Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/5/2003 9:35:17 AM EDT
NEW YORK (June 5) -- New York Times executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd resigned Thursday amid the turmoil sparked by the Jayson Blair journalistic fraud scandal. ''This is a day that breaks my heart,'' Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told hundreds of staffers at an emotional morning meeting in the newspaper's third-floor newsroom. The Times announced that Joseph Lelyveld, 66, the paper's former executive editor, had been named interim executive editor and would assume Raines' responsibilities. No one will be named interim managing editor, the Times said. Sulzberger thanked Raines and Boyd for putting the interests of the newspaper first. The Blair scandal wasn't mentioned at Thursday morning's staff meeting, but it had started a weeks-long period of turbulence at the Times. Blair, 27, resigned May 1 after he was found by the Times to have ''committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud.'' The newspaper announced it would form a committee to review newsroom policies, including hiring practices, the use of unidentified sources, the use of freelancers and byline and dateline practices. The two top editors had been the focus of much of the criticism, particularly for allowing Blair to cover the Washington-area sniper case when the metropolitan editor had previously raised concerns about the reporter's mistakes. As shock waves reverberated over the Blair revelations, Pulitzer Prize-winning Times reporter Rick Bragg resigned May 28. The newspaper had suspended Bragg over a story that carried his byline but was reported largely by a freelancer. ''We know this has been a difficult period,'' Raines said to the Times staff in an e-mail announcing Bragg's resignation. Raines and Boyd each made statements during Thursday's meeting, drawing prolonged applause from the staff members, some of whom were in tears. Boyd spoke of his commitment to diversity and was briefly interrupted by applause. Retired Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Sr. - father of the current publisher - also attended the meeting, standing silently throughout. ''Everybody is upset about what happened,'' said Dee Wedemeyer, an editor. ''They have made enormous contributions during their tenure,'' Sulzberger Jr. said of Raines and Boyd, ''including an extraordinary seven Pulitzer Prizes in 2002 and another this year. I appreciate all of their efforts in continuing the legacy of our great newspaper.'' The editors quit more than a month after Blair resigned from the newspaper, later telling the New York Observer that he ''fooled some of the most brilliant people in journalism'' with his reporting. An initial investigation found fraud, plagiarism and inaccuracies in 36 of 73 articles Blair wrote between October and April. The Times detailed the fraud over four full pages in its May 11 edition, but the controversy was not quelled. In an e-mail to staffers on Thursday, Sulzberger Jr. said ''with great sadness,'' he agreed with the editors' decision to leave. ''Given the events of the last month ... Howell and Gerald concluded that it was best for The Times that they step down.'' Raines became executive editor just days before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The following April, the Times received a record seven Pulitzer Prizes - five for its coverage of the terrorist attacks and another for coverage of the war in Afghanistan. He had been criticized for what some saw as his autocratic management style. ''You view me as inaccessible and arrogant,'' he told staffers at a May 14 meeting. ''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.'' Before becoming executive editor, Raines had been editor of the editorial page for eight years and previously headed the newspaper's bureaus in Washington and London when he was named executive editor to replace the retiring Lelyveld. He won a Pulitzer Prize for feature writing in 1992 for a memoir he wrote for The New York Times Magazine about his childhood friendship in Alabama with his family's black housekeeper. Boyd, 52, was named managing editor in 2001. He had been deputy managing editor for news from 1997 to 2001, and assistant managing editor from 1993 until 1997. He joined the newspaper in 1983 Lelyveld retired in 2001 after serving as executive editor for seven years. During his tenure, the Times won 12 Pulitzer Prizes, introduced color to its pages, added new sections and expanded its national circulation. AP-NY-06-05-03 1238EDT Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:41:54 AM EDT
"Fell on their swords" my ass. They were booted because of the absolute ASS-KICKING the NYT is (finally!) taking over all this. Good riddance to the commie bastards! Hopefully the board will appoint a JOURNALIST rather than a frustrated dictator wanna-be.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:47:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 9:54:31 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Well since they brought back the guy who was their editor till the summer of 2001, don't expect a radical change in content. Another thing. Cases like this have cropped up from time to time in the past, and journalists have pretty much covered for each other. Someone gets fired, and then all the institutions close ranks and it is forgotten. What is different this time? Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp which includes Fox News Channel. When these same people caught lying, the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC, decided to attack Murdoch openly as a propaganda artist for the Bush Administration over the war in Iraq they pissed Murdoch off. He then did the journalistic equivilant of "Going Nuclear" by outing their lies and selling out to dictators for access. This is some of the fallout.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:51:45 AM EDT
They're a socialist rag...this just highlights that fact. Expect them to go even farther left than they have. They only "found" the latest liars in recent days, which means there will probably be more to come. Hopefully this lets the nation see how skewed they really are.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 10:04:22 AM EDT
I like their motto:"All the news that's fit to tint." something like that.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:05:36 PM EDT
These must be heady days for [url=www.andrewsullivan.com]Andrew Sullivan[/url] He has practically devoted his blog to all the bias, half-truths and everything objectionable about the NY Times and Howell Raines since Raines became editor in 2001. This was when the NY was unchallenged as the greatest and most prestigious newspaper in America. There was this lone nut howling foul at every PC and liberal guilt-serving article he could find. I started reading Sullivan's blog during the Iraq war. Half his blog was devoted to criticizing the BBC's and the NY Times's coverage. When the Jayson Blair thing happened, Sullivan wasn't surprised in the least, especially when the heads that rolled were reporters, not the editors who hired and enabled them. To see Raines and this Boyd guy go must be enormously satisfying for Andrew Sullivan. Raines was like his White Whale. I bet he's celebrating mightily this weekend. Sweet for Matt Drudge too, since the NY Times has long derided him and his work as illegitimate and not true, serious, reputable journalism (which the NY Times is the irrfeutable paragon of, in it its own eyes). Truly a great day. I'd like to see the Washington Post become the leading paper of this country. Better reporting, more balanced.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 12:20:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: Truly a great day. I'd like to see the Washington Post become the leading paper of this country. Better reporting, more balanced.
View Quote
Are you sure? I believe the nickname for the NY Post, is Pravda on the Potomac?
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 12:28:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/7/2003 12:31:57 AM EDT by raven]
Originally Posted By warlord:
Originally Posted By raven: Truly a great day. I'd like to see the Washington Post become the leading paper of this country. Better reporting, more balanced.
View Quote
Are you sure? I believe the nickname for the NY Post, is Pravda on the Potomac?
View Quote
The NY Post is a right-leaning tabloid. The Washington Post is a typical, urban liberal newspaper. But anyone with a clue knows that the real problem with the NY Times wasn't the white liberal guilt of its editor who indulged a crappy cub reporter, but the way it distorted facts to fit a certain liberal agenda it wanted to promulgate. The Washington Post has never had this problem. The Washington Post is a very decent paper in comparison. Half the stories Drudge links to are from the WP. The great conservative opinion columnist Charles Krauthammer is employed by the WP. The best the NY Times has is Thomas Friedman, who is very wishy washy and sometimes ridiculous. The rest of their columnists are shrieking and hystericl liberals. The worst of which is Paul Krugman (who Raines hired) and Maureen Dowd, who no one can possibly take seriously after her consistent twisting of Bush's statements, and her tone of writing that reduces the most important issues to trivial jokes. Hard to know what I'm talking about unless you read her regularly.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 1:55:32 AM EDT
He won a Pulitzer Prize for feature writing in 1992 for a memoir he wrote for The New York Times Magazine about his childhood friendship in Alabama with his family's black housekeeper.
View Quote
[rofl2] What a joke! Can I get a Pulitzer if I write about my black friends when I was a kid? I trust no man who pats himself of the back in full display of the public. For that matter, I trust no news agency who does the same and by trying to make themselves seem like better people for "cleaning" house and looking down upon this sad display of botched jounalistic integrity. We all know damn well they'll write whatever they know they can sell and can't be proven wrong, regardless if it's truth. It's funny, the AP had a problem w/ this about a year ago, but it never made the light of day. I have an inside source that told me all about the situation. She told me that 50% of this guys stories/souces/quotes came straight out of his ass and into print. To this day, she wonders why I laugh at her pin that says "Trust me, I'm a reporter." That's the very reason I don't trust those people.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 3:23:00 AM EDT
Make no mistake, under the guise of freedom, the NYT Marxists are alive and prospering. The Democratic party has been infiltrated by the Socialists. They have said that they would use our own laws against us and they are doing just that, to destroy our freedom & way of life. Sounds tin foil, but the more you read, the more you'll find the truth. The Republican party is far from perfect, but it is the last hope to holding onto America. R.E. the Socialist Rag NYT They are trying/going to pull a NYT Pulitzer Prize that was awarded way back in the 1930's. The journalist, Walter Duranty, praising the great Socialist way of life, neglected to report the fact that 10 million Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death on the orders of the Stalin during the Artificial Ukrainian Famine of 1932-3 in order that Stalin's brand of communism could prosper. The story behind the revocation:[url] http://www.augb.co.uk/Durantyprotest/English.html[/url] Excerpt from a online newspaper. Pulitzer Prize board begins review of Duranty's award by Andrew Nynka PARSIPPANY, N.J. - In response to an international campaign, The Pulitzer Prize Board has begun an "appropriate and serious review" of the award given to Walter Duranty of The New York Times, an administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes said on May 20. The board's administrator said in a telephone interview that the review began as a result of the thousands of letters and e-mails the board received in early May. A confidential review by the 18-member Pulitzer Prize Board is intended to seriously consider all relevant information regarding Mr. Duranty's award, said Sig Gissler, administrator for the Pulitzer Prizes. "There are no written procedures regarding prize revocation. There are no standards or precedents for revoking the prize. We look at what would be reasonable and analyze the factors that would have to be considered," Mr. Gissler said, referring to the fact that since the creation of the Pulitzer Prizes in 1917 the board has never revoked an award. The letters, postcards and e-mails the Pulitzer office received since the campaign began this spring have not yet been accurately counted, but Mr. Gissler did say that the number was in the thousands.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 3:25:59 AM EDT
were there swords pre-ban or post? Illegal use of an assualt sword?
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 3:30:24 AM EDT
And I though I was the only person that kept a sword these days.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 7:01:48 AM EDT
[url=http://kfwb.com/news_national.asp?displayOption=&contentGUID={0B41A09F-4F73-4958-B4AF-2AB0F5241739}&groupName=KFWB%20News%20National%20Headlines&siteGUID={3B62BF55-4A93-48E6-A45D-6A495DC423AD}]All The News That Is Fit To Print: A Chronology of the Scandal[/url] Howell Raines (right-center) and Gerald Boyd, the two top editors who resigned had been the focus of much of the criticism, particularly for allowing Blair to cover the Washington-area sniper case when the metropolitan editor had previously raised concerns about the reporter's mistakes. As shock waves reverberated over the Blair revelations, Pulitzer Prize-winning Times reporter Rick Bragg resigned May 28. The newspaper had suspended Bragg over a story that carried his byline but was reported largely by a freelancer. Some key dates in a tumultuous five weeks at The New York Times: --April 29, 2003: San Antonio Express-News Editor Robert Rivard e-mails Executive Editor Howell Raines at The New York Times. The Express-News suspects Times reporter Jayson Blair copied material from its story about a Texas woman whose son was killed in combat in Iraq. --May 1: Blair, 27, resigns. --May 2: Blair apologizes in a letter to the Times for his "lapse of journalistic integrity." He adds: "I have been struggling with recurring personal issues, which have caused me great pain. I am now seeking appropriate counseling ... and I regret what I have done." --May 11: The Times publishes a detailed accounting of articles written by Blair in which falsification, plagiarism or other problems were discovered by a team of Times reporters and researchers. The investigation finds problems in at least 36 of the 73 articles; 600 others continue to be investigated. The Times describes the episode as "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper." --May 14: Raines, Managing Editor Gerald Boyd and publisher Arthur Sulzberger hold a town hall-style staff meeting. They apologize for mistakes and oversights that allowed Blair to repeatedly fabricate and plagiarize material. --May 20: Blair says in an interview with the New York Observer that he "fooled some of the most brilliant people in journalism." Reports also emerge that Blair has hired an agent to get him a book deal detailing his experiences at the Times. --May 21: The Times announces a committee of 20 staff members and two outside news executives to review newsroom policies in the aftermath of the Blair scandal. --May 24: The Times suspends Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Rick Bragg for two weeks over a story that carried his byline but was reported largely by a freelancer. --May 28: Bragg resigns. --May 29: In a memo to the staff, Raines and Boyd say they are confident in the integrity of the newspaper. --June 5: Raines and Boyd resign. Joseph Lelyveld, the Times' former executive editor, is named interim executive editor.
Top Top