Re: The firing of Jayson Blair

["Stuart Lawrence" <stuartwl@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The WSWS article concludes,

"There is little doubt that the Blair affair will have a chilling effect
on reporters generally, and that the new rules that the newspaper is
developing will further discourage objective investigative journalism to
the extent that it cuts across the interests of those in power."

Huh?

Determined to seize an opportunity to bash the Times for its role in
retailing much bigger lies, Louis and the WSWS writers attempt to
portray Blair as some kind of victim. Louis refers to "poor Jayson
Blair," while Vann and North are incensed by the Times for "effectively
ruining his prospects for future employment and blackguarding his
reputation before the entire world." Do they actually think this kid
should be able to expect any kind of career in mainstream journalism
after what he did at the Times? Can they possibly be serious in
suggesting Blair has a libel case against the Times?

Let's face it: the business of journalism has always used the threat of
career-ending public humiliation to enforce the standards it chooses to
consider important. We can argue with the narrowness of those standards
but those who write front-page stories know they risk a front-page
flogging if they plagiarize or pass off fiction as first-hand reportage.
To perceive this as defamatory or irrational is obtuse. This "$7 billion
corporation," the New York Times, can't possibly recover from the harm
done to it by Blair through any legal process, so it resorts to its
major area of expertise, managing perceptions, to control it. Blair's
"reputation" is of zero importance, because he will return to being the
nonentity he was before the Times gave him a byline. The "merciless
career-shattering exposure" of him fits right in to the Times' culture,
that of an institution that regards itself far more significant than
anyone who writes for it, and most of the people it writes about. (Gay
Talese's The Kingdom and the Power [1969] is still a great introduction
to this culture, punctuated with summary executions for offenses
infinitely less serious than Blair's.)

The way the Times has dealt with the Blair affair is far from bizarre.
It makes perfect sense in the context of the newspaper business. All of
us would rather see the Times go after the really dangerous professional
liars, but it's pointless to argue that Blair got treated any worse than
he should have expected.

Stuart Lawrence