May 13, 2003

WHEN DID JOURNALISTS BECOME PSYCHOTHERAPISTS? THE CASE OF JAYSON BLAIR

        The Jayson Blair/New York Times scandal reveals how thoroughly the therapeutic culture has overtaken the mainstream media. Jayson Blair's psychopathy found its enabling culture at the New York Times. Mr. Blair, in seeking and landing the internship that led to his meteoric rise wrote: "I've seen some who like to abuse the power they have been entrusted with; my kindred spirits are the ones who became journalists because they wanted to help people." Wanted to help people? Once upon a time, long ago, journalists had the modest goal of reporting the facts. In our post modern, therapeutic culture that is apparently a less worthy goal than 'helping people'. While the editor and publisher of the NYTimes have finally acknowledged the psychopathy lurking behind the mask of noble motives, they share Mr. Blair's psychotherapeutic view of journalism. Thus they explain, as a motive for promoting Mr. Blair in the face of overwhelming evidence of duplicity, "we do not stigmatize people for seeking help". So, Mr. Blair sought help? Of course; when called on the carpet for lying and plagiarizing he must have explained that he had "problems". My educated guess is he "explained" that he had turned to drugs and/or booze to deal with what he viewed as the difficulties of being a minority member in a white male culture. Or maybe that was just his "explanation" for those bar tabs he ran up in Brooklyn when the editors thought he was pursuing truth in Texas. The Times editors explain "we do not stigmatize people who seek help". How noble! If lying and plagiarizing are "problems", then how hard hearted to call the person to account. He's ill and needs help, and it is the role of his employers to facilitate his getting help. And after all, Blair had shown, in his confabulated story about one of the Washington snipers, how "sensitive" he was to psychological factors. His reportage was an account of supposed 'root psychological causes'. "Two senior law enforcement officials who otherwise bitterly disagree on much of what happened that day are in agreement on this much: Mr. Muhammad was not, as Mr. Blair reported, "explaining the roots of his anger" when the interrogation was interrupted. Rather, they said, the discussion touched on minor matters, like arranging for a shower and meal." Ah yes, "explaining the roots of his anger". Just the sort of explanation to appeal to the liberal therapeutic sensibilities of Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd.
        The lengthy exculpation of NYTimes management has been dissected thoroughly in Dr. Kramer's blog. I simply wish to underline the importance of the therapeutic perspective that makes Jayson Blair and Howell Raines kindred spirits. Jayson Blair wanted us to 'understand' that a barbaric killer like John Malvo had 'grievances' which we need to address. Howell Raines's Op-Ed writers endlessly reproach the Bush administration for its failure to "understand" and "empathize" with the grievances of Palestinians, Islamists--any and all who wish to kill us. They show their understanding by referring to terrorists as 'militants' or 'activists'. Is it any wonder that Blair was on the management/editorial fast track? No surprise that they hit it off so well. While Raines may wax indignant, he shared the assumptions of Jayson Blair about the noble role of journalists as healers. He thought of Blair's duplicitous behavior as 'problems' to be addressed with a supportive therapeutic attitude. This renders his high flown talk about this scandal representing a low point in the history of the NYTimes quite laughable. There will be more Howell, many more, as you pursue your therapeutic liberal utopia.

Posted at 08:20 PM by