|
May 14, 2003JASON BLAIR EXPLAINS HIMSELF: HE WAS A VICTIM OF SEXUAL MOLESTATION. The handling of Jason Blair by the NYTimes should be understood as a form of psychotherapy, rather than business practice. As we learn more, we see that Howell ("We do not stigmatize people who seek help") Raines and Jason Blair had a congruent therapeutic view of their work. (see below)Now we learn that Blair had opined in print in 1999 about the psychological trauma of sexual abuse citing his own life as reason for his strong views. How perfect! Now Mr. Blair could appeal to his politically correct employers by citing the preferred kind of psychological abuse--he was molested as a youngster, to go with his victim of racism stance. Like everything else the young man wrote, this psychological explanation has the earmarks of an invented story. However, it's the sort of story that would fall on credulous ears at the editorial board of the NYTimes, for whom all sorts of malfeasance must be understood as resulting from psychological trauma. Posted at 07:45 AM by
 
|
No matter what happened to Blair as a child, it does not excuse him from telling the truth as an adult.
Besides, why would anyone take anything Blair says at face-value?
This is probably yet another lie from someone who either can't tell the difference between lies and truth, or else doesn't care about the difference.
Posted by: Steve on May 14, 2003 01:12 PMYou're right. Mr. Blair has a problem. But he's got a chance. If I were Mr. Blair's flack, I'd recommend the following approach:
Show a mixture of contrition, build credibility by blaming common human failings that everyone identifies with, and mix in some offense, too. Suggestions:
1. Blame indolence. "I was worn down by the pace. Calling sources was a big pain in the ass. It was easier to make it up, and most of the time made a better story."
2. Try a little condescension: "Realistically, it isn't really reported until it's in the New York Times, anyway. Yes, I may have take some details and sentences from reporters in the hinterlands. But I made those details sing in my stories. The writers should be flattered I thought enough of their material to use it properly. As Harold Bloom says, 'minor talents borrow, major talents steal.'"
3. Blame ambition. "I wanted to succeed, and I was so afraid of failure that I took some shortcuts such as making up sources to give me great scoops. Besides, the stories could've been true."
4. [This next one will take brass balls.] Blame affirmative action. "The New York Times is like a hall of mirrors for a black journalist. Some managers expect high standards, but bad behavior was rewarded. No matter what I did, I was promoted and given more responsibility. If I'd only been held to the same standards as a white reporter would have been, including being reprimanded when I was wrong, this never would've happened."
5. Say everybody does it. "Oh, I'm the first journalist to pad my expense accounts, run up a big bar bill on the company tab, and report stories from a bar. Jeez, if I were a white guy in the 50s, or a foreign correspondent, this would've been no big deal. Suddenly everyone's getting all self-righteous. Everyone needs to cool out."
Then collect that big advance for his "tell-all" memoir.
Posted by: IB Bill on May 14, 2003 05:48 PMIB BILL IS RIGHT. THE TITLE OF HIS BOOK WILL BE "LYING LOW." IT WILL BLAME RAINES AND SULZBERGER WHO IGNORED HIS CRIES FOR HELP. THE INSIDE JACKET WILL QUOTE "THE MORE I LIED, THE LESS THEY CARED- AS A BLACK MAN THEY THOUGHT I SHOULD BE USED TO CHILD ABUSE, DRUGS AND LIQUOR."THE NEW YORK TIMES WILL NOT REVIEW IT.
Posted by: RUTH KING on May 14, 2003 09:47 PMhere are some quotes of letters and articles written some months before any of us was aware of Jayson Blair-Raines Affair that so stained the New York Times reputation:
It undermines black achievement by conditioning black students to think that they can enjoy the fruits of excellence without doing excellent work"
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/012/oped/The_fig_leaf_of_diversity_+.shtml
Dear Mr. Jacoby:
The very worst thing about Affirmative Action (and it's sinister sister Title IX) is that it corrupts standards as schools and business become quota mongers and bean counters while pitting one group against another.
Affirmative Action -really positive discrimination- undermines the value of hard work. I don't know what to say to students when mediocre students get full scholarships and top students don't even get admitted to the school of their choice. Study harder? Accept your journey of the cross? Falsify your race or gender? Or maybe just drop out. The argument that "diversity" per se (a state sanctioned "diversity" I must say) trumps merit and fairness is a very weak an unsustainable argument in a democracy such as ours.
Why go to a Saturday study session or even try to apply to a top program if the chances are 100 to 1 against you BECAUSE of your race, gender or national origin?
Being a non-preferred classification is demoralizing and unfair.
Most interestingly, as you pointed out, young minorities in my school are ASHAMED to defend Affirmative Action. People have boyfriends, friends and sons who are "non-preferred". Elite bean counters want it; the people don't.
Sooner or later (and the sooner the better ) Affirmative Action that great 'temporary remedy' will go the way of it's close kinsmen: anti-Semitic quotas and, yes, Jim Crow.
Richard K. Munro, MA
Posted by: Ricardo Munro on May 17, 2003 08:59 PM