It was, by all accounts, an extraordinary outpouring of anger from the staff of the New York Times at the mercurial, arbitrary and incompetent management of executive editor, Howell Raines. He was asked directly if he would resign. As predicted in this blog, Arthur Sulzberger said he would refuse such a resignation. Since Raines’ policies – “diversity” at all costs and left-liberal spin in every important story – are indeed Sulzberger’s own policies, Raines’ departure would have left Sulzberger badly exposed. The mea culpa from Raines, however, was remarkably candid:
“You view me as inaccessible and arrogant,” Mr. Raines said, ticking off a list he had compiled from his own newsroom interviews in recent days. “You believe the newsroom is too hierarchical, that my ideas get acted on and others get ignored. I heard that you were convinced there’s a star system that singles out my favorites for elevation.” “Fear,” he added, “is a problem to such extent, I was told, that editors are scared to bring me bad news.”
Then Raines essentially conceded that his own obsession with racial diversity had been a factor in the Jayson Blair affair:
“Our paper has a commitment to diversity and by all accounts [Blair] 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 resolves the question of whether race was a factor. Yes, it was. Of course, the issue was not just the appointment as such, but how information about Blair’s past record had been withheld from his subsequent editors. One brave soul ventured the following:
“I believe that at a deep level you guys have lost the confidence of many parts of the newsroom,” said Joe Sexton, a deputy metropolitan editor, according to notes taken by an audience member. “I do not feel a sense of trust and reassurance that judgments are properly made.” “People feel less led than bullied,” he added.
The ruling triumvirate deserve credit for opening themselves up to this onslaught from within, and for publishing it, but it seems they had little choice. Their strategy is a smart one: by complete candor and remorse, they hope to stave off the obvious response to a failure of this magnitude: their own departures from the scene. Whether this gambit will work is now up to the Times’ board, shareholders, and staff. I have a feeling this story is not over yet.
The Dish 