Hard News

1. The New York Times: A Venerable Institution Under Pressure

The New York Times continues to serve as a beacon for the rest of the media world, and it continues to set the standard to which all other media outlets must aspire or against which they must rebel.

Historic role. The New York Times, founded in 1851 and controlled by the Sulzberger family since 1896, established itself as America's "paper of record" by emphasizing judicious, objective reporting. This dedication earned it a cherished reputation for fairness and impartiality, making it a trusted source of truth for generations of readers and the standard for other newspapers. Its influence extends to setting the daily news agenda for hundreds of other media outlets.

Modern challenges. Despite its dominance, the Times faced significant pressures in the early 2000s, including declining newspaper readership, the rise of cable news and weblogs, and a blurring of lines between entertainment and journalism. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. aimed to transform the Times into a "platform agnostic" media company, expanding its national and global reach through ventures like the Discovery Times Channel and acquiring full control of the International Herald Tribune. However, these efforts yielded mixed results and raised questions about neglecting its core newspaper business.

Family legacy. The Sulzberger family's unique, monarchical control, enshrined in a covenant, allowed the Times to prioritize journalistic excellence over maximizing short-term profits, unlike many other family-owned newspaper dynasties that succumbed to internal squabbles or corporate takeovers. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., inheriting this legacy, felt immense pressure to prove his leadership, leading him to seek a visionary editor who shared his ambition for radical change.

2. Howell Raines's Vision: Ambition Meets Autocracy

Raines, who had spent much of his twenty-three-year career at the Times cultivating Sulzberger’s attentions and affections, was named the paper’s executive editor in May 2001.

Ambitious agenda. Howell Raines, a charismatic and imperious Southerner with literary aspirations, was appointed executive editor in May 2001, having convinced Arthur Sulzberger Jr. that the Times had become "bloated, lazy, and complacent." Raines planned to remake the paper into a national daily, dominating every story by "flooding the zone" with the paper's resources, emphasizing quick-hit reports over laborious projects, and reinvigorating cultural and sports coverage, all without a significant budget increase.

Post-9/11 triumphs. Raines's tenure began just before September 11, 2001. The Times's comprehensive and humane coverage of the attacks, including the profoundly moving "Portraits of Grief," earned overwhelming accolades and seven Pulitzer Prizes in 2002. Raines, however, attributed these achievements to his leadership, believing the staff would have been "sitting at our desks with our thumbs up our asses" without him, further fueling his already authoritative nature.

Growing discontent. Despite the accolades, Raines's autocratic style and self-centeredness quickly alienated staff. He embraced a top-down management approach, disdaining his predecessor's empowerment of desk editors and isolating himself in his corner office. His "all-known thoughts" pieces often seemed to prioritize buzz over actual news, and his relentless crusade against Augusta National's membership policy, including spiking dissenting columns, drew widespread ridicule and accusations of journalistic activism.

3. Race and Favoritism: A Newsroom Divided

The culture is such that a lot of people feel in their guts that when they see a minority colleague, they feel a little jolt of unfamiliarity, and some may even feel that the person doesn’t really belong.

Diversity efforts. The Times, like the broader media industry, had a long and "shockingly backward" record on diversity, with minority representation in newsrooms far below national demographics. Past efforts, such as Max Frankel's one-to-one hiring quota in the early 1990s, were often seen as clumsy tokenism, leading to complaints of reverse discrimination and suspicion among minority hires. Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was a vocal champion of diversification, but his predecessor, Joe Lelyveld, questioned simplistic solutions.

Gerald Boyd's role. Raines explicitly made the promotion of Gerald Boyd, an African American, to managing editor part of his pitch for the executive editorship, making him the highest-ranking black editor in the paper's history. Boyd, a "first black" in several career stages, had a reputation for being tough and loyal to his troops, but also for being thin-skinned and sometimes adopting the paper's "hard-nosed swagger." His promotion, however, was seen by some as partially driven by affirmative action, adding to the complex racial dynamics in the newsroom.

Problematic promotions. The paper's public commitment to diversity, coupled with internal pressures, sometimes led to the promotion of minority reporters whose talents were not up to the Times's standards. The case of Kenneth Noble, a black reporter given the prestigious Los Angeles bureau chief job despite a reputation for being an "uninspiring correspondent" and later accused of filching copy, became an example for those who viewed affirmative action efforts as producing negative results, setting an uncomfortable precedent for future hires.

4. Jayson Blair: The Charismatic Con Man's Rise

In 1996, when Jayson Blair began applying for internships on newspapers, he was simply too good to check—a young, ambitious, talented black reporter eager to succeed in an industry that was desperate to diversify its ranks.

Early warning signs. Jayson Blair, a charismatic and energetic young black reporter, exhibited signs of unreliability and fabrication as early as high school, where he allegedly bylined a story he didn't write and was known for manipulating adults while alienating peers. In college, his tenure as editor of the student newspaper was marked by strife, allegations of racism, problematic stories, and fantastical tales, including faking a gas poisoning incident. Despite these issues, his ambition and the industry's push for diversity made him "too good to check."

Rapid ascent at the Times. Blair landed prestigious internships at The Boston Globe and The New York Times, despite warnings from Globe reporters about his gossiping and idea-stealing. At the Times, he quickly gained a reputation for office politics, bragging about connections to senior editors like Gerald Boyd, and being an anonymous source for media columnists. Despite uneven performance and concerns from editors like Joyce Purnick and Jon Landman, Blair was promoted to full-time staff reporter in 2001, a decision Landman believed was influenced by racial considerations.

Personal unraveling. Blair's personal life spiraled out of control, marked by substance abuse, erratic behavior, and a filthy apartment. He began lying to avoid assignments, even claiming a cousin died in the Pentagon to skip writing "Portraits of Grief." His work became increasingly shoddy, culminating in a series of errors in an October 2001 story about a 9/11 memorial concert, which he wrote without attending. Despite a formal reprimand and a warning from Boyd about his career being "in your hands," Blair accused his superiors of racism, a shrewd move in the newsroom's tense environment.

5. The Sniper Story: Blair's Deceptions Unravel

“This guy’s hungry,” Raines said. Neither Raines nor Boyd informed Roberts about Blair’s extensive disciplinary record or numerous corrections; Raines would later claim he hadn’t even been aware of Blair’s problems.

High-stakes assignment. In October 2002, as the D.C. sniper rampage gripped the nation, Howell Raines, eager to "flood the zone" and avoid being beaten, assigned Jayson Blair to the high-profile story. Raines and Boyd, seemingly unaware or dismissive of Blair's extensive disciplinary record and previous errors, saw him as a "hungry" reporter with local knowledge. This decision would prove to be a critical turning point, enabling Blair's deceptions on a national stage.

Fabricated scoops. Blair quickly produced a front-page exclusive with details about John Muhammad's arrest, sourced to five anonymous law enforcement officials. However, reporters in the Times's Washington bureau immediately questioned the story's veracity, as their own reporting contradicted Blair's claims. Despite public refutations from prosecutors and FBI officials, and the Washington Post picking apart his piece, Raines praised Blair's "great scoop" in an email, which was seen by many as a thinly veiled message to his dissenting editors.

Systemic failure. Raines's unwavering support for Blair, coupled with the failure of editors to demand source identification or share Blair's problematic track record, allowed his deceptions to continue. Blair's editor on the sniper stories, Nick Fox, later stated he would have been "much more wary" if he had known Blair's history. Blair's ability to fabricate stories from New York while claiming to be in D.C. highlighted a systemic breakdown in editorial oversight and a newsroom culture where top editors' favorites were seemingly immune to scrutiny.

6. The Times's Unprecedented Self-Investigation

“The notion that Jayson wasn’t in Los Fresnos changes things substantially,” Boyd said. “We need to go back and look at everything, starting with the work he did for the national desk.”

The scandal breaks. The Jayson Blair scandal erupted when Macarena Hernandez, a former Times intern and reporter for the San Antonio Express-News, recognized entire passages of her story about a missing soldier, Juanita Anguiano, lifted nearly verbatim in Blair's front-page Times piece. Robert Rivard, her editor, formally complained to the Times, while Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post also received a tip, forcing the Times to confront the issue publicly.

The "Blair Witch Project". Gerald Boyd, initially hoping to contain the damage, assembled an unprecedented team of five reporters—Dan Barry, David Barstow, Jonathan Glater, Adam Liptak, and Jacques Steinberg—and two editors, Glenn Kramon and Lorne Manly, to investigate Blair's career. This team, dubbed the "Blair Witch Project," was tasked with examining Blair's work, starting with his national desk assignments, and was given a mandate to report on their superiors, including Raines and Boyd themselves.

Uncovering the fraud. The team quickly discovered the scale of Blair's deception: he had not only plagiarized but routinely fabricated stories, often remaining in New York while claiming to be on assignment across the country. By triangulating cellphone records, expense reports, and datelines, they found that of 73 stories Blair wrote between October 2002 and May 2003, at least 36 had substantial problems. The investigation revealed Blair's ingenious use of technology, like accessing the Times's internal photo archives, to create convincing but false narratives.

7. The Town Hall: Staff Rebellion Erupts

“I believe at a deep level you guys have lost the confidence of many parts of the newsroom,” Sexton said. “I do not feel a sense of trust and reassurance that judgments are properly made. People feel less led than bullied.”

Public humiliation. The Times's four-page report on Jayson Blair, published May 11, 2003, was an unprecedented act of self-excoriation, calling Blair's actions "a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper." This public admission, coupled with the lack of accountability for Raines and Boyd, intensified the media frenzy and fueled internal resentment. The scandal became a national story, with late-night hosts and other news outlets ridiculing the Times.

A fateful meeting. On May 14, Raines, Boyd, and Sulzberger faced over 500 employees at a hastily arranged town hall meeting in a movie theater, a scene captured by a mob of photographers and TV crews. Sulzberger's awkward opening ("It sucks") and Raines's defensive admission of favoring Blair due to his race (a claim he later retracted) failed to quell the anger. Boyd, in turn, minimized his involvement with Blair's career, further alienating staff.

Open revolt. The meeting quickly devolved into an open rebellion, with reporters and editors airing years of pent-up frustration. Business reporter Alex Berenson directly asked Raines if he would resign, a question met with applause. Deputy metro editor Joe Sexton's impassioned speech, accusing leadership of losing trust and bullying staff, provoked Raines to shout, "Don't demagogue me." This outburst solidified the staff's perception of Raines's autocratic style and sealed his fate, demonstrating that the Blair controversy was ultimately about Raines's leadership.

8. Rick Bragg: Favoritism Fuels Further Scandal

“The problem is we’ve had a two-tier system that has allowed Bragg to carve out one system for him (cutting corners, using a huge stringer network, telling people he can’t be edited) and another for everyone else.”

Bragg's special treatment. Amidst the fallout from the Blair scandal, an internal investigation uncovered another egregious offense involving Rick Bragg, one of Raines's favorite writers. Bragg, known for his lyrical stories about the American South, had used an uncredited, unpaid stringer, J. Wes Yoder, to do the majority of reporting for a front-page feature on oyster fishermen. Bragg merely performed a "toe-touch" dateline, flying in briefly to Apalachicola, Florida, before filing the story.

Newsroom outrage. The Times issued an editors' note acknowledging Bragg's failure to credit Yoder, which sparked further outrage in the newsroom. Bragg, who had a history of errors and boasted about operating by different rules, was widely reviled by colleagues who felt he received preferential treatment. National correspondents, already pushed to file multiple stories weekly, openly criticized the "two-tier system" that allowed Bragg to cut corners and avoid editing, while his stories frequently landed on page one.

Bragg's resignation. Bragg, suspended for two weeks, defended his actions by claiming other Times reporters also relied on stringers, further impugning the staff's reputation. This prompted an immediate and furious response from national correspondents, who sent open letters to media blogs, vehemently denying Bragg's claims and expressing their disgust. Faced with overwhelming staff rebellion and the erosion of trust, Bragg resigned, a decision Raines accepted, marking another blow to his already precarious leadership.

9. Raines and Boyd Resign: A Culture Shift

“I didn’t realize until this minute how much I missed you all,” Lelyveld said, smiling slightly, after receiving a sustained ovation. “So as I was saying,” he began, gently referring to his previous tenure.

The inevitable departure. Following the town hall meeting and the Rick Bragg scandal, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. faced immense pressure from within the newsroom and from family members to address the leadership crisis. Despite his initial public support for Raines, Sulzberger began to realize that the newsroom's dysfunction, fueled by Raines's autocratic style and favoritism, was irreparable under his leadership. On June 3, 2003, Raines and Boyd were informed they would be stepping down.

Lelyveld's return. On June 4, Sulzberger announced the resignations of Raines and Boyd, stating they were "putting the interests of this newspaper...above their own." Joe Lelyveld, Raines's predecessor, was appointed interim executive editor. Lelyveld's return was met with a sustained ovation and a speech that gently but firmly repudiated Raines's leadership, emphasizing "civility," listening to reporters, and the paper's mission to readers. He vowed to restore values of openness and teamwork, signaling a dramatic shift in newsroom culture.

Healing the wounds. Lelyveld's speech, filled with humility and a focus on collective effort, was exactly what the demoralized staff needed to hear. His presence immediately brought a sense of "exhausted relief" and a return to journalistic focus. The newsroom, which had been consumed by internal politics and resentment, began to heal, demonstrating that the crisis was less about Jayson Blair and more about the leadership style that had alienated so many.

10. Healing and Reform: Keller's New Era

“I don’t want to dwell on my predecessor,” Keller told me. “But I will say this: The one thing that made me a little sick watching [Raines’s Charlie Rose appearance] was the collateral damage.”

A new leadership team. On July 14, 2003, Bill Keller, who had been passed over for the executive editor role two years prior, was appointed as the permanent executive editor. Keller, known for his nuanced thinking and collaborative approach, quickly moved to restore morale and functionality. He appointed Jill Abramson and John Geddes as the paper's first two managing editors, and oversaw a significant turnover of desk editors and department heads, bringing in new talent and promoting respected internal figures like Jon Landman.

Institutional reforms. Beyond personnel changes, Keller, with Sulzberger's support, implemented recommendations from internal committees established in the wake of the Blair scandal. These reforms included:

• Creating a "public editor" (ombudsman) position, filled by Daniel Okrent.
• Appointing Al Siegal as standards editor to codify journalistic practices.
• Establishing a career-development editor, Glenn Kramon, to oversee management training and mandatory annual reviews.
• Instituting mandatory freshman orientation for new hires and a prescribed mentoring system.

Rebuilding trust and quality. Keller's leadership focused on healing the newsroom, emphasizing collaboration over combat, and investing in quality journalism. The Times began a hiring spree, poaching talent from other papers, and continued to revamp its cultural coverage. While challenges remained, Keller's approach aimed to reverse the "collateral damage" of Raines's tenure, reaffirming the Times's core journalistic values and its commitment to its employees.

11. The Lingering Shadow: WMD Coverage and Leadership Questions

“My sense was that Howell Raines was eager to have articles that supported the warmongering out of Washington,” former investigative editor Doug Frantz wrote in an e-mail to me.

Flawed Iraq reporting. Even after Raines's departure, the Times faced lingering questions about its flawed coverage of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. During Raines's tenure, the paper published numerous stories, particularly by Judith Miller and Patrick Tyler, that took Bush administration and Iraqi exile claims at face value, contributing to the rationale for war. These stories were later revealed to be "not breaking news, they were just plain broken."

Institutional accountability. In May 2004, the Times published an editors' note acknowledging "coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been" and "problematic articles" that relied on a "circle of Iraqi informants, defectors, and exiles bent on 'regime change'." Public editor Daniel Okrent further criticized the "credulous" reporting and "heavy breathing headlines." The failure was deemed "institutional," stemming from a "hunger for scoops," a culture that prized flashy front-page stories, and a tendency to coddle prized sources—all characteristics exacerbated under Raines.

Sulzberger's continued challenges. The WMD reporting highlighted the enduring impact of Raines's leadership, particularly his encouragement of Miller's reporting and his desire to counter perceptions of liberal bias. While Arthur Sulzberger Jr. eventually accepted some blame for not listening harder to the newsroom, questions persisted about his judgment in selecting Raines and his blind faith in an autocratic leader. The episode underscored the ongoing challenge for the Times to maintain journalistic integrity amidst internal pressures and external political agendas, even as it pursued its ambitious business plans for national and global expansion.