Skip to main content

At first, I didn't think much of how a New York Times reporter apparently had a history of making things up as he went along. I thought it was just another case of the NYT discovering fraud and taking appropriate actions.

But I forgot which country we live in. The so-caled "colorblind" white establishment quickly noticed the color of Jayson Blair's skin, and started asking questions relating to how he benefitted from it. Howard Kurtz wondered aloud if a "middle-aged hack" would have gotten away with a fraction of what Blair did if the skin color was white. Mickey Kaus blames the whole Blair incident on affirmative action - even though he admits plenty of "qualified" white journalists were caught doing exactly what Blair was doing. Instapundit Glenn Renoylds suddenly has an epiphany despite earlier misgivings that racial preferences is wholly to blame, and Accuracy In The Media made no secret of their belief that the NYT's quest for diversity inevitably led to this fallout.

Now, let's set aside the fact that just over five percent of newroom employees are black and that this fact should not make the quota hawks fear a takeover of negro reporters that will lower the journalistic standards of the newspaper. Only those who are truly "colorblind" to the state of racial antagonism targeted towards blacks would fail to detect the rank hypocrisy of how this reporter is being treated and how similarly disgraced WHITE reporters are not crucified as representatives of their race.

I just watched the 60 Minutes report of the New Republic journalist Charles Glass and how he made up a lot of the things he wrote in his articles. He even went so far as to create a website purportedly created by the hackers he's "exposing". Has anyone castigated the New Republic for hiring "unqualified" white writers? How about writers who are Jewish? Nope, Glass was afforded his individuality, and now he was given a six-figure advance on the novel he just published based on his escapades as a liar in print.

You don't think that's an example of white affirmative action? How about this? Seems as if New York Times veterans R.W Apple, Jr. and Adam Clymer are allowed to keep their jobs, even though they had a higher error percentage rating than Blair. Or how about Jeff Gerth and all the other political reporters who knowingly printed lies about the Whitewater non-scandal, or about the purported "lies" told by Al Gore during his presidential campaign?

It's sickening. We have corporate scandals precipitated by Enron which have been caused by rich white guys, but one - JUST ONE - black guy messes up, then it's time to question the very issue of affirmative action and "diversity".
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Good Post Itainteazy. I noticed the same. By the way...just noticed the picture symbol under your login name. Should I interpret that as meaning not to go to the RIGHT as in political conservatism? I like it Smile

The truth has the effect of sunlight upon vampires when exposed to the wicked. If one recoils and does not embrace the light of truth....they are likely vampires.
They discussed this on C-Span this morning. The arguement that this was because of Affirmative action was down right racist. Bravo to you ItAin'tEazy for exposing the truth on this scandal.

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965
Noah:

Thank you for your kind words, and you guessed right. The rightwing's overall message ("if you can't afford it - eff you!") is just simply anathema to black progress. How any self-respecting black person can accept that credo is almost unimaginable.

Yssys:

I want to thank you too, and also we can't forget about how former Boston Globe columnist was fired for the same thing, yet still has a job. If blacks had that kind of "affirmatve action" we'd be set Smile
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the last word:
----------------------
Diversity Had Nothing to Do With Reporter's Deceit
Blair's Career Wasn't Fueled By His Race, but by Stories That Were Too Good to Be True


By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2003; 12:11 PM


The plagiarism and deceit of former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair is an affront to journalism. He disgraced an honorable profession that already suffers a credibility problem. His actions have distressed the great many journalists who go to pains every day to uphold the lofty ideals of their chosen craft. Make no mistake: Blair's editors fell asleep at the switch, allowing him to abuse his authority and responsibility.

But why can't Blair just be one severely troubled guy who did outrageous things? Why are some people using him as an example of the evils of commitment to diversity? Why is it that when white reporters commit similar acts of outrageous fraud, no one in the establishment media launches breathy social commentaries about the continued existence of white privilege and entitlement in the newsroom?

The reaction to the Blair story was predictable. When the story broke, many minority reporters I know said in private conversations among themselves that it would take only a day or two before some people erupted in paroxysms of indignation and anger about the effort to diversify newsrooms.

Those journalists were right. In recent days, the subject of race in the Blair travesty has crept into newspaper columns and talk television.

On CNN's May 4 Reliable Sources program, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, who has otherwise done an exceptional job covering the story, suggested the newspaper's editors looked the other way because Blair was black. "Look, this was a promising young black reporter," he said. "I wonder if a middle-aged hack would have gotten away with 50 mistakes and still be at that job."

On Monday, both New York Times columnist William Safire and Los Angeles Times media critic Tim Rutten cited race as a contributing factor to the Times's tolerance for Blair's errors. In the current issue of Newsweek writer Seth Mnookin accuses the Times of failing to "address an uncomfortable but unavoidable topic that has been broached with some of the paper's top editors during the past week: by favoring Blair, did the Times end up reinforcing some of the worst suspicions about the pitfalls of affirmative action?"

The Blair case evokes memories of Ruth Shalit, the young, white, hotshot reporter who was shooting to journalistic fame and fortune in the early 1990s with her fearless, often scathing stories about people and institutions in Washington.

In 1995, she took on The Washington Post with a 13,000-word opus in The New Republic on the newspaper's diversity efforts. She drew the conclusion that the quality of the newspaper had been compromised by its efforts to hire minority reporters.

However, Post editors documented nearly 40 factual errors – some big, some small – in that one article. Kurtz reported in the Post in September 1995 that twice in the previous year The New Republic had "acknowledged that she used material from other publications without attribution." Some people call that plagiarism. But Shalit said plagiarism implied intent – and she said what she did was just sloppy reporting. Many in the establishment media supported her and kept giving her jobs and high-profile assignments.

While errors are a fact of life in journalism (I had to write a correction just last week), I suspect that none of the black journalists Shalit derided has ever been accused of making 40 factual errors in one article or of plagiarizing twice within a year.

As Shalit's star faded, Stephen Glass's star rose at The New Republic. Glass was another fancy-pants reporter who wowed readers, his bosses and top editors at other major national magazines with some of the most vivid, colorful writing this town had seen in years. Only problem: much of what Glass, who is white, was writing was untrue. Just completely pulled out of his head. Eventually he was fired for faking all or parts of 27 stories.

Glass's deviousness was truly amazing – in some ways even more so than Blair's. Glass recounted in a "60 Minutes" profile on Sunday how he went to extraordinary lengths to cover his tracks, creating Web sites and voice mails for the fictionalized organizations and characters he had created in his stories.

Journalists of all stripes – black and white, men and women – have been accused of fake reporting, but it seems only the transgressions of black journalists evoke the race card.

For instance, when Boston Globe columnist Patricia Smith was fired a few years ago after it was discovered she used made-up characters and dialogue, many in the media said the black writer had been coddled at the newspaper because of her race. For Smith's fellow columnist, Eileen McNamara, it wasn't enough to express outrage about Smith's transgressions. McNamara had to play the race card in a column she wrote about it. Yet McNamara expressed no outrage, at least not in her column, a few months later when white, fellow Globe columnist Mike Barnicle, who had been accused previously of fabricating quotes, was caught plagiarizing George Carlin jokes.

Similarly, Raad Cawthon, The Philadelphia Inquirer's Chicago correspondent, resigned in 2000 after being accused of plagiarizing material from the Chicago Tribune. Michael Finkel, a freelance reporter, fictionalized a character in a long article in a New York Times Magazine story last year. Both were white.

By the way, Barnicle was "punished" with a nice job at MSNBC. Shalit is back in journalism. And Glass is back on the road to fame and wealth, with book and movie deals. Meanwhile, Smith and former Post reporter Janet Cooke, an African American who fabricated a Pulitzer Prize-winning story, disappeared into lives of obscurity. The last we heard of Cooke, in news stories a few years ago, she was selling make-up for $6 an hour at a department store in Kalamazoo, Mich., and eating cereal for dinner. She tried to sell her story a few years ago and no one bit. I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet Blair's career trajectory from here follows Cooke's more closely than Glass's.

None of this is meant to say that race is not an issue at all in the Blair case. Many news reports have focused on Blair's arrival at the Times through an "intermediate program." Reports have also touched on the fact that his career was pushed along by Gerald Boyd, who is black and now the managing editor of the paper, and executive editor Howell Raines, who is white.

True as those things may be, viewed in a larger context those facts mean little. First of all, both The New York Times and The Washington Post and other top newspapers hire a small number of young, inexperienced reporters black, white, Asian, Hispanic, whatever – and give them a chance on the belief that they hold promise. My boss here at washingtonpost.com, national and international editor Ryan Thornburg, is a 27-year-old white guy and one of those promising young journalists. The point is young talented folks get shots. Blair just happened to have blown his.

While I'm not familiar enough with The New York Times to speak authoritatively about its hiring practices, I imagine they are not much different than The Post's. And The Post, in fact, has hired more young, white reporters with relatively little experience than black reporters of similar background in recent years. Some of those reporters have walked into highly visible and important positions on the national and foreign desks.

So why did Blair keep getting promotions and prime assignments?

Here's my theory: Freed from the normal constraints of truth and veracity, "journalists" such as Blair, Shalit, Barnicle, Smith and Glass shine above their counterparts. They're promoted ahead of the pack because their stories, sneakily cloaked as journalism, read better than everyone else's stories. In a profession fueled by competition, their careers are propelled along because of, rather than in spite of, their transgressions.

Some people are acting amazed that a reporter as young as Blair would be given such great opportunities – as though this sort of thing never happened with whites. But consider the case of Jodi Kantor, a white 27-year-old, with just four years of journalism experience who was hired away from Slate, a Web magazine, by The New York Times earlier this year to serve as the editor of its prestigious Arts & Leisure section. Kantor may be fabulous and do a remarkable job, but no minority has ever gotten a break like that in the history of American journalism.

To suggest somehow that Blair is unique in being coddled by upper management is pure buffoonery. What about all of the young, aggressive white reporters who are pushed along by overeager white mentors and are clearly not ready for prime time? Happens all the time – at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and every other major publication. Their editors intrinsically trust them. They feel more comfortable talking to them. They understand their worldview. They get handed big stories. They get invited to dinners at the boss's house.

One of the things that was so astonishing to me was that Blair had powerful mentors at the paper at all. In my 14 years as a journalist, I have never heard of a young black reporter with such close ties to upper management. Ever. I have never heard of a black reporter handed such prime assignments with so little experience. Ever. Also, Blair was reportedly an incredible schmoozer, who ingratiated himself with top management in a way that may have swayed his superiors to cut him some slack.

In those ways, Blair was an aberration. As an aberration, he can't be made an example of any larger social problem. Sure, newsrooms have adopted affirmative action policies, but the list of minority reporters who've received the sort of preferential treatment Blair received is a very short one indeed. The list of black journalists with big, important reporting jobs is shorter even.

Perhaps Blair was coddled and promoted not because he was black, but because his editors were enraptured to the point of delusion by this kid who kept getting such fabulous stories. No doubt some editors figured his accuracy problems were a small price to pay for his scoops. And no doubt some editors were happy to have a black reporter for a change that fit the hotshot bill.

The fact that Blair, who crumbled under the pressure of living up to his star billing, went so horribly astray says nothing other than this: He's an embarrassment to himself and journalism. And The New York Times failed horribly by not reining him in sooner.
Here is yet another example of an often overlooked "White Priviledge"; while White folks are only accountable for themselves and for their actions as individuals, Black folks are accountable to the entire race.

When White folk screw up, its just that person who screwed up. S/He is the exception, not the rule. However, when a Black person screws up, it only supports the establishment's view that Blacks, as a rule, are screw ups, with only a few exceptions. (And the unspoken sentiment is, "given enough time, those exceptions will eventually prove the rule.")

But the saddest part of this is some Blacks ascribe to this racist sentiment.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
But the saddest part of this is some Blacks ascribe to this racist sentiment.


You describe how the real world works and then direct this statement towards me. When a black person gets an oppurtunity to rise above the rest they have a responsiblity stay on a straight path, because as you just describe the world views him/her as representing the Black Race and not just his/herself. When he/she blows an opportunity as such, he/she blow it for us all. Not because of the way things should be but because of the way things are, which you discribed.
quote:
Originally posted by obvious_1:
When he/she blows an opportunity as such, he/she blow it for us all. Not because of the way things should be but because of the way things are, which you discribed.


And what's amazing is that you STILL have those whites, especially those who ginned up this "controversy" in the first place, swear up and down how they don't got a racist bone in their body, that they are colorblind, and all that crap. I don't know what to do, stare at them blankly, yell at them, or do what that councilman at the reparations rally suggested: slap them in the face.
An NPR interview that was brought to my attention by a "less than liberal" co-worker, who frequently rails against affirmative action. I this interview, a NYT executive acknowledged that because Blair is Black, he may have given Blair "one too many chances."

My co-worker beamed with satisfaction, until I pointed out that in a subsequent interview the executive also acknowledged giving "passes" to other [non-Black] writers. So I asked him, "If the passes the executive gave to the non-white writers were also race based?"

My co-worker got this blank look on his face - he did not understand. So I asked, "Why Blair's pass was race based but not the other writers." My co-worker responded "because [the exec] just said so."

I pointed out that White preference is rarely spoken, its just presumed. Benefits to given white folks are just expected without thought, while benefits to Blacks are a gift to be tallied. I explained to my co-worker that this is another manifestation of white priviledge.

He walked away grumbling.
Damn, Kweli, that was slick. I wish I could say you've changed his mind, but we all know you didn't. It'll be a cold day in hell before whites will admit they were wrong, now that they've "rescued" us from their racism in 1964.

Face the facts, black hires will always be a "risk", an alternate word for "affirmative action", and whenever that black screws up, it will be THEIR fault for deceiving the generosity of whites. The only blame the white institution will get is for hiring blacks in the first place.
Great post ItAintEazy,


You just clearly demonstrated the nature of racism in america beyond the defense of the loyalists....who defend whites every chance they get....I relish their selective motivation as they cower in the shadows and not come forth to defend their heroes....

i'm sure your post does not surprise anyone, including yourself.....america's white citizens will go down to the end with their warped mentality....the only thing that changes is the timeframe they operate in and the method they act our their mental affliction.....the intent has been and always will be the same.......good job bro......
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
i'm sure your post does not surprise anyone, including yourself.....america's white citizens will go down to the end with their warped mentality....the only thing that changes is the timeframe they operate in and the method they act our their mental affliction.....the intent has been and always will be the same.......good job bro......


And the funny thing is that, living in white suburbs most of my life, is that now I'm just beginning to realize this. I can't believe I used to be one of those fire-breathing knee-grows who took whites up on their words without question.

But you know this is the only way I can talk about things and have people understand: preach to the choir. Otherwise, I may have to go all the way back to 1621 before the usual idiots figure out there was something wrong with the way we were treated.
quote:
Originally posted by ItAintEazy:
Oh yeah, http://www.blackcommentator.com/42/42_cover.html


IAE... That's what I've been saying since forever. THE LUNATICS do, in fact, RUN THE ASSYLUM!

That's why, with all conspiracy theories aside but yet considered in the warped minds of white America, I feel like Affirmative Action is a scam to appease Blacks on the surface and piss off whites enough to return to what they all want in the first, unmitigated privilege over all at the expense of anyone who would dare stand in their way.

It's a set-up and/or a schizophrenic exercise.

WE ALL AGREE that "qualified people" regardless of race should get employment consideration
"equally".

That said and with their OVERSTATED emphasis on that principle, Whites, liberal or otherwise, go out and still hire "unqualified" Blacks for positions.... for what... ---> STRAW MAN ...
BUILD THEM UP then TEAR THEM DOWN.

All that to try to rescind and indict the goals of Affirmative Action.

It's called "INDIAN" GIVING!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow." - Alice Walker
That Black commentator article is a great piece of work. The paragraph below taken from that article speaks volumes as to the reality of this whole situation with Blair.

"Nowhere has the newspaper acknowledged that Blair was an affirmative action hire - this is simply assumed to be the case. In one sense, however, all Black recruitment at historically white work environments is affirmative action, in that it is reluctant hiring - white people doing what does not come naturally, and is against their distorted judgment. Persons who are reluctantly hired are often reluctantly supervised and not mentored at all. It is crystal clear that Jayson Blair was not part of any formal or informal "team" at the New York Times. Had he been connected with the life of the paper, half his stories would not have later been found to be bogus in some respect, including "frequent acts of journalistic fraud." Blair acted utterly alone."

-------------------------
The Black man and woman in America is a nation of people; a stolen and lost nation, but a nation none the less. The U.S. just destroyed Iraq in thirty days and has allocated close to $80 billion to rebuild Iraq. The Black man and woman in America was terrorized and destroyed for well over four hundred years. How much do you think it would take to rebuild a nation that was destroyed and bombed for four hundred years if it takes $80 billion to rebuild a nation destroyed in thirty days?


More to come later!

Your Brother Faheem
I just figured out something.

All the postering, the schmoozing, the way he played the establishment figures like idiots, and how he used that tool to accelerate to the upper sphere of the newsroom in such a short time, it all points to one thing:

Jayson Blair is a pet Negro.

Seriously, just pick up your copy of "Makes Me Wanna Holler" by Nathan McCall, a fellow black newsman, and you'll see what I mean. In McCall's case, here we have a dude who graduated (with HONORS) from Norfolk State, and yet couldn't get his foot in the door at several newspapers when he was forthcoming about his criminal past. His first job at the Virginia Star-Ledger was apparently a "close vote", even though he was hired during the age where affirmative action was purportedly at its height.

During his tenure at the Ledger and much of his subsequent term at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he rarely associated with his white co-workers or bosses. He paid by not being promoted or even being PAID equally as his white co-workers. It wasn't until someone from (whaddayaknow) The New York Times took over and decided that black reporters were an asset in a black city did McCall get promoted to City Hall bureau chief.

McCall later transferred to The Washington Post where once again he failed to schmooze with his white co-workers - at one point he vocally warned one of his coleagues to either cooperate with him or taste shoe polish - and he ended up being isolated and disrespected.

Not so with Jayson Blair. Apparently he so impressed Howell Raines that he was hired right out of college and was designated one of his "stars". Seeing how hacks like Armstrong Williams or Deroy Murdock get a lot of attention and airtime by being pet negroes, Blair's short lived rise to fame only seemed logical.
You are more than right about Blair being a pet Negro. I was not interested in this story at first and really didn't care that some Negro was telling lies in a Paper that print lies everyday. However, after seeing all the attention this story was getting and how it was being used by the white media as a blow to AA, it got my attentions. Well Newsweek is running an article about this brother and from what I can ascertain from the article the brother was one of those brothers who laughed when there was not anything funny, scratched when he didn't itch and walked around with a happy Negro smile. Throughout the Newsweek piece references are always made to how he smiled at white folk and kissed plenty of asses. This Negro never finished college and as you just pointed out Brothers like Nathan Mcall still could not get a job with these tabloids. Also Blair was an alcoholic and a chain smoker. His apartment was filthy with fungus and mold growing inside of it, the landlord reported that his bathroom appeared to not have been cleaned in two years but none of this matter when you can kiss a mean ass.

From what I have read Blair should have not made it to do as much damage as he did, he was allowed to get to many places because he kissed ass, if he did not kiss ass and was a stand up brother he would have never been given pass after pass. Jayson Blair is what I call "Made in America".

-------------------------
The Black man and woman in America is a nation of people; a stolen and lost nation, but a nation none the less. The U.S. just destroyed Iraq in thirty days and has allocated close to $80 billion to rebuild Iraq. The Black man and woman in America was terrorized and destroyed for well over four hundred years. How much do you think it would take to rebuild a nation that was destroyed and bombed for four hundred years if it takes $80 billion to rebuild a nation destroyed in thirty days?


More to come later!

Your Brother Faheem

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×