Friday, March 26, 2004
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
A fitting coda for Jayson Blair
Good.posted by Dan on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM
Amen, let the parasite fade into obscurity.posted by: j Swift on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
The pathetic sales numbers of Jayson Blair’s book probably indicates that racial relations are improving in America. I am also thrilled that my earlier prediction concerning the success of Al Sharpton’s political campaign was so wrong. Both sleaze bags employed the race card. A relatively few years ago---this tactic might have worked.posted by: David Thomson on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
1400 is pretty much the country's population of columnists and book reviewers who would need to write about this type of book.posted by: Dave on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
As much of a problem as I have with Jayson Blair, I think we overstate his role. Let's ask ourselves the question; Has the NYT cleaned up it's act since Blair's well-deserved ousting???
Let's be honest enough to say that since his leaving the Times, the situation has in fact NOT gotten any better, and has in fact in some ways gotten worse. Blair, it's clear, got as far as he did because of his skin color,and because the owners and managers wanted to see him do well... to the point where he could do no wrong. This is because of a partcular mindset at the Times that displays in a blinding flash both it's racial bias and liberal bias as well, both at once.
This I fear is in turn driven by the liberal ownership of the Times; Sulzberger himself is the biggest problem, and that situation doesn’t look to change very soon.
Sulzberger, along with most of the suppsoedly mainstream press has always held the conviction that journalism is about helping people and building what they consider a better society. If you think this isn’t the prevailing nonsense in the news world today, ask anyone coming out of journalism schools why THEY’RE doing what they’re doing, and they’ll tell you ‘to make a difference’, not to "report the news". Simply and fairly reporting the news, and perhaps offering an even-handed comment on it, letting their readers deal, themselves with the improvement of their own lives, is apaprently too dull an assignment, for those on this ‘great mission’.
We all know that the Times shows up as the largest example of this kind of bias inducement. Sullivan, for all his faults, points this up as well as anyone.
Look; Management changes, what small ones have been made, are *not* solutions to this. Indeed, Sulzberger has only succeeded in perpetuating the mindset that caused Blair in the first place.... his own mindset.
I cannot imagine, as a result, that we're not going to see another Blair-like outing at the Times, very soon.
posted by: Bithead on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
Please - and what about Jack Kelley?posted by: CJB on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
(Chuckle) Been reading Kurtz, I see. Anyway, the answer is; Same as with Blair, without the color; Leftist politics.
Nobody bothered investigating Kelley at McPaper, because what he wrote agreed with the editorial sensibility at the paper's management level, particularly, for example, as regards the Kurds, and the Serbs in Kosovo...
And the difference is, we only have one comment in Kelley's history about 'we shoulda known!", and only one person. Whereas, Blair's history screamed out 'fruad' from the get go, accross the entire management structure of the Times.
Your comparisonis only partially valid, I fear.
posted by: Bithead on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
hmm, I think the real problem is I forgot my tinfoil hat. And how many deaths did Kelley write about witnessing? Shouldn't that have raised an eyebrow?
Anyway, who's Kurtz?posted by: CJB on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
And how many deaths did Kelley write about witnessing? Shouldn't that have raised an eyebrow?
IN a bombing attack, you mean?
Yep, you're right Dan. Given the hype and publicity ratio to sales, I'd say you were far better off than Jayson Blair. After this, he will be a non-entity. The silly talking heads shows all let him have a pass through to snicker behind his back, and make him the butt of derision in America. He was scorned, and after this will fall into an oblivion. Who will hire Blair after this? He will spend the rest of his life blaming someone else for his own screw up, in utter self-pitying ignomy. Good riddance.posted by: Oldman on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
Who will hire Blair after this? He will spend the rest of his life blaming someone else for his own screw up, in utter self-pitying ignomy
With THOSE qualifications, he may do well running for a Senate seats as a Democrat. Hillary did....posted by: Bithead on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
The awful thing is, this morally-bereft future vagrant got a six-figure advance on the deal, thus validating that our moral compass no longer points to the quality of an offense, but the size of it. Murder someone, go to jail: be a celebrity and murder someone, and get a $3million record deal FROM YOUR PRISON CELL. Get killed in the war, and we're sorry - be a former pro football player and get killed in the war, and your city starts wanting to name a stadium after you. Get caught on a sex tape in a hotel room, and scandal ensues. Get caught on a sex tape if you're a rock and roll star, and sell another 4 million of your next album because you're a stud. Too many offenders, not enough consequences.posted by: honestinjun on 03.26.04 at 10:20 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: