Gothamist: Ambition to Burn: Jayson Blair at The New York Times

Jen

Wed, 28 May 2003 07:34:38 -0500

I happen to second that sentiment and that's why I removed the word. It's one thing to base your hate for someone due to the person's total stupidity. It's another to fall back on race.

SUSAN B.

Wed, 28 May 2003 02:12:51 -0500

Oops, I see the change. In that case, PLEASE remove my posts. (the other was posted by my brother bob)

SUSAN B.

Wed, 28 May 2003 02:10:08 -0500

If you "don't" delete it, does that mean you'll leave "anything" offensive we say up here? Do you think saying following is offensive enough to women to be removed: CUNT BITCH, FUCKING DIKE BITCH, FUCKING FAGGOT so on and so forth. As a black woman, the word nigger is just as offensive to me as those anti-women/anti-gay epithets. I think you should remember that freedom of speech doesn't mean people have the right to post a verbal swastika on your website. Please don't be an apologist to those who practice cultural violence in any form.

Bob

Wed, 28 May 2003 02:02:41 -0500

I don't think deleting the word NIGGER is censorship, no more than I think certain other high profile blogs would think twice about deleting the word KIKE, SPIC, JAP, or CHINK. I wouldn't mind seeing the word nigger deleted, I don't think you will get beat up for removing that very offensive word.

jake

Tue, 27 May 2003 10:57:49 -0500

jesus- that last comment is so idiotic that i almost want to delete it- but censorship is not what we're about here.

Kane

Mon, 26 May 2003 06:19:09 -0500

Recent events prove that the Blair scandal, contrary to the belief/desires of many, was in fact NOT a matter of race/affirmative action and more a matter of shoddy management on the part of Raines and Boyd. In case you're not up to speed, witness the latest suspension of white New York Times writer Rick Bragg (http://www.cjr.org/year/03/3/bragg.asp) for Blair-like offensives. Also, it has been revealed that four other NYT non-black writers are now under investigation (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05242003/gossip/pagesix.htm) for possible problems with their stories. All that said, as a black person myself, I find it absolutely offensive that Blair has the nerve to create a book proposal which is based on playing the race card and calls the NYT racist. I'm sure he experienced 'some' racial moments there (New York City isn't the liberal mecca some believe it is), but to befoul the NYT with a such a broad brush after getting such an opportunity and then cry racism is absolutely unacceptable. I also think this outlandish claim confirms that Blair is mentally unstable and very likely prone to some sort of criminal behavior. The publisher that gives this guy a book deal should be boycotted. In The Observer, Blair compared himself to Stephen Glass. This is laughable. Blair's points in the interview would be totally valid if he, like Glass, actually spent some time offering contrition. But he didn't. In fact, he's laughing about his deception to the press. I think Glass is slimy too, but at least he went through the motions of "I'm sorry I did it" and he let some time pass. Blair's rush to cash in is just obscene. And to laugh in the face of those who gave you a job at the most important newspaper on the planet is just unforgivable.

Cori

Thu, 22 May 2003 12:27:18 -0500

This article makes me sick! I went to school for journalism and I can't find a job in my field. Maybe it is because I am too honest! It drives me mad that these crooked individuals always seem to be the ones that land jobs. I am not saying that every working journalist is like this. What I am saying is that this guy is the reason that good people like myself can't get a break!

Quan

Wed, 21 May 2003 20:39:16 -0500

So why isn't white privilege brought up when white plagiarists are caught, but every black person who may have had some help in cracking the old boy's club now suddenly suspect after Jayson Blair? Surely Shallit or Glass had a supporter or two at the New Republic. Why isn't this called affirmative action?

onwisc92

Wed, 21 May 2003 18:48:49 -0500

not familiar with NY Penal Code but just purused the section on business frauds... i wonder if a creative DA could convince a judge/jury that blair's actions constitute a business fraud...

PDiddy

Wed, 21 May 2003 17:09:12 -0500

Anyone know where he went to high school? He looks like a possible classmate.

Irene

Wed, 21 May 2003 04:03:53 -0500

Did I accidentally land on metafilter?The NYTimes couldn't bring charges - the district attorney would have to bring charges against Jayson and I don't think that there are any laws applicable to the situation. There are two types of fraud: civil and criminal. I don't think that fraud of the criminal kind would apply here and that is what would be needed to trigger the Son of Sam law.

Nemo

Fri, 16 May 2003 22:22:05 -0500

Shameless indeed. I heard Jayson is in negotiations with a publisher and may be getting a mid-six-figure book deal. Wow. If the New York Times could bring criminal charges of fraud against him and get a conviction, perhaps the Son of Sam law could prevent this. Or could it? Anybody know?

michael thomas

Fri, 16 May 2003 15:08:05 -0500

I think this is a very bad situation, first of all, what does this say about affirmative action and diversity? just because your black or a minority that you can just fuck up and not worry about it , and what does this say about the New York Times , didn't someone even bother to check his facts and make sure that he did everythihg right , who the fuck we're his editors , maybe they should be fired too , shit rolls downhill ya know , and this is a slap in the face to everyone who has put in the hard work once they we're in that "door" because of affirmative action.

Jasper Summer

Thu, 15 May 2003 21:01:34 -0500

I wonder if Rupert Murdock or Richard Mellon Scaif or some such rught wing nut case paid Blair to discredit the times????

Big

Wed, 14 May 2003 23:43:45 -0500

As a fellow (black) journalist, I must say I'm a little pissed off with Jay. I work in television. It's already hard enough to walk up to people with cameras rolling and convince them we're not going to twist their words around when the piece hits air. Blatant lying certainly doesn't help our cause. I really don't think this is punishment for race; it's punishment for audacity. You're just going to "make it up" in one of the most widely-read publications in America, and not get caught? That doesn't even sound right. Thanks, Jayson, for making my job a little tougher... Clearly, you're battling demons... I'll be praying for you.

w.bee

Wed, 14 May 2003 15:43:37 -0500

Speaking of famous plagiarists, here's a good story on Ruth Shalit. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/archives/cover/1999/cover0409.html

DJ

Wed, 14 May 2003 07:45:38 -0500

This is a great site! On the Jayson Blair fiasco, not really sure that it is a race issue ... time will tell. I totally agree with Tony's assessment. As well, the media profession is always trying to out do each other, which is probably why the times turned a blind eye to his deceit.

tony

Wed, 14 May 2003 00:08:29 -0500

is anyone surprised by any of this? stephen ambrose ("historian", author, plagiarizer), joe biden (u.s. senator, plagiarizer), george o'leary (ex-notre dame football coach,insecure resume padder/liar), and bill clinton (liar under oath, deceiver, and impeached nailer-of-fat-interns) did as bad, if not worse, deeds. The times hung this kid out to dry. america loves to believe in the fantasy, not the reality. no one wants an honest answer that is boring. this black reporter gave editors stories with sizzle. why check facts? we are all guilty of looking the other way as people cheat on taxes, have extra-marital affairs, etc. it is called the "human condition". i live life honestly because that is what i want my kids to know and see, but i don't expect anyone else to behave that way. today's society demands and encourages unethical behavior, so whatcha gonna do? trust noone, and certainly don't believe something just 'cause you read it in the times. gimme a break.

Raymond

Tue, 13 May 2003 21:29:36 -0500

Hi Jen and Jake! Just discovered your excellent blog. Great post on Jayson Blair! I'll be coming back. :D

John

Tue, 13 May 2003 14:27:41 -0500

Look at Tonya Harding (ice skating princess); she had her bf hit her competition in the knee. So whats she doing now? Last time I heard, she was on Fox doing "celebrity boxing". Oh well, maybe in a few years fox news will do a "celebrity boxing" tournament between this Jay Blair and Janet Cooke. Who knows, but I actually feel kinda of sorry for the guy and for Janet Cooke; however, he should have known better.

w.bee

Tue, 13 May 2003 11:53:49 -0500

Re John's reference to Janet Cooke, there was talk of a TV movie, but I'm not sure if it ever happened. When last seen, she was working a cash register in the D.C. area. So you don't have to worry about her having too happy a life, if that disturbs you. Stephen Glass, of course, just came out with a book that's getting trashed by reviewers. There's a movie soon to air about him, but it was without his cooperation or approval. I don't see him living the high life any time soon either.

Joss

Mon, 12 May 2003 20:10:49 -0500

Good points, R. The amazing thing to me is how heated up people get about a screwed up, pathological liar journalist who got busted when we have someone like George Bush in office, screwing us all over big time, in every conceivable way, every ding dong day. I wish the Times would devote an eye opening, exhaustive 4-page spread to the Bush & Cheney circus!! Now that would be interesting.

R

Mon, 12 May 2003 19:52:32 -0500

if you look at the bigger picture, this pretty much fits in with everything that's been going down in the last couple of years or so. it's just another crackdown on flaws in the system--part of the great big purging of America/wake-up call, right after the turn of the century. personally, I think the Times is taking advantage of the situation and taking a little ride, though paying a little bit out of their own pocket. everyone's thinking the same thing. these days, things are less than ideal anyway (the government, the economy); why not clean up while you can? better now than later. Blair is--in a way--a bit of a sacrificial lamb. he was at the wrong place, at the wrong time. and the Times saw the opportunity to create the spectacle and make an example out of the poor fella.

jake

Mon, 12 May 2003 19:03:02 -0500

i hate these lying journalists so much that my teeth hurt.

john

Mon, 12 May 2003 16:30:24 -0500

Yes true, he'll probably get some deal with some Hollywood exec a movie deal in a few years. There was a reporter for the Washington Post who fabricated a story in which she won the Pulitizer Prize a while back, but after the truth came out, she had to return her Pulitzer. If I am not mistaken, she was offerered or received over a million dollars for her story from a Hollywood source.

Big Brother

Mon, 12 May 2003 16:13:39 -0500

Jake - A book deal? Get real. These days, this kind of loser usually ends up with a TV show as well.

jake

Mon, 12 May 2003 16:03:09 -0500

are you crazy? jayson doesn't need to worry about work, what with the giant book deal he'll probably worm out of this whole situation. the great and terrible thing about america is our total lack of shame. in other countries, jayson would be an outcast- his family would be thrown out of their town and he would probably be forced to start a new life in america. unfortunately, we're in america- where betrayal and lying is rewarded by the media and entertainment industries. expect his book out in about 2.5 years- and an advance around 200-300k.

john

Mon, 12 May 2003 15:44:29 -0500

I kinda of feel sorry for Jayson, and how the Times really trashed the guy. I mean, how can he even now get a job writing for the local "Penny Saver", after the trashing that he got in the Times. On the other hand, he had it coming because he was given too many second chances. Something of interest that I found after searching for Jayson Blair on msn.com is his "resume" at his old college school. Its pretty impressive, and not suprising that the Times chose him as a summer intern. His "resume" is at "http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jayblair/WelcomeT.html"

Big Brother

Mon, 12 May 2003 14:31:41 -0500

Affirmative action and race are the culprits here (as far as why Jayson got as far as he did). Blair's mentor was African-American as well, and apparently made the case to well-intentioned but ultimately ignorant bleeding-heart white liberals that Jayson be given a second, third... umpteenth chance at succeeding. Voil� - you 'ave, as zey say in Paree - une SCANDALE! Now here's some new food for thought: everyone is asking asking about the fact that Jayson Blair essentially entrenched himself in Brooklyn for the whole time. Well - a friend of mine offered this: the guy had a drug problem. As this friend of mine (who once dealt with severe coke/meth problem and who therefore, now, recognizes druggie nuances) put it: "He was afraid to leave Brooklyn because that's where his dealer was. His credit cards were maxed out - does that tell you anything?" Let's not also forget that the Times article stated that Jayson is currently "in the hospital". Who goes to the hospital for the simple act of being caught in a web of lies?

Long-time reader

Mon, 12 May 2003 14:25:11 -0500

Could Sanaa please specify which other reporters ? "THERE ARE ALOT OF WHITE REPORTERS WHO DO THE SAME THING" ? he/she is referring to?

Jennifer

Mon, 12 May 2003 13:38:11 -0500

My first reaction to this story was- 'for God's sake, NY Times, why don't you hire me?'. I actually have the academic credentials. I have an equal amount of talent. I will never be hired by the NY Times because institutions such as these simply scan Intern resumes for the "right" qualities. Visibility. An extraordinary ability to bullshit. Being Black and articulate was "right" for the NY Times, in Jayson's case. After bringing in the "right" people, credibility is doled out by the editors, with no strings attached. They "wanted him to succeed" so much (article quote), they compromised their own integrity. He abused an incredible position without any evidence he acknowledged the privilege of his credibility. As a result, resentment towards affirmative action will probably build, and the victims of Jayson will be the talented, mature, and hard-working young black journalists who will carry his legacy of neglect. Nothing fair will ever come of judging appearance before work, whether for good or bad. Perhaps the NY Times will seek out the less visible, but excellent writers of all races when they fill Jayson's position.

Floridian

Mon, 12 May 2003 13:23:41 -0500

Everyone acts all shocked this is happening, when in fact most of the crap in the NYTimes is hyperbole or fiction anyway. Wake up! Blair is one of many.

go for it

Mon, 12 May 2003 13:08:17 -0500

this story shows clearly why blacks should take a hard look at how they are used by the left. jayson blair shouild have been fired a year ago. the loss of credibility is immense and the times, because of its idealogy, couldn't act. Ha Ha Ha. further there will be no outrage, as all media will act as if it never happened and who loses? Blacks lose! the last laugh

Long-time reader

Mon, 12 May 2003 12:51:14 -0500

Howell Raines should resign. His obsession with affirmative action is responsible for the Jayson Blair scandal -- which, in an instant, has hurt the credibility of every black professional in America.

troyster

Mon, 12 May 2003 12:33:28 -0500

I went to high school with this guy (graduated same year, etc.). Its totally shocking that he could do something like this. Its almost insane how he did this for so long. I wonder how long he thought he could get away with it...

All-Caps Alert

Mon, 12 May 2003 12:09:36 -0500

Those last two postings are totally plagiarized from the one just before them.

thad

Mon, 12 May 2003 12:09:29 -0500

c'mon, something smells fishy about all of this. the times in my opinion is definetely out to make a scapegoat of this guy. to say this does not occur in a larger scale is absurd. second, one claim the times made was that there was pressure to diversify their staff which lead to mr. blair's continued advancement. well, here's another backlash of a misguided quota system. don't get me wrong, i'm in favor of quotas. you cannot just hire someone and expect because NOW that you've "done the right thing" you can just push he or she up the ranks in an organinzation. and can someone tell me why this guy was writing so many articles in the first place? simply put, if the times changes their policies, it proves their implicit guilt on this. p.s. i am not a writer, obviously.

jake

Mon, 12 May 2003 11:28:05 -0500

spelling and vocabulary is for those fancy suits uptown. that is, until MT adds a dictionary and grammar app for MT V3.0...

Dr. William Minor

Mon, 12 May 2003 10:57:16 -0500

The word you're looking for is tenets. The web is a written word driven medium. Love it or leave it.

jake

Mon, 12 May 2003 10:42:12 -0500

oh snap- grammarians and copyeditors are in the house at gothamist! sounds like some old school beef to me. i'm glad blogs don't have to uphold the highest tenents of journalism. i'm glad blogs are allowed to use the word "tenent" without spell checking it first- in fact, i'm not even sure that is a word. jesus- if i was a journalist i'd be living in a box about 5 blocks east of the times building, like a common troll.

Kelsey Grammar

Mon, 12 May 2003 10:41:15 -0500

Actually, Mel, I think this sentence is pretty much the definition of irony: "Also, have someone fix your typos and break up overly long, practically unreadable sentences doesn't represent good writing, like the one with 76 words."

Jen

Mon, 12 May 2003 09:41:04 -0500

Mel, while Gothamist appreciates your comments about clarity, sometimes people don't have the time to read an entire 10 page article, hence the summarizing, which one could choose to bypass and go directly to the article, or read if one likes. Also, thanks for the word count on our sentences. We're glad you have the time for such things.

Mel Byars

Mon, 12 May 2003 08:26:22 -0500

Your rehash of The Times's piece on Jayson Blair is not valuable when the piece itself says it all. An article that condenses an article is absurd. Also, have someone fix your typos and break up overly long, practically unreadable sentences doesn't represent good writing, like the one with 76 words. The Gothamist article about journalism that isn't well-written is ironic.

Jen

Sun, 11 May 2003 16:43:16 -0500

And, admittedly, the Times acknowledged the difficulty in fact checking the unnamed sources... that's the difficulty in being the editor or publisher - it's great writing, but at what cost? I think about the kind of journalism Woodward and Bernstein did with Watergate - would that fly now? There are always instances of people trying to shortcut and circumvent the "system" - the case of L.A. Times photographer who doctored a photo from war coverage to make it more interesting. And it's not just in journalism. I guess at the heart of it, I like to believe the best in people, and most people like to do that, even in spite of nagging suspicions.

Tom K

Sun, 11 May 2003 16:05:02 -0500

One of the issues with the fact checking is that most of what he reported was factually correct - it was simply grafted from wire stories and the online photo database of the Times. So even if you did check facts, they would probably be okay. The stuff that's hard to check is blind sources and quotes. You can't easily go around calling every source on every story and checking quotes... for one thing, half the people will want to change/refute their quotes. The travel expenses should have been the red flag of all time. Nobody working on a reporter's paycheck "forgets" about expensing.

red

Sun, 11 May 2003 13:31:09 -0500

I wonder where his career path will lead after all this? where exactly would you end up after getting grilled like this by The New York Times? ...Fox News?

jake

Sun, 11 May 2003 11:03:17 -0500

this is such an amazing story. i really didn't think the blair thing was a big deal until i read the entire article and understood the magnitude of his fraud. what i can't believe is how badly the management at the times fucked up. i mean, blair had been lying routinely since he arrived at the times- he even lied about graduating from the university of maryland. basic fact checking, the very foundation of good journalism, should have caught some of his lies back in 99 or 2000, long before he was promoted to being a full time reporter. in any other job, screwing up as big as he did on his early assignments would have cost him his job. instead, he got promoted. why, exactly did that happen? and why did he spend all of his time in nyc when there was someone willing to fly him around the country covering stories, a job he supposedly was wild about all of his life? can someone explain that to me?