EMAIL OF THE DAY

“I think the direct case against Raines in the Jayson Blair episode is even stronger than the one you make.-This isn’t about an abstract system failure. I don’t even think motivations are the issue.-It’s about specific, arrogant, arbitrary acts by Times executives that defied the Times’ own internal controls.
Up to the moment Blair was transferred to the National Desk, it looks like all the normal Times internal systems were working – problems with the otherwise-promising Blair had been identified, he had been counseled and kept on a short leash, and having completed “probation” he was being transferred to the Sports desk where he could at least do no harm.-
-Then suddenly – and even the Times’ self-examination makes this seem like a kind of immaculate conception – Blair is lifted out of the Sports desk and thrust into the sniper story. You’ve got the money quote in your post:-It’s Raines’ decision to be the angel for Blair’s career, and it’s Raines’ decision, scandalously, to deceive his staff and not tell Blair’s-new editor, Roberts, about his past problems.-That’s not a “contributing factor,” that’s the unambiguous cause of the problem.
-I almost don’t care-what Raines’ policies or intentions were.-There’s no reason why affirmative action can’t coexist with performance accountability, and in fact exactly that seemed to be the “normal” system at the Times.-What happened was a product of-Raines’ personality and decisionmaking style – arbitrary, unaccountable, with a dose of almost feudal personal favoritism.-It’s classic, dysfunctional, management-by-whim. This is squarely Raines’ screw up as an executive.” That nails it, I think. I think we can measure the future credibility of the Times by whether Howell Raines remains as executive editor. More feedback on the Letters Page.