The Jayson Blair Project

Discussion Open Forum
1

Since Sandman brought it up on another thread, maybe we can discuss it here. I am interested, just as a regular news junkie. Never worked on a newspaper before myself, but this New York Times reporter who made up a lot of quotes, named Jayson Blair, what are your thoughts on how he got away with it for so long as such a major major paper, and does this sort of thing ever happen here at the English dailies?

My own take, is that this guy Jayson Blair, yes he spells it with a Y, was the victim of his own ethnic makeup, in that he was not totally Black nor totally White. He looks to have come from a new kind of American family background, kind of like a Tiger Woods ethnicity, black and white, a double, and that perhaps he had spent so much time trying to fit into White society, using all his wit and wiles, and so much time also trying to identify with his Black heritage, that he became a kind of manipulator par excellence. I have seen this happen other light skinned Blacks in public positions. The pressure, the stress, must be intense.

What I really want to know about Mr Blair now is his family background. his dad, his mom, his siblings. anybody know where i can find these details? Dish.

Sandman?

2

I have no idea how he managed to keep it going for as long as he did at a paper such as the NYT – he certainly must have been very smart indeed.
As for the colour of his skin, I’ll answer with all the gravitas such a statement deserves:

And as for his relatives, I’ll give that a response commensurate with the validity of the question:

Anyone else?

3

yeh, sandman, i appreciate the gravitas. it’s not the color of his skin, but read the William Safire column today in the NYtimes online and see what he says.

it’s not the color per see, because he coulda been Jewish, Indian, Catholic, a WASP or Hispanic or Lebanese, for that matter, and yes, it doesn’t matter a wit.

But the USA does create a strange place for people who are between colors. Watch as this thread unfolds and others who know more about the phenomenon than me chime in.

How he got away with it for so long? Read the Safire column. It says it all. no one was looking. and those who were looking, and yelled fire, no one paid attention to their alarm bells. two years ago a high editor at the times emeail his colleagues: “We must get rid of Blair now. He is dangerous to the New York Times.” But nobody took him seriously until…

4

Formosa, Tiger’s half African American (Dad) and half Asian (MOM). Can’t recall the specific Asian region his mom is from, but I don’t think he has any Caucasion lineage.

The pressure, the stress? We all deal with it in our own way. A NY Times columnist (William Safire) opined in his column today that Mr. Blair may have received a few more breaks then he should have due to affirmative action. A shame really, that one man’s bad decisions must reflect so poorly on the entire minority population of the US.

5

zen, yes, he is just one individual, and I really don’t think most AMericans will jump to the conclusion and blame all blacks or half blacks or anything. everyone knows it’s just one fuck up guy. an individual, representing only himself. yes.

but still, i am curious, what MOTIVATED this guy? Was it just his own personality or was there a social stress factor that pushed him to deceive as a way of winning love and acceptance? I aint no shrink do I dunno the answer. just curious and hoping someone out there might provide some clues.

6

Every time I’ve ever plagiarised anyone, its either been laziness or money to blame.

7

Don’t be so sure about what conclusions many Americans will jump to over this. It is just the sort of fodder Bush is looking for to fuel his anti-affirmative action stance. Dollars to donuts the Republicans are tickled pink over this scandal.

Who knows what motivated the guy?

He’ll probably have his own talk show on FOX in a couple of months.

8

but sandman, he did more than plagiarize!!!

He pretended to be reporting and he pretended to be places when he wasn’t reporting or even where he told his editors where he said he was. I see a major Hollywood movie coming out this starring Leonardo DiCaprio as a con artist extraordinaire, or did that movie already get made?

This guy was a major con. it’s the con artist that is interesting, what turned him into this kind of pervert?

9

[quote=“Zen”]Don’t be so sure about what conclusions many Americans will jump to over this. It is just the sort of fodder Bush is looking for to fuel his anti-affirmative action stance. Dollars to donuts the Republicans are tickled pink over this scandal.

Who knows what motivated the guy?

He’ll probably have his own talk show on FOX in a couple of months.[/quote]

I don’t understand your above statements. IMO, color had nothing to do with the guy’s decision to commit intellectual and literary fraud. I don’t see conservative blacks, such as Thomas Sowell committing such fraud, despite the fact that he and they are black. The guy’s color, however, MIGHT have had something to do with the NYT’s failure to scrutinize his actions… or maybe the NYT’s was simply negligent, regardless of the color of the guy. I don’t know.

In any event, why would the republicans be pleased to see that a young man of color committed fraud. I’m a republican and knowing this gives me no pleasure whatsoever.

I do take an itsy bitsy bit of satisfaction knowing that it was the leftist NYT and not, say, the National Review, that was apparently negligent.

Your statement makes no sense to me also, because, as a republican, I believe that no one race has an intellectual advantage over any other, and so I see no reason for dumbing down the standards. Please note that I believe that there is a difference between dumbing down the standards and giving people equal opportunities at all phases in life. Blacks in Detroit schools have segregated black males from whites and black females and have RAISED the standards… and surprise, surprise, the black males in these schools have not only met, but have exceeded the elevated standards. IF this is a case of the NYT dumbing down the standards for a person of color, to me that indicates that there is a certain amount of racism at the NYT.

What else (other than racism) would account for allowing such behavior (if it was not simple negligence)?

Since republicans do not believe in dumbing down the standards, why is it that you think the guy will be appearing on FOX?

10

tigerman, read SAfire column today at nytimes site. he says exactly what you said. calls is schadenfreude or something, whatever that means. he xplains it.

11

Thanks tigerman, you’ve expanded on the point I was trying to make.

Colour has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Jayson Blair is an idiot, not a black idiot.

Yes, the NY Times has as much admitted to their part in this folly. They f****d up.

My stance on how Republicans will view/use this scandal remains the same.

And FOX?..it was a joke sir. Relax.

12

poynter.org/column.asp?id=45

check out this website, it has about 50 blair related stories…

Boston Globe suspects Blair fabricated stories as an intern
Boston Globe

NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. tells Matthew Rose there’s little that anyone could have done to prevent Blair from putting false information into the paper. He says: “Do we have a system designed to uncover venality? No, we don’t, and you know something, I guess I am not unhappy with that. I don’t want us to become a police state where you suspect every employee of ripping off the company.” (Wall Street Journal)

Ex-NYT reporter Alex Jones tells Peter Johnson he’s troubled that many of the people Blair identified and quoted in his articles didn’t contact the paper. “They didn’t say, ‘Holy cow, this somebody who is clearly unscrupulous.’ Instead, their response was to shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Hey, what did you expect?’ This is a great indictment of the American media.” (USA Today)

Tim Rutten says the least credible and complete portion of the NYT’s Blair story “is its categorical denial that the unusual tolerance and solicitude the paper accorded Blair, who is African American, had anything to do with his race.” (Los Angeles Times)

“I can think of as many or more white journalists than black ones who’ve been caught plagiarizing and making things up,” writes Sheryl McCarthy. “And Blair’s story doesn’t say anything about the state of journalism today, other than there are a few journalists who engage in this kind of fraud.” (Newsday)

Blair variously called charming and cunning, ambitious and lazy (Time)

Talese: “This fellow Blair belonged in the minors,” not big leagues (NYP)

Kurtz: An independent ombud would have helped in this case (“RS”)

NYT piece possibly a little more comprehensive than readers need? (BS)

Hetzel: “I never thought I’d be ashamed of the New York Times” (YDR)

J-prof: “They should have called him in and said ‘This is it.’” (Newsday)

NY Sun has “a slightly different view” than the Times of Blair affair (NYS)

13

[quote]And FOX?..it was a joke sir. Relax.
[/quote]

And anyway, HBO already has the rights to a mini-series.

14

not THE money quote, but a good MONEY quote:

The Times report is candid about the severe criticisms directed at Blair by the two metropolitan editors

15

Nanou Caillet, owner of a Fort Greene specialty food shop Blair used to frequent, said, “This gives such a bad name to journalism. He has to be very sick.”

16

Anyone here remember Janet Cooke of the Washington Post? She received the Pulitzer Prize in 1981 for a series about “Jimmy”, an 8 year old heroin addict.

The problem was, “Jimmy” didn’t exist.

museumofhoaxes.com/day/04_17_2001.html

Janet Cooke

17

[quote=“Zen”]Thanks tigerman, you’ve expanded on the point I was trying to make.

Colour has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Jayson Blair is an idiot, not a black idiot.

Yes, the NY Times has as much admitted to their part in this folly. They f****d up.

My stance on how Republicans will view/use this scandal remains the same.

And FOX?..it was a joke sir. Relax.[/quote]

OK. I’m relaxed.

18

Hey Zen, you’re sooooo right. Republicans are having a field day with it. Colin Powell got sacked, Condoleeza Rice committed suicide rather than be fired, and Miguel Estrada’s judicial nomination just got flushed because the Republicans don’t need to pretend any more.

Oh, wait, none of that happened (except for Estrada’s nomination getting flushed, but that’s by the Democrats who don’t want Bush to get a “win” by putting a qualified conservative hispanic on the DC court – there’s no poll taxes any more, just litmus tests, so unless you’re a Democratic “house slave” – with thanks to Harry Belafonte, well-regarded black musician, for making it ok to use the phrase again – you can’t advance). My bad. I must be a black journalist.

Oh, wait, I’m a ghostie. Well, I guess I have no excuse, then!

Let’s get something straight, people: Jayson Blair’s race had nothing to do with his laziness and dishonesty. Zero, nada, zip. Just look at Mike Barnicle if you want the other side of the color coin.

On the other hand, Blair’s race apparently had everything to do with why the NYT hired and kept him – the NYT’s own editorial on the subject says so, albeit in “liberal code” about “diversity” – despite having learned of his fraud and plagiarism at least a year ago, probably more like two years ago. He was hired through a diversity program, promoted based on same, and retained because the NYT valued his skin color more than their own reputation.

Isn’t that a Democratic/“liberal” sort of problem? I mean, they’re the side that wants skin color to matter for work, school, and public contracts. I even remember the Harvard recruiter at my school’s college fair, 20 or so years ago, talking about how they’d admitted an “underprivileged” black girl with a 400 SAT score (combined). He then looked embarassed and muttered something about her flunking out later. No doubt she was glad for the opportunity to improve herself, although you have to wonder how she felt about being thrown out, and whether her record kept her from getting into a college where she might have a chance. Of course, nowadays, Harvard has eliminated that worry by giving all of their students good grades. But I digress.

The Wall Street Journal has an entry on the Blair thing in today’s (well, yesterday’s, in their timezone) Best of the Web Today:
opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003484

It references the NYT’s column on the scandal, which brings up the “diversify”, “diversity”, “diversification”, “it’s not about his race, though, really!” points:
nytimes.com/2003/05/11/natio … wanted=all

No doubt some leftie is going to call me a racist now. That’s just “liberal code” for “you’re right, but since we can’t admit that because it conflicts with our political agenda, we’re going to lynch you.”

Hire (and fire) based on qualifications, not quotas. Judge individuals based on their character, not the color of their skin. Too bad the NYT can’t accept Martin Luther King’s attitudes. . . .

19

nytimes.com/2003/05/12/opinion/12SAFI.html

this is the safire column. might be in taiwan news today too, or in the Taipei Times. I can’t find either paper today.

20

the dean of the grad school said: "Let me start by saying that I don