An array of damning details is emerging. More, no doubt, will come. From the L.A. Times:
By the Times’ account, Boyd was head of a committee that recommended Blair be hired, despite the reservations of other editors. Boyd, along with Raines, pushed the inexperienced reporter with a poor record onto the prestigious national staff. What the Times does not note is that in 2001 it was the tyro Blair who nominated Boyd for the National Assn. of Black Journalists’ journalist of the year award for his role in producing the Pulitzer Prize-winning series “How Race Is Lived in America.” When Boyd subsequently was promoted to managing editor, according to sources at the Times, Blair was selected to write the announcement for the paper’s in-house newsletter.
From the indomitable Seth Mnookin:
Blair wrote Boyd’s biographical sketch in the Times’s internal newsletter when Boyd was named managing editor. Blair was known to brag about his close personal relationships with both Boyd and Raines, and the young writer frequently took cigarette breaks with Boyd.
From the Mickster, describing how Raines’ reporter shortage (which made it useful to assign Blair to the sniper story) contributed structurally to the problem:
Here are some people who have left (whether or not they were pushed): Kevin Sack, Sam Howe Verhovek, Evelyn Nieves, Carey Goldberg. James Sterngold, and Blaine Harden…. As a result, confronted with two journalistic wars (in Iraq, and the streets around Washington, D.C.) Raines, like Donald Rumsfeld, discovered he didn’t have enough troops!
Actually, I think the church metaphor is better. When you have a shortage of priests (because of your own policies), you tend to overlook the failings of the few you still have. Mickey argues that the “NYT story itself makes out a prima facie case of editorial negligence against Raines.” I’d agree. That’s why I don’t agree with Mickey that Raines’ job is not in jeopardy. Like Cardinal Law, Raines only has to please one man – the NYT’s Pope. But also like Cardinal Law, if the clergy really feel that this has destroyed their credibility, won’t they demand a clean break? Or put another way: wouldn’t it be truly odd if what the NYT itself describes as its worst moment in 152 years didn’t result in someone in authority taking real responsibility?
The Dish 