Discovery That a New York Times Reporter

¶ … discovery that a New York Times reporter had been plagiarizing and exaggerating stories. Entitled, "More Reporting By Times Writer Called Suspect, this Washington Post article was on of the earliest to address the fiasco occurring at the New York Times.

My original reaction to the story was of shock -- to hear that plagiarism had occurred, especially at the New York Times, seemed so unprofessional as to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the claim. The New York Times, after all, is arguably the most prestigious in the United States, maybe even the world. The best writers and editors from around the country make up this newspaper that has been in circulation for decades. The fact that blatant plagiarism and story exaggeration had occurred, and that it was missed by the editors, made me second-guess the true legitimacy and accuracy of the New York Times.

The evidence against the writer, Jayson Blair, was indisputable. He even admitted to his actions after the story broke. The "liberties" Blair took were not limited to a couple of incidences, but rather could be traced in many stories dating back to 1998. As the situation was further explored by members of all media sources (including those at the New York Times), more flaws and inaccuracies were revealed, all of which were subsequently admitted by Blair.

Following the break of the Blair story, the situation at the New York Times office was dire. All editors involved were subject to harsh scrutiny by other administrators and media sources. In the end, three people left the New York Times as a result of the fiasco: Blair and two of the paper's top editors. Even this did not stop the questioning the New York Time's handling of the situation, as many called for new policies in order to prevent such an event from happening again.

Obviously, running an organization like the New York Times requires constant attention to one's reputation. After all, it is most notably the reputation of media sources that earn them their popularity. The New York Times is the best-selling newspaper in the country, not necessarily because they break the stories first, but because their reputation for accuracy is so well regarded. The Jayson Blair scandal completely contradicts everything the newspaper has worked for -- it strikes at the heart of the New York Times, which is its reputation.

The resignation by Blair and the two top editors is a step in the right direction. It marks the acknowledgment of fault by those running the newspaper, rather than blaming it simply on the rogue reporter. However, I still believe that the reputation of the New York Times is questionable, or at least not what it was prior to the Blair incident. This is not to say that more resignations are needed, or new policies need to be implemented. I am not sure what, if anything, can serve to immediately reverse the reputation of the paper. I suppose that if I had the responsibility for dealing with the incident, I would have been overly aggressive. I would have harped on the issue, day in and day out, and made sure the public was aware that all precautions were being taken to prevent a similar incident in the future.