New York, Thursday (F.A. wire) - In a startling turn of events, a joint investigation by The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times, has discovered that many elements of the recent journalistic fraud scandal and subsequent resignations at The New York Times were partly or wholly fabricated.
As as result, doubt has been cast on the Times’ assertions of inaccurate journalism, internal strife, and the recent “resignations” of top-ranking editors Howell Raines and Gerald M. Boyd.
“We found ourselves becoming increasingly aware that all the ‘facts’ of the Times crisis were being broken by the Times itself,” said Washington Post editor Leonard Downie Jr., referring to the recent scandal over the allegedly fraudulent articles by dismissed Times reporter Jayson Blair. “Since day one, we’ve had to take the Times’ word about how unreliable its word was.”
“How can a paper with its credibility so damaged by its accounts of journalistic fraud be trusted to report truthfully about those accounts? Particularly when it was the only real source for news about the scandals. It just didn’t smell right.”
Others have pointed out that the Times has been devoting a staggering large amount of ink to reporting on the scandal, filling page after page with possibly erroneous reports about its alleged wrongdoings. One reporter said he was uncomfortable with the fact that the Times seemed to have “a monopoly on the biggest journalism story of the decade. They’ve go all the access. And that’s never a good thing.”
For now, the Times has managed to brush off any suggestions that the account of Jayson Blair’s misleading reportage might have been distorted, but there have been repeated suggestions that Mr. Blair might have actually been considerably more truthful and diligent than the public has been led to believe. Even though Mr. Blair confessed to pretending to be in places he wasn’t and filing false “first-hand” accounts simply by rewriting stories from other sources, Boston Globe editor Martin Baron points out that, “We only have the word of the Times and one of its discredited reporters to go on there, so you have to take it with a grain of salt.”
Others have cast doubt upon today’s announced resignations by the Times’ top brass. “We only know this from the Times itself, so I’m not comfortable believing that the resignations ever happened,” said a high-ranking editor at the L.A. Times. “Frankly, I’m not convinced that Howell Raines ever was the editor over there. I mean, how do we know that? Who told us? Consider the source.”





7 comments
Don
June 5, 2003 at 2:04 pm
1Have you noticed the new motto on their masthead:
Sometimes It’s News
Sometimes It’s Fit To Print
;)
Ken, Just Ken...
June 5, 2003 at 2:49 pm
2Wow…
My brain hurts now.
Thanks Adam.
Pat R.
June 6, 2003 at 8:49 am
3How do we know that Frank Rich actually saw all the plays he reviewed and pooped all over? (Maybe the N.Y. theater scene had more reason to hate him than they knew!) How do we know the hacks who do the movie summary-blurbs in the TV section aren’t just copying everything from Maltin’s Guide?
My god, who can we trust if we can’t trust the Times TV section?
Chicory
June 6, 2003 at 11:03 am
4How do we know if the Times is really REALLY the Times???????
Bob
June 6, 2003 at 2:03 pm
5I don’t know what to believe anymore. Can we even be sure that it’s printed on actual paper?
Anonymous
June 6, 2003 at 7:28 pm
6Todo es mentira en este mundo
Todo es mentira la verdad
Todo es mentira yo me digo
Todo es mentira ¿Por qué será?
Manu Chao
John Isbell
June 9, 2003 at 2:08 pm
7Very nice.