Blair the exception, not the rule to journalism

This will be the last you hear from me on the Jayson Blair scandal.

Sadly, the name of Jayson Blair has become as recognizable as, I

don’t know, Chris Steel and Dick Nichols are for making strange

comments at council meetings.

Blair, if you don’t know, is the New York Times reporter who made

up stories and quotes in his meteoric rise to the top. And as I

reported last week, Daily Pilot staffers were also feeling the sting

of his actions like all others in the news profession.

I invited readers to comment and here’s what they had to say:

“What should have been the most troubling aspect of the NY Times

story was the question: Why didn’t all the people involved in the

fake stories speak up sooner?” said one reader. “People have doubted

the media for years,” he continued. “The silver lining you are

looking for might be the realization that in the current world it is

harder for papers to lie. One start would be to have more balance

among reporters, and to own up to our own biases.”

Then this same reader left me with this stunner:

“For instance, your (from last week’s column) hilarious comment:

‘there is a common misconception that minorities get handed jobs they

aren’t qualified for.’ Pretty funny! Obviously minorities are handed

jobs they aren’t qualified for; that is one of the lessons of the

Blair story -- he was only hired because he was black. I’m off the

subject now, but ‘diversity’ hiring merely causes everyone to assume

that minorities were not hired on merit, so all minorities, even the

qualified ones, are tainted by the assumption that they did not earn

their position.”

This comment stuns me for a couple of reasons. First, maybe I

missed it, but I’ve never read any news accounts in which New York

Times editors say they hired Blair because he was black. Instead, it

seems they were drawn to him because he is young and brash and had a

knack for telling and finding good stories (albeit fictional ones).

The reader’s comments that “minorities are handed jobs they aren’t

qualified for” just proves my point about misconception and carries

on an awful and ill-informed stereotype.

As an editor who has hired many journalists, minority or

otherwise, I can vouch that incompetence, like skill and talent,

flows rampant in every race and creed. Back to the reader responses.

Here’s another one from a different reader:

“We trust less as our options to news sources become smaller,” the

reader wrote. “Since large corporations have increasing control over

even small local news sources, and most sources (large and small)

play the same tune, we must become more critical -- skeptical -- of

what the media offers.”

Here’s another misconception I’d like to debunk. Many believe that

since the Daily Pilot is part of the Los Angeles Times Community News

Division, and The Times is owned in turn by the Chicago-based Tribune

Co. that somehow we take our marching orders from them.

That would be news to me and the Pilot staff. We are an autonomous

and independent operation.

Thus, the reason you will see stories on the same topic in The

Times and the Pilot from time to time. The difference is that we

write our stories from a Newport-Mesa perspective and The Times

writes from a regional perspective.

All news and business decisions at the Daily Pilot are made

locally, not in Los Angeles or Chicago. We certainly don’t discuss

stories among ourselves and nor would we ever discuss taking an angle

or a slant.

In fact, the objective in every mainstream and professional news

organization I know of is to present fair and balanced reporting.

The next reader began his e-mail by saying that in his 30 plus

years of reading the Pilot he had never had the occasion to write in.

Usually, when I read an opening line like that, I wince as I get

ready for a bomb blast.

But, not so this time:

“My sense of the Daily Pilot’s culture, starting with editor’s

from many years ago and continuing through your own reign is one

striving for accuracy, facts, and a minimum of spin,” he said. “While

I may not always like everything I read in the Pilot, it’s never

because of a lack of trustworthiness.”

That’s is good to know and thanks to that reader for the vote of

confidence. Now here’s the final take from another loyal reader:

“I was encouraged by your column today, because it told us of your

efforts to address the Jayson Blair issue with your staff,” the

e-mail said. “I would hope every news outlet in the country would do

the same thing -- but doubt if they did.”

I think the Daily Pilot does a good job of assuring accuracy in

its presentation of the news. I know there have been criticisms in

the past -- primarily by persons who received less than favorable

comments on these pages. When you have such a young staff, with lots

of talent but not much real experience, I’m sure it is necessary to

rein in their enthusiasm from time to time.”

While we try in the accuracy department, I must sadly admit that

we too often get things wrong, too much for my taste.

Usually they are minor errors of fact but still errors

nonetheless. And nobody gets more heartburn from that than me, as can

be witnessed by the empty jug of Rolaids sitting in the top drawer of

my desk.

That said, I promise to take up in a future column, our correction

policy and how readers can help us ensure accuracy.