Rusty Saber: NY Times burns in spotlight of Blair affair

Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University.

The last thing newspaper people want is to be the subject of the news. Thus, the New York Times management probably believes the Jason Blair affair was akin to being dipped in honey and buried up to their chins in an anthill.

You most likely know the facts: Blair, a young Times reporter, fabricated quotes, scenes and interviews for articles he wrote about the Washington sniper case. One can write a compelling story if the truth isn't a prerequisite.

I intended to write about this incident earlier; however, I waited to see if any plausible explanations surfaced as to why a young man talented enough to write for an organization that prides itself on being the "paper of record" would do such a dumb thing. I also wanted to try to learn why management didn't see a mishap coming.

They were apparently aware of reports of Blair's behavior problems, yet they sent him out to write about one of the most important stories of the year.

On the heels of the Blair fiasco came the resignation of Rick Bragg, Times Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, for failure to give credit to a stringer who was responsible for most of the information for a story under his byline. Times Executive Editor Howard Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd also have resigned. Both could have survived Rick Bragg's faux pas, but it was Jayson Blair who buried them.

Newsweek Magazine shed some light on Blair. Among his faults, he is described as a heavy drinker with few friends, unreliable and noted for stealing story ideas and putting his name on them, and being self-destructive. The Times brass apparently deemed these to be the characteristics of an emerging star reporter.

USAToday reported that the Times printed a 14,000-word explanation of the event in an effort to turn down the heat, but media have kept it hot for the newspaper giant. Just about every pundit has taken the Times to task. The Rusty Saber joins the fray.

Most newspapers have clear editorial policy positions and present their views in editorials, columns and even in their choice of political cartoons. Readers either accept these biases or cancel their subscriptions. However, there must be a clear distinction between the editorial page and news sections. Regardless of the editorial point of view, news stories and headlines should be presented with no editorial bias finding its way into the news. Even more important, readers must be able to trust a paper to print the truth. Anything else is National Enquirer fodder.

The sequence of events leading up to the Blair disaster seems to justify high-level resignations. According to Newsweek, warnings of erratic behavior were received by the Times editor. Blair was given two leaves of absence to help him get his life in order.

His personnel file was full of warnings and reprimands, leading to a temporary exile to the sports desk. (It's not easy to make up sports stories). For reasons known only to the brass, all this earned Blair the plum assignment of covering the Washington sniper case. The rest is history, albeit much of it inaccurate history.

The Times is taking a lot of flack because Blair's actions were so obvious. Complaints from other reporters who knew Blair was making up parts of his stories were ignored. Phone calls from various officials and witnesses accusing Blair of reporting bogus information went unreturned.

The magnitude of the negative news coverage of this event may be fueled by the fact that a newspaper that considers itself to be the elite publication in the world got caught with its reportorial hand in the cookie jar.

Cartoons continue to poke fun at the lack of trust readers can have in what they read in the Times. Commentators have great fun rewording the New York Times masthead slogan: "All the News That's Fit to Print."

There have been a lot good ones. I couldn't resist, I created one: "We Print All the News We Make Up to Fit the Stories We Make Up."