BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

I am a reporter

21 comments on I am a reporter

I am a reporter
: I am a reporter; I have been a reporter for more than 30 years; I love reporting.

And I hate reporters who lie.

I hate them for robbing reporting of its one and only asset: credibility.

I hate Stephen Glass, who appeared on 60 Minutes tonight, all smug and obnoxious, to tell how he lied.

I hate Jayson Blair, who lied and lied and lied in the New York Times.

I don’t buy the Kaus argument that Times management is at fault for for promoting Blair because of his race.

That is racist. That is racist bullshit. And it is Times-phobic bullshit.

Black, white, yellow, red, or f’ing purple, a liar is a liar. Anybody over the age of 5 from a halfway decent home without dependence on drugs for psychoses knows what a lie is.

And these people are liars. The responsibility is theirs.

I was down in my basement today, by chance, repacking boxes and boxes of my clips from my days as a reporter, back when I did useful things. I remember obsessing over my quotes and facts, making sure I got them right, because it mattered.

These liars ruin things for every other reporter and every reader.

They are to media what the scumbuckets who ruined Enron and Worldcom and Anderson are to business.

They are liars.

21 responses to “I am a reporter”

  1. Michael Demmons Avatar
    Michael Demmons

    And that is about as good as it will ever be put!

  2. Pyecraft Avatar
    Pyecraft

    Now, ain’t that the truth.

  3. dmc Avatar
    dmc

    What a stunning refutation of Kaus’ argument: “That is racist.” You’ve won me over.

  4. Sean Avatar
    Sean

    Jesus, get off your high horse. You make it sound as if Kaus is overlooking the fact that he lied, and focusing on that the guy’s black.
    Kaus et al. take the egriegiousness of the lying as a given. No shit he shouldn’t be lying. He’s already got a lot of people angry at him. His credibility is forever gone.
    Now, though, the question is this: Why weren’t his lies caught by the NYT? The guy had lawyers writing to the paper complaining of his inaccuracies. Did the NYT check these claims out? If they did, they would have immediately found the discrepencies. The employment policies of the NYT apparently depend on race (even a little bit). How much did this affect their judgments (on whether to investigate, or punishment, or whatever).
    There’s not a single racist thought in Kaus’ argument. Unless you’re just flying off the handle to make yourself feel superior (yet again), please elaborate on exactly WHAT IS RACIST about the Kaus theory.

  5. Rube Avatar
    Rube

    That wasn’t racist. That was a comment on goofy affirmative-action policies at the times.
    Racism=belief in genetic superiority of a race. It does not mean contradiction to Democrat principles.

  6. CleverNameHere Avatar
    CleverNameHere

    One of the arguments against affirmative action is that it sometimes leads to the selection of lesser qualified individuals, who in turn produce a lower quality of work.
    Of course, racial preference is not always the culprit when a bad hire is made, but it seems inflexibly dogmatic to insist that it NEVER is so. In the same vein, tolerance for work-related mistakes is not always the product of the drive for diversity, but again, it seems inflexibly dogmatic to insist that such is NEVER the case.
    I think if you decide you must reply to Kaus, his argument deserves a far more specific critique than what seems to be little more than a ranting, angry appeal to your own authority.
    You may be a reporter, and you may hate liars, but I don’t see how that somehow qualifies you to summarily dismiss Kaus’ reasoning, and it damn sure doesn’t give you license to sling the “racist” label.

  7. A Different Sean Avatar
    A Different Sean

    ‘fraid you’ve got it exactly backward. The point is *not* that “Times management is at fault for promoting Blair because of his race”. It is that they did not can him, even when his (white) manager begged them to do so, because he was instrumental in keeping up the NYT’s racial “diversity” (read “in-house-quota-system”) and a charter member of Gerald Boyd’s all-black clique. Now that *is* racist. And, according to Andrew Sullivan, he was *gasp* a SMOKER! of CIGARETTES! No wonder ….

  8. Tex Choctaw Avatar
    Tex Choctaw

    Howdy Jeff!
    My journalism mentor and favorite professor was Dr. Blanche Prejean who attended the University of Texas with Walter Cronkite and who received the first doctorate in journalism granted by UT. Dr. Prejean was extremely tough on her students and insisted on high quality writing, but she especially emphasized that if there was even one error of fact in any news story assignment turned in for grading, the student received an automatic “F.” I’m absolutely sure that if Blair and Glass were her students and were caught lying in their stories they would have automatically been failed for the entire course and would not have been welcome in any of her other classes. The journalism profession would be much more respected today if editors applied the same standards that Dr. Prejean taught.

  9. Jeff B. Avatar
    Jeff B.

    Yeah, Jeff, I have to agree with Clever and Rube, here. You’re being terribly, terribly unfair to Kaus (who clearly hasn’t a racist bone in his body! This is a guy who’s devoted his life to WELFARE REFORM, fer chrissake! Remember his book The End Of Equality?) by slinging that accusation. Racism should never be charged lightly, since it’s such a hideous thing and it can ruin a person’s reputation.
    I understand where you’re coming from too, but whether or not you agree with the Kaus/Sullivan argument (which, as Rube said, is about goofy affirmative action policies), it’s not a racist one. It might turn out to be wrong, but it isn’t racist.
    And anyway, there is serious grounds for concern regarding the behavior of the Times’ editorial staff. As has been rehearsed over and over in various summaries of the scandal, it’s not like Blair’s invention and plagiarism was something new; he had been warned, over and over, and in fact his old editor wanted him CANNED as far back as August of 2002. It’s obvious that this fellow WAS coddled by the powers-that-be, where others would be fired.
    The only question is why? There are a lot of good arguments that can be made that have nothing to do with affirmative action (that is a valid one too, but only one of several candidates). For example, we know he was a real gladhander, a smooth operator who knew who to befriend and what to say. Furthermore, it’s coming to light that he may have had a semi-personal relationship with Gerald Boyd and Howell Raines – this alone would be a good explanation as to why he was cut slack.
    The point is, Jeff, that the affirmative action argument is one of many possible valid reasons why Blair got away with OPEN murder for so long, despite management’s knowledge of his serious problems. I personally think the answer is a combination of the AA issue plus a hefty helping of the “friends pulling favors” explanation.
    Anyway, I just think you might owe Mickey an apology. Nobody should ever be wrongfully tarred with the racist brush by someone else. And you’re not just some random fella either – you’re Jeff Jarvis!
    Hope you take this in the spirit it’s offered.

  10. Charlie Avatar
    Charlie

    I was going to write a longer comment, but I clearly don’t need to. Jeff, it’s my vote as well that you owe Kaus an apology. And Raines a smack upside the head.

  11. Robin Roberts Avatar
    Robin Roberts

    I read two possible subtexts in NYT management’s actions. One is the affirmative action thread that Kaus describes, ( and which you fail to actually deal with Jeff ). But the other possibility lies in what sounds like Blair’s ability to kiss ass of Raines. Neither adds to NYT management’s credibility in my opinion. We’ll probably never get a clear idea which dominated events.

  12. Michael Levy Avatar
    Michael Levy

    I don’t buy the Kaus argument that Times management is at fault for for promoting Blair because of his race.
    That is racist. That is racist bullshit. And it is Times-phobic bullshit.
    I’m proud to be NYT-phobic, but that’s another story. Are you telling me it’s racist to criticize affirmative action policies so blind they let a serial liar like Blair into the newsroom, despite a long record of fuckups and complaints/warnings from other reporters? That, sir, is bullshit.

  13. Andreas Avatar
    Andreas

    I am a reporter
    no, you’re not. you might be a columnist, but you are as far from being a reporter as cher is from being an actress.

  14. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Andreas:
    You don’t know shit about me.
    I’ve been a reporter and editor for numerous newspapers and magazines for 30 years go. I was a reporter on the Detroit Free Press, Chicago Today, The Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Examiner, and Time Inc. I was an editor and a columnist at various of these publications. I was Sunday editor of the NY Daily News. I created Entertainment Weekly. I am now an Internet media executive for a large publishing company.
    I’m a reporter.
    What are you?

  15. Harry Avatar
    Harry

    Jeff — you’re giving him exactly what he wants. Better to ignore such a silly insult.

  16. Ron Avatar
    Ron

    Jeff — Ignore Andreas, whoever he is, but please respond to the other comments above. “Racist” is a serious accusation indeed, and I don’t see the evidence for it in Kaus’ (or Sullivan’s) case. I do see at the Times a frightening willingness to overlook the failings of a young journalist whom Raines, Boyd et al desperately wanted to succeed, even against the evidence of their own editors.
    It is difficult, to put it mildly, to believe that the Times’ hiring policies are race-neutral, and they certainly don’t have to be. But the Times should be accountable for the consequences of its policies – which in this case may include making it more difficult for honest and talented black journalists to succeed.

  17. rem0tly Avatar
    rem0tly

    Did Jayson Blair ever work for CNN [where they also have a problem with ‘the news’]?
    And let us not forget the Iraqi war essentially ended when al Jazeera was bombed. [lol]
    Hopefully technology will progress to the elimination of ‘newspersons’ and let us all collect our own news. And relegate ‘reporters’ to posting on opinion. Freely & for free fellows.
    Actually I like newspapers, it is the state of Mr. Farnsworth’s invention that disgusts me.

  18. grants Avatar
    grants

    Jeff-
    I totally agree with you. “A liar is a liar.”

  19. Richard Bennett Avatar
    Richard Bennett

    “Racist” is over the top, but an explanation and mea culpa by the Times’ management is in order.
    How long do you suppose Blair could have succeeded in spinning his web of plagiarism if he were a blogger rather than a Big Time Journalist? Based on our experience with The Agonist, I’d say not very.

  20. triticale Avatar
    triticale

    “Racist” may be over the top (depending on where one’s top is) but there is another label which is unquestionably applicable, and that is “racialism”. It means allowing race to influence a decision where it shouldn’t be a factor, regardless of motivation.
    Oddly enough, I first heard the term used by Nelson Mandela.

  21. David Avatar
    David

    Well, Howell Raines says he DID promote Blair — or didn’t block one of Blair’s big assignments — because of race:
    “Our paper has a commitment to diversity and by all accounts he appeared to be a promising young minority reporter,” Mr. Raines said. “I believe in aggressively providing hiring and career opportunities for minorities.”
    “Does that mean I personally favored Jayson?” he added, a moment later. “Not consciously. But you have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many by not stopping his appointment to the sniper team. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes.”
    That’s from Thursday’s NYT account of the Big Meeting of the Times staff.