Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage

1.	Poynter announces publication of a new collection of newspaper pages 9:00 AM Nov. 21, 2009
2.	Poynter's Times Publishing Co. sells Governing 5:15 PM Nov. 20, 2009
3.	Recommendation for Fewer PAP Screens Sure to Set Off Controversy 10:32 AM Nov. 20, 2009
4.	Gene Patterson to Jack Nelson: Save Us a Desk Up There in That Celestial Newsroom 7:03 AM Nov. 20, 2009
5.	Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage 6:19 AM Nov. 20, 2009
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all Chip on Your Shoulder feedback

A Matter of Trust
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

Sorting options:	most recent	\| author
Display options:	expand all	\| collapse all

Page 1 of 1

Jayson Blair's 2nd Chance
Posted by Frank Sparrow 7/1/2007 2:33:10 AM

The play 'Choke Point' about the downfall of Jayson Blair and the events of 2003 is going to be of some interest to those who keep watch on the ethics of newsrooms.
The site for the theatre production also has a timeline of events.
http://www.chokepoint.net
Jayson Blair

The Great Blair Debate
Posted by Kelly Buckingham 5/18/2003 11:23:58 PM

I was a graduate student at the UMD's College of Journalism from 97 - 99 and had the opportunity to get to know Jayson. Like many of us that know Jayson or who are in the journalism field, I have watched the coverage and commentary. I have seen people who used to be proud to call themselves friends and mentors to Jayson turn on him as a result of the latest news coverage. I think we can debate the factors that led to this unfortunate situation for years to come - from Jayson's own actions and personal turmoil to the editors at the NY Times to the state of journalism today.
I remember being excited and nervous for Jayson when he took the job at NY Times. I was excited - because "Wow!" - the NY Times - every print journalist's dream job. I was nervous because he was 22 or 23 at the time and starting at a paper that most journalists work towards and not start at. That is a lot of pressure for anyone.
But I certainly can understand why the Times would snatch him up without a degree. His brilliance is obvious to everyone that meets him. He lives and breaths to be a reporter. His talent and tenacity are impressive to say the least, which is why this situation is all the more troubling. It seems that many of our rising young stars today find themselves in trouble - unable to handle the pressure that comes with their talent. I don't pretend to know if this was the case for Jayson or not, but it certainly seems plausible. I would imagine that oftentimes, these individuals are unable to admit their problems due to the high expectations of those around them.
I hope that Jayson's situation makes us all more aware of the people around us for a variety of reasons, but mostly for us to look for those who may need our support, not our necessarily our criticism.

Changing quotes???
Posted by Pam Robinson 5/17/2003 8:11:14 AM

If you were getting calls from anyone--the copy desk or elsewhere--trying to get you to "change quotes" to better fit the story, then you should remove yourself from that publication after first letting every media outfit you can tell know what was going on, and be able to back it up.

In all the years I've worked for daily newspapers, I've never heard of a copy desk doing such a thing, ever.
Pam Robinson
co-founder,
American Copy Editors Society

Changing quotes???
Posted by Pam Robinson 5/17/2003 8:09:17 AM

Editors Pointing Fingers
Posted by Elisabeth Kauffman 5/16/2003 10:47:06 AM

In their story about Blair, the NYT's editors insist repeatedly, and disingenuously, that they tried to convince Blair to produce fewer stories and focus on quality, not quantity. When did editors stop assigning stories? Was Blair jumping onto issues without approval, and then his reports printed anyway? Too many of these missives and too much of the head-shaking over Blair point the finger at reporters when reporters will tell you one horror story after another about an editor who thinks something might be an issue, and wants reporters to go prove his or her case. After 18 years in journalism, I've lost count of the number of such assignments I've been handed. I learned to shrug off the fury of frustrated editors who blamed reporters when their presumptions couldn't be proven. And please let us not forget the copy editors and writers who call in the middle of the night and want to "change a quote" to make it better fit the story. My most vivid memory of a manipulative editor was one who told me, on an investigative story, that there "was no conspiracy" when stacks of federal documents and dozens of sources said there was. I argued and was transfered to the school beat as a reward. A year later, a young man died because of the conspiracy that didn't exist and I was suddenly an investigative reporter again, ordered to save the newspaper from scandal. If I'd stood my ground in the first place, that teenager might not have died. As for freelance reporters - and I've been one for nine years - most of us freelance because we are good enough to make a living doing so, not because we can't get jobs. I know few reporters who have ever fabricated facts for a story; I know plenty of editors who wish they would.

how editors help fabrication
Posted by Karen Berger 5/14/2003 11:07:30 PM

Editors also encourage fabrication, even if not deliberately, when they ask for "more detail" and then suggest the specific types of detail they want. The writers -- especially freelancers -- want to get their work in print, and they get the message that if they don't pony up with the appropriate anecdote (which reflects the editor's idea of how the story would ideally go if he/she wrote it and saw what he/she expected to see) the story won't be published. For freelancers, who have a rough time breaking in to big-name publications, the chance to have a byline in a top magazine is terrible temptation, so they succumb to the request. I know many many writers who have airbrushed an anecdote, put themselves in place where they've never been, changed a fact, added a made-up quote to meet an editor's request. I know of many editors -- even of presitigious magazines (the kind of magazines that boast about and are widely known for their fact checking) who have encouraged this kind of re-writing and embellishment of the truth by suggesting precisely what would make the story acceptable. In my field -- which includes travel writing -- very often, the writer has already been to the destination. If s/he didn't experience precisely what the editor thinks s/he should have experienced, the choice is a) to to admit s/he doesn't have the requested material or b) come up with something that fits the bill. Let the reader beware.

The Evil of Good Writing!
Posted by charles madigan 5/14/2003 4:25:03 PM

I understand the point Barbara Crossette is trying to make in arguing that somehow, an emphasis on writing at the expense of research has tainted the mission of the modern newspaper. I do believe she is wrong.
Our first professional responsibility is not to our bosses or publishers, probably not even to ourselves or our colleagues. it is to our readers. we owe them compelling, interesting and readable journalism that mixes substantial research with creative, intelligent presentation. These ingredients are not like oil and water. They do mix very well. On another point, perhaps at the New York Times a writer can tell an editor to get stuffed on a question about content, but that's rare (and should be). mature writers understand and appreciate the value of strong copy editors, who appreciate the value of mature writers. having read all there is to read about the new york times problem, it seems to me that not even a small bit of it had to do with the fact the guy was just such a good writer he shouldn't be edited. He was, to be kind, about a B-minus on presentation. He couldn't have touched Doug Kneeland, Seth Mydans or any number of other Times veterans present and past on even their worst days. In the end, Jason wrote seemingly effective newspaper stories, like a lot of other people. Something else was at work. The scent of cognitive dissonance mixing with mendacity at the Times seems remarkably strong even from this wonderful, provincial distance. (It's so strong it makes one wonder why anyone would want to be any closer to it, given the choice.) Nope, whatever this one was about, it wasn't about the nefarious, evil good writing movement that has made newspapers, well, readable, turning copy editors into bridge trolls even as those of us who write have been raised up to stand on high pedestals, showered with acclaim, given more money than a drunken sailor could spend on shore leave and transformed into community love objects, despite runon sentences!

Note from former NYT reporter (1/2)
Posted by Robin Sloan 5/14/2003 2:57:56 PM

From Barbara Crossette, former New York Times United Nations bureau chief:

As someone who worked at The New York Times for 28 years before taking an early retirement late in 2001, I have a few concrete thoughts on how American journalism got to this point.

These are some factors and trends that seem to me to lie behind this case and some others like it:

1. Bright writing now brings the most and quickest rewards inside news organizations -- rather than the solid but often less spectacular beat reporting of the best of journalists, like the NYT's Linda Greenhouse, a worthy Pulitzer winner at the Supreme Court after years of quiet hard work. Young reporters are quick to learn this new reality, and ride the trend. They also know that their news organizations manage or even manipulate coverage to position favored reporters on the fast track for prizes and promotions. There is much temptation to put more emphasis on "writing" rather than reporting. The Blair case is but the most grotesque and damaging manifestation of this trend.

2. Copy editors and middling desk editors [sometimes even departmental editors] have been demeaned and relegated to the sidelines. Boring, annoying questions about sources and facts are brushed off with disdain by writers and top editors high on hubris. [I remember a day in the newsroom when Pulitzers were announced and a copy editor hearing one name, yelled, "Can we appeal that decision?"]

(continued below)

Note from former NYT reporter (2/2)
Posted by Robin Sloan 5/14/2003 2:56:37 PM

(continued from above)

3. There is not enough competition in the print media. Foreign correspondents often work in packs or small groups for safety or logistical reasons. That may not be a perfect setup, but it allows some cross checking of each other's work after the fact.

Domestically, a newspaper like The Times is so often operating in splendid and unchallenged isolation that it is immune to peer correction. This paper in particular is, moreover, notorious in many circles for refusing to listen to the complaints or warnings of outsiders. Readers are often too ovewhelmed by the power of The Times and its own sense of self-righteouness to pursue what they believe to be a wrong. That may now change.

4. Top editors seem to think there is nothing wrong with the system. The public perhaps knows otherwise. A scandal can only reinforce the sense that the big media are no longer to be trusted.

Footnote: I spent the first quarter of this year running an Independent Journalism Foundation workshop in Phnom Penh for ediotrs and writers from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma -- eager young people who wanted to draw every possible lesson from an American who had worked for a famous and respected organization. I spent a lot of time talking to them about credibility: the need to listen carefully, the tedious job of getting every fact right, and why using tape recorders and cameras were insurance policies against mistakes. All pretty mundane stuff intended to draw these promising Southeast Asians away from rumor-fed, personally motivated reporting they saw around them. I cringe at what they are thinking now in Hanoi, Phnom Penh, Vientiane or Rangoon as this Blair story unfolds.

Barbara Crossette

Barbara Crossette, a writer on foreign affairs and columnist for the National Journal UN Wire, was The New York Times bureau chief at the United Nations from 1994 to 2001.

Fact checking NY Times style
Posted by Sarah Wernick 5/13/2003 1:08:16 PM

According to the Times, after the San Antonio Express-News complained that Blair had plagiarized an article about the mother of a missing soldier, there were "tense meetings over two days" in which the national news editor, Jim Roberts, repeatedly pressed Blair for evidence that he had, in fact, interviewed the mother.

Blair produced handwritten notes, but that wasn't good enough for Roberts. He wanted real proof. So what did he do? He asked Blair to describe the woman's house in Texas. Blair did so. Roberts compared the description to unpublished photos of the house - and they matched perfectly. But it never occurred to him that Blair had access to the very same photos. And apparently, Roberts didn't think to call the woman to ask her if she'd spoken to a NY Times reporter. Duh.

Fresh set of eyes
Posted by Les Gura 5/13/2003 10:55:23 AM

A good suggestion from a past seminar (I can't recall who or I'd give the credit) was that when a major piece is complete, and is ready to go, having been reported, edited and vetted by, say, the Sunday editor as well, you put yet another, completely fresh set of eyes on it, someone who had no connection with the story whatsoever.

On daily stories, it's much more difficult to bring more than the savvy of editing experience, both on the assignment editors' side of the room, and, especially, on the copy desk side of the room. People can't be afraid to raise red flags, even if it means a piece gets held, or deadlines are pushed.

Page 1 of 1

View all Chip on Your Shoulder feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)