Editors, not diversity, cause of bad journalism

I never questioned how completely dependent I am upon those
individuals responsible for delivering an accurate account of the
news.

“What’s going on in the world?” I’ll
open a newspaper. “What’s happening on campus? Guess
I’ll just read the paper.”

While bias is something I have grudgingly come to both accept
and expect, I never thought journalists belonging to credible news
publications could completely fabricate facts, quotes and scenarios
for an extended period of time without being discovered.

The extent of my naivete surfaced upon learning about The New
York Times scandal. I remember reading the story last week,
thinking, “Print journalists can lie? They can just fabricate
information on a whim? Quotes, too?” Yes, unfortunately they
can and do. Especially when they are young, inexperienced and faced
with a deadline.

Jayson Blair of The Times did it for four years. That’s
600 reports ““ stories about the D.C. sniper case included
““ containing questionable information or plagiarized
material. Blair resigned from the Times on May 1 and is now seeking
treatment for personal issues.

Unfortunately, he isn’t the only reporter who is guilty.
Members of The Washington Post, as well as The Boston Globe, just
to name a few, are being investigated for falsifying reports,
exaggerating information and plagiarizing material.

Interestingly enough, this fiasco may have some bearing on the
debates over affirmative action. As the UC system reviews its
minority admission policies and recruiting techniques, many fear
Blair may become the new poster boy for those who wish to ban
affirmative action in all its forms.

Blair is a 27 year-old African American who is suspected to have
been hired and promoted as part of the Times’ program to
diversify its staff. However, can the attempt to diversify an
office be blamed for the long-term employment of an unethical
individual? Certainly not. The editors who allow Blair to continue
his actions share a considerable portion of the blame.

In order to be published, a journalist’s work must pass
through the hands of several editors who then allow the piece to be
printed. Blair’s editor, Howell Raines, stated, “I
believe in aggressively providing hiring and career opportunities
for minorities.” Raines claims he gave no preferential
treatment to Blair specifically but does say, “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 (D.C) sniper team … the answer is
yes.”

While Blair’s incompetence and unethical behavior are his
own doing, Raines’ allowance of several mistakes, due to a
history of “white guilt,” is no justification for
perpetuating the cause, not of a minority, but of a questionable
journalist.

Diversification is not an excuse for allowing incapable
individuals to break the trust of readers by completely abandoning
their journalistic accountability. It is merely a foot in the door
““ a way to enrich the quality of schools and workplaces. Once
one is at the school or workplace of choice, one’s own merit
must carry the greatest weight.

The Times scandal is not an issue of the pitfalls of
diversification. It is rather a demonstration of a lack of
integrity amongst a group of journalists of varying ethnicities, as
well as the inefficiency of editors to cut an individual despite
discrepancies in his work.

For me the scandal served as an awakening of sorts. No
organization is infallible. Bias and incompetence run rampant in
the most credible of places. To get factual information is to
receive it from several sources, further reducing the likelihood of
falling victim to falsehoods.

Varona is a third-year English student. E-mail her at
[email protected].