: Poll position is crucial…In praise of crusty mentors…
Don Wycliff has the best column on Jayson Blair that I’ve read so far. And, between the lines, he manages to question the site of journalism education. Does it take place in schools or on the job? Of the Blair affair, he says:
NABJ [National Association of Black Journalists] itself issued a statement Friday that said in part, “While Jayson Blair is black, his race has nothing to do with allegations of misconduct.”
Not only is that false; it’s foolish. Almost as foolish as the notion that Blair’s behavior somehow demonstrates the bankruptcy of the entire effort to diversify the staffs of America’s newsrooms.
But more interesting than this balanced assessment of the politics is his view of where a journalist learns the discipline: under the guidance of an editor. Wycliff tells his own story, and it is exactly the kind of anecdotal evidence journalists love. It’s also very persuasive.
Wycliff says of Blair: “This is a kid who should have been on the night shift, learning the basics.”
So what, then, does one learn in journalism school? What should one learn before becoming a reporter?
I need more information to understand why Wycliff refutes the NABJ statement with “Not only is that false; it’s foolish.” Please link to Wycliff’s column.
The Wycliff piece is excellent. The link is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0305150228may15,1,7650347.column
Not only doesn’t he brush aside the affirmative action issue, but he places it in context - that in trying to boost Blair’s career, the powers that be at the NYT never allowed him to properly learn his trade. He was allowed to fail upward until the result was a disaster.
Oooops…I forgot the link.
A double lashing with a wet noodle for you, then.
I think this is not an affirmative action/diversity issue. From what I’ve read of the Blair scandal, I would lay the blame on NYT executive management.
I don’t know enough about “journalism school” to know if there is a deep-seated problem there, but I’m guessing not — unless they’re totally ignoring basic journalism standards.
This seems to me a case of an individual who “done wrong.” He may have been given a chance due to affirmative action principles, but he certainly didn’t “succeed” due to anything but disregard by the executives at NYT for journalistic standards. There can (will?) always be certain individuals who wish to act the way Blair did — regardless of profession or discipline. Executives/leaders have a responsibility to uphold the standards of their profession/discipline, and this certainly was not done at the NYT. Again, from what I’ve read, “diversity” had less to do with this than the environment created by Raines (and possibly other executives), including favoritism, intimidation and an exodus of existing talent.
The NYT deserves its black eye, because it was in a position to prevent this from ever happening (and, in fact, had a responsibility to do so), and the powers that be chose not to.
Blair’s promotions were due to his race. Pure and simple. Boyd would not have sheltered any white kid to the extent that he sheltered Blair. And Raines didn’t even notice the white newbies as much as his did Blair, who seems to have been a master suck-up.But I don’t think that all black journlaists are like Blair–nor do I think all papers would accomdate any young writer with this many problems, no matter what color the skin. But Raines’ race pathology coupled with the NYTimes atmosphere coupled with Blasir’s sociopathy equal an ugly mess.