that.
During the emotional staff meeting on Wednesday, Raines said, I was guilty of a failure of vigilance … .
That is just the beginning of what the staff and readers both need to hear if the newspaper is to restore its reputation and credibility.
To provide some perspective: A regional newspaper such as The Oregonian has an advantage over a newspaper of the size and range of The Times.
We are more accessible to our readers. Contact information at the end of staff-written stories allows readers to reach a reporter directly, and they do.
The public editor job that I fill is another piece of that accessibility and acknowledges the potential for imperfection. The primary purpose is to address corrections and fairness issues.
The Oregonian is one of nearly 40 daily newspapers and broadcast organizations in the United States to have such ombudsmen positions. The Times is not among them.
The practices with unidentified sources differ, too, from those at The Times and some other newspapers.
At The Oregonian, unidentified sources rarely appear in staff-written stories. When they do, they need approval from an editor who has determined the quality of the source.
We believe in transparency for readers so that readers have confidence in what we are presenting, said Rowe, The Oregonians editor.
Better to push a reporter to find another way to get the same information and avoid a credibility question.
Unnamed sources in wire service stories pose a larger problem because editors here cannot determine their validity. They do get in, but John Harvey, senior editor in charge of the National/International Team, said he and his crew will be tougher in that regard.
One of the most important elements of editing at this and other newspapers is the emphasis on asking questions. Editors raise issues among themselves and with reporters: Are we sure? How do we know this to be true
The best journalists are not offended by rigorous examination regardless of his or her experience or stature.
After all, we are in the business of asking questions, of verifying information. If we expect to earn readers respect, we of all people should understand the need to apply the same standards to ourselves.
