Prologue:

I know many of you will be put on the defensive by the title of this post, and some are likely to call this a rant. This is not my intent. I’m not going to argue politics, philosophy, or indulge in name calling here. This piece is merely one of observation and yes, mild disgust.

First, my background. I’m a registered Independent. I hold a journalism degree from Cal Poly University, and am in the process of completing the MCDM program at the University of Washington. My childhood was spent in Wyoming, my teen years in Maryland, my undergrad in California, and now, my adult life in the Pacific Northwest.

I do not like politics; I find them rarely to be anything more than both sides sticking to their party lines and refusing to compromise or listen to each other. My professional training demands that I remain objective, viewing the issues from both sides, judging policy on its legal, financial, and social merits alone. I do, however, object to when people are attacked, rather than the issues… and here we arrive at the point of this post: I have had enough.

The Situation (because in PR, there is never a “problem”):

Not that it’s any of your business, but I voted for Obama. I was excited by the promises he offered, by his eloquent rhetoric, and the way he inspired many of my peers to action. However, I, like many citizens I’m sure, have been disappointed in the way things have turned out; nothing much has been done, no great social strides have been made, and I find this country to be much more divided. Before anyone accuses me of this, I do not blame the President (indeed, who can? I have not heard him speak enough times to be able to determine his personal stance on any issue). Nevertheless, I cannot help but be concerned by the way a certain group is being marginalized, nay, even persecuted for their beliefs. Surprisingly enough, these are the people who have been accused of running the country (into the ground) from behind closed doors for years. Yep, I’m talking about the GOP; I’m talking about Republicans.

A Question of Rhetoric

Nazis, ignorant rednecks, war-mongers, the POX-Nation… I’ve heard it all, many times over. Honestly though, if this name-calling was reserved for the political arena, I wouldn’t mind so much… but during the past few months, I’ve heard these disparaging remarks come up in casual conversations that have nothing to do with government, even from people for whom I usually have great admiration. Even worse, I’ve heard people whom I love a great deal carelessly disparaged by people who thought they were being cute. Readers, I’d like to point out somethings before I go on:

* Nazis believed in a powerful, centralized system of government (the power of the state, if you will) and a strong military… hmm, so based on that incredibly broad generalization and over-simplification of one of the most twisted regimes the world has ever known, seems to me like both parties could be accused of having a little “heil” in them.

* All Republicans can hardly be accused of being ignorant rednecks when I personally know several who hold PhD s and Masters degree in psychology, economics, education, business, etc. I am sick of the argument that when people are educated about the issues, they vote Democrat… and if not, well shucks, they just be a real bunch o’ ignorant yokles, I reckon’.

* The POX Nation – I’ll state up front: I don’t particularly care for a lot of the programming on FOX News. Then again, I really don’t like TV journalism in general. I find it to be bombastic, and “colorful” at best. That being said, it cannot be denied that (from time to time) Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and Greta Van Sustren have some pretty interesting things to say, and that if I try to make this point in any argument, people will stop listening to me. Yup, first I’ll watch them roll their eyes and then they’ll slump forward in an attitude of “I-could-care-less-what-you’re-saying-because-you-mentioned-He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named-and-clearly-don’t-know-the-issues-despite-the-fact-that-when-you-were-quoting-the-BBC-earlier-I-was-quite-attentive.” Look people, not every story aired on FOX is a piece of crap, just like not every story ever printed by The New York Times is solid gold. Look up Jayson Blair, go on… I’ll wait.

Keep Your Politics to Yourself

Like I said at the beginning, if all this mud-slinging took place in the three-ring circus that is politics (thank you School House Rock), I really wouldn’t be writing this post. However, I am seeing more and more instances where this persecution (Merriam-Webster: specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief) is sneaking into areas where it has no right to be. That’s right folks, here comes the part where you’ll accuse me of overreacting to a Wired article… but that’s OK, because when I feel something I am passionate about is being tainted by someone else’s desire to be clever and nasty, I take issue. Yup, even if it’s just a silly little Sci-Fi show about a guy and a blue box traveling through space and time. Moreover, I’m a writer… and it’s been pounded in my head that if someone makes a claim that serves no purpose and has no support, they get penalized.

So here you go, Scott Brown, this is your slap on the wrist from me for blaming the poor reception of RTD’s Doctor Who in the USA on anglophobes and … Glenn Beck?

“[Doctor Who] was TV’s first real postimperial science fiction, devised in a time of scarcity, dispossession, and massive social deflation — but also great hope for the future. Sound familiar, America? Oh, I can hear the teabaggers now: This is defeatist talk! Doesn’t sound like your cup of Tetley, eh, Glenn Beck?”

Seriously…?

Writers (and for that matter, all people) of the world, if your idea of being relevant and, as The Doctor himself would say, “clever,” is bashing on conservatives… I’ve got news for you: I’m tired of it. It’s kind of like calling all Democrats tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing dope-smoking bums.It’s old, lacks class, and is, for all intents and purposes, just plain annoying.

So give it a rest… pretty please?

Because no matter how many people I piss off, I like to leave them with a smile

We’ve been discussing the future of the news a lot in my journalism classes — along with everyone else in the field — and I have to admit, I’m not completely sold on the concept of citizen journalism.

The Watergate Complex

It’s an interesting idea, one that many are already attempting to put into organized practice. Citizens are, more often than not, the ones affect by the news we cover, so it’s a logical next step that they be involved in the collecting, reporting and circulating of news. The Internet can make this easy to some extent. Something major happens in a neighborhood — crime, a fire, a huge event — and community members take to the Web to post their videos or offer information about what they saw. The process can be quite effective, adding a new depth to reporting that a single journalist may or may not be able to achieve alone.

Plus that’s part of the goal of journalism, isn’t it? Ideally news coverage would encourage the community to care more about an issue affecting them, hopefully leading citizens to take a more active role in their communities, including local news outlets.

There’s examples of this working. The Answer Lady is one local example. The Buffalo University Heights neighborhood resident blogs about local politics and the rampant crime that’s been plaguing the college student-heavy area of Buffalo for years — crime that all too often involves students and their omnipresent red party cups.

But for every effective example there are a thousand caps-locked, grammar impaired anonymous bloggers and commenters spewing fact-less opinions, and it’s often those who yell the loudest, but not necessarily the smartest, who are heard.

Though on the other hand, while many of us would say that we strive for the upmost in professionalism and unbiased reporting, journalism certainly has it’s fair share of skeletons. We champion Woodward and Bernstein as examples of journalism done oh so right — but the examples of journalism gone wrong sometimes seem to eclipse them. Jayson Blair anyone?

Cynicism aside, I’d like to see citizen journalism flourish. I’m just unsure what form it should take to be most effective.

The debate continues.

Lexington, Va.

A couple of weeks ago Jayson Blair, former journalist for the NY Times who was caught fabricating and plagiarizing stories (the ol’ Stephen Glass type), was invited to give a speech on journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Virginia.
This is the clip of his speech:

I actually thought it was a pretty good speech. He shows remorse for what he did and had the courage to stand in front of all those people and give a speech about journalism ethics. He did not try and pin his failings on others.

In teaching journalism ethics we should always be aware of what NOT to do. This is imperative if we want to educate aspiring journalists (like myself) about crossing ethical lines. It is not always effective to teach people what they should do because, as Blair pointed out, “it is possible for good people to do bad things.”

What do you think, was this a quality speech? What do you think is an important aspect in teaching journalism ethics?

by The McCuistion Program, November 17, 2009.

During this weekend’s episode, Is “Corporate Ethics” an Oxymoron?, panelists discussed everything that surrounds corporate business ethics and the breakdown of ethics in portions of corporate America in the past years.  During the program, panelists discuss how the ethics of corporations will only be as strong as the ethics of the individuals that make up the organization.  This is a fascinating point as it leads to questions regarding hiring, promoting and the overall leadership training of organizations.  Tagging onto the question of corporate business ethics, the overarching question of ethics in general beg question.

In 2003, reporter Jayson Blair made national headlines for his lack of ethical reporting.  He had covered stories for the New York Times, ranging from the D.C. sniper case to the rescue of Jessica Lynch.  Unfortunately, he had both plagiarized and fabricated details of many of the stories he had written…(continue reading)

Journalism is changing rapidly. We all know that. A question has been raised by Mary Sanchez of the Kansas City Star whether these desperate times of journalists struggling for their jobs cause them to be unethical. I found this topic interesting, because it could very well be true. Journalists are struggling right now with the rise of online and citizen journalism. Could it get to the point where journalists actually fabricate stories to keep their jobs?
Mary Sanchez writes about ethics and journalism because “Jayson Blair, the plagiarizing, fabricate-as-you-go former New York Times reporter, was invited to speak with journalism students at Washington and Lee University on, of all things, ethics.” Jayson Blair was a journalist for the New York Times that fabricated dozens of stories as he wrote for one of the nation’s most influential newspapers. This is interesting because he talked about how he screwed up to tons of students and future journalists that want to have the job that he had.
Sanchez also makes note of CNN’s Lou Dobbs recently resigning from the news team. Lou Dobbs had built up a reputation for himself about illegal immigration. On his news show, he would put on extremists of the issue, and claim them as an expert. Dobbs would also claim false information to be fact. For example, he said that “one-third of the nation’s prison inmates are illegal immigrants, [when] in fact, less than 7 percent of inmates are noncitizens, whether here illegally or not.”
Blair and Dobbs had different forms of presenting poor judgment and bad journalism, but they were both desperate. To me, this reminds me of one of the topics that we were talking about with Lisa Williams on Thursday. Blogging is a new form of writing, but I’m curious to know if it is always journalism. The reason why I don’t think it is always journalism is because like Williams said, bloggers already know what they are going to say on a topic, and aren’t expecting to learn something new. But, when you are a journalist trying to write a story, you always learn something new in your interviews, and your story could in fact end up taking a different turn with the new information you learned from your subjects.
It’s so easy to post something online these days, and a journalist has to remember that even when posting things online, you still have to hold those same journalistic values, standards, and ethics that you would when writing for a print publication. Don’t get desperate as a writer, and stick to the truth.

In case you didn’t scroll all the way to the bottom of our previous story, here’s the Chronicle’s 10-minute video interview with former NYTer Jayson Blair. He says he has finally forgiven himself for his transgressions while working at the Times – have you?

By Becky Bratu and Cameron Steele

The sun streamed through the room’s large glass windows, lighting the weary faces of Washington and Lee University students, professional journalists, academics and notorious former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair. The crunching sound of chips accompanied Washington and Lee professor Dayo Abah’s talk about media law over a lunch of boxed sandwiches and salads. As the participants of the university’s 48th Journalism Ethics Institute finished the last of their Italian paninis and cobb salads, Abah began to explain false light – a privacy tort similar to libel.

Unless someone is crazy, he’s not going to write a false story about someone else, Abah said. An awkward moment of silence followed her words as most of the 20 people in the room glanced at Blair.

“Oh, and I’m not talking about Jayson [Blair],” Abah added with a nervous laugh.

Blair laughed, and others in the room followed suit. Students shook their heads, making eye contact with each other. As the Ethics Institute neared its end, the feeling that Jayson Blair was the elephant in the room still lingered.

“I’m sorry, Jayson,” Abah said. Blair waved his arms in the air and laughed again, dismissing her apology.

But Blair himself was not forgiven so easily. Blair left the Times in shame after a 2003 investigation uncovered that he had plagiarized and fabricated major elements of his stories. In August, the plagiarist-turned-life-coach agreed to give a public speech as the keynoter for the institute – a two-day event during which journalism students, professors and professionals discuss ethical dilemmas facing the news media. Blair’s public speech read like a 20-minute-long apology.

And forgiveness didn’t seem to follow. Not after Friday night’s speech to about 150 people, and not after the last of the institute’s two private sessions concluded Saturday morning. Still, Edward Wasserman, the Knight Professor of journalism ethics who first asked Blair to W&L, said he was happy with Blair’s performance at the institute.

“I was pleased with the turn-out,” Wasserman said. “I was worried about it.”

In an exclusive interview with the Commonwealth Chronicle, Blair said when Wasserman first contacted him in August, he saw speaking at W&L as an opportunity to permanently close a scandalous chapter of his life.

“I’ve gotten to the point where I’ve forgiven myself for what I did,” said Blair. “I just needed an opportunity to do something good and for something good to come out of my actions.”

The Institute

Since the mid-1990s, W&L’s Journalism Ethics Institute has been the centerpiece for the capstone journalism ethics course. Twice a year, junior and senior journalism majors get the chance to talk to professors and outside media professionals in seminar settings, where the participants discuss real-life ethical cases. Wasserman, who’s led the institute since he came to W&L six years ago, divides these cases into temptations and dilemmas. While the former category deals with clear-cut decisions between wrong and right, the latter poses more challenges, as practicing journalists try to balance out personal and professional obligations.

Wasserman said it’s his goal to transform the institute seminars into “a kind of Socratic garden.” Inviting Blair to participate in the conference was a huge departure for the program, said Wasserman.

“The idea seems absurd of Jayson Blair keynoting an ethics institute, but it’s an opportunity for students to confront a key figure in a major ethical scandal,” he said.

This year, Wasserman invited seven other journalism professionals and academics to join Blair at the institute. They included: Caesar Andrews, former editor of The Detroit Free Press and Reynolds Distinguished Visiting Professor in Journalism at W&L; Jon Carras, producer, CBS Sunday Morning; Michael Getler, ombudsman, PBS News; Arlene Morgan, associate dean at Columbia University School of Journalism; John Watson, associate professor in the American University School of Communication; Reed Williams, reporter with the Richmond Times-Dispatch; and Corinna Zarek, Freedom of Information Director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

W&L journalism students smile for the camera. Students, professors, journalists and Blair attended dinner after the Friday night speech.

“How did TMZ get the biggest scoop of its short, four-year history?” Carras asked in his case study hand-out. “Should ‘old’ media have reported the story based solely on TMZ’s report?”

A couple students glanced sideways at Blair, who sat quietly as he leaned an elbow onto the table beside him. Arlene Morgan broke the silence, beginning what was to be a heated, two-day debate between students and professionals about various ethical dilemmas.

“The last I heard, journalism was supposed to be based on facts,” Arlene Morgan said, and a few more students shot looks in Blair’s direction.

The case studies

TMZ was the first outlet to report Michael Jackson’s death, beating the Los Angeles Times, NBC, CNN and others by an hour, said Carras in his case study. The conversation that ensued focused on “new” media standards and practices, and the seemingly unfair competition between traditional and new media to break a story first. The speed versus accuracy debate proved foreboding. In his public speech later that afternoon, Blair talked about the pressure felt in a stretched and fatigued Times newsroom after 9/11.

“Somewhere along the way, on my way of climbing upwards, I lost sight of the very reason I entered journalism,” Blair said in his speech.

When Morgan presented the second case after a snack break and an hour of discussion, Blair appeared relaxed and comfortable enough to take part in the debate. Morgan’s case reviewed a short documentary showcasing the life of an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who died in Iraq and was hailed by many as a hero. The case raised issues about the use of language, racial and ethnic descriptions when telling LCpl. Gutierrez’s story.

While some students and professionals questioned CBS’ decision not to interview Gutierrez’s Guatemalan sister, Blair said he thought the piece had an “authentic voice.”

“It’s genuine. It has perspective, depth of reporting,” he said. “No story is flawless.”

Blair’s eager, constant involvement in the discussion hearkened back to his glory days as a student journalist at the University of Maryland, when many admired his “endless energy” and “daunting drive.” (Read about Blair’s college experience here)

As sunlight softened to the gray of Lexington afternoons, the first of the institute’s seminars drew to a close. Wasserman, Blair and the other insitute participants ended the private debate and moved to the university’s Stackhouse Theater. Once there, the journalism students snagged seats that had been reserved for them in the two front rows of the theater. Blair later announced that his speech in front of about 150 people was the last public address about his career at the Times.

In his introduction of Blair, Wasserman enumerated some of the media statements critical of the keynoter. Seemingly amused from his seat in the front left corner of the room, Blair chuckled at the many examples of media outrage, but his face turned blank as Wasserman read the laundry list of Blair’s transgressions at the Times. Visibly nervous for the first time since his arrival on the W&L campus, Blair took the stage as the C-SPAN television crew shone its bright lights in his direction.

A public apology

Blair’s speech seemed sincere.

“I am at peace with the knowledge that there is no one or nothing to blame for my troubles but myself,” he said. “I am here because of the choices I made.”  His voice shook. He stopped often to clear his throat and adjust his glasses as he read the prepared speech from a lectern.

Blair told the audience he wanted to become a journalist because of his curious nature, his love for writing and his desire to help people. After a series of summer internships, he said he became convinced that he needed to work at the best paper on the best beat to make the most impact on people’s lives. For Blair, that paper was the New York Times. But his many lies and fabrications ended up hurting, not helping people.

“For me, as a human being, the hardest part is the personal part… my friends, reporters and editors, who felt betrayed, and then the subjects of the stories,” he said in response to the first question from a journalism student after he finished the 20 minute speech. But Blair said that while he was lying, he never considered the harm he was doing. That, he said, was largely a result of his character flaws, mental health issues and drug and alcohol abuse.

For an hour afterwards, Blair answered questions from other students, journalists and academics. He appeared more comfortable answering questions than he did during his prepared address, despite his tendency to shift weight from one foot to the other and switch positions from standing to sitting on the center-stage stool provided for him.

In his conclusion, Blair said he believed he was a valuable addition to the ethics institute because he was an example of how good people could do bad things, thanks to bad choices made in “baby steps.”

“We can learn the most from the worst practices,” he said. ” If we merely believe that only bad people do bad things, then you good people have no reason to learn ethics at all, for you are destined to do good no matter what happens.”

But legal reporting professor Toni Locy said she didn’t buy the “baby steps” scenario. Locy, who had worked at USA Today during a similar scandal involving scorned reporter Jack Kelley, shot Blair a few pointed questions.

“Why didn’t you stop?” she asked.

“I was immature,” Blair said. He went on, explaining how lying “is like erosion, slowly compromising you.” But Locy wasn’t finished. She wanted to know if Blair had made amends with some of the people he had written lies about.

“Did you apologize?” Locy asked. “Did you say ‘I’m sorry’?” she asked again, when Blair refused to answer. He claimed he couldn’t answer because his conversations with his sources were private.

An on-camera interview: sincere or scheming?

That Saturday was warm for November. W&L’s red brick buildings seemed to gleam against the blue backdrop of mountains and sky. Almost finished with his weekend visit, Blair walked into Reid Hall, fondly called the “J-school” by journalism majors. A senior journalism major, and the two Commonwealth Chronicle reporters led the way for Blair.

High heels clicking, the women towered over Blair, who had agreed to exclusive interviews for the Rockbridge Report, W&L’s student-produced Web site and television show, and the Commonwealth Chronicle. Small talk about the weather, coffee and the building itself made the climb of four flights of stairs to the television studio more bearable.

Once inside the studio, the student journalist and Blair continued chatting, as the Chronicle reporters checked microphones and cameras.

Blair acted jovial and calm, cracking jokes and inquiring about W&L’s journalism program. When he saw the teleprompters set up in front of the studio set, he asked with a grin if his scripted answers would appear on it. The RR reporter chuckled. Blair told the slightly nervous student that younger journalists or journalism students usually ask him the most painful or thought-provoking questions.

The more experienced journalists seem to just yap in outrage, Blair said, as he parodied those journalists in a suddenly high-pitched voice. Blair laughed at his joke, and the young woman joined in.

But as the cameras started recording, the mood turned sober. Blair talked about growing up in Columbia, Md., an integrating community that, he said, gave him ideals, taught him values and fueled his first interest in journalism. He then spoke about two Washington Post articles that, in his teenage years, showed him the healing power of journalism. Blair said that both these stories – one about a high school friend who was murdered and the other about an anorexic girl who had been denied help from her health insurance provider – had “cathartic power.”

After that, Blair said, he was hooked on a journalism career.

“I thought I could combine my curiousity with my natural interest in writing with something that could help people,” he said.

But as the Rockbridge Reporter pressed him further about his plagiarism and fabrication while at the Times, Blair conceded that he shouldn’t have been a journalist.

“I probably would not have gone into the profession if I had known the problems that were going to plague me from within.”

When the interview finished, Blair’s somber face turned up into a grin as he congratulated the student reporter on her on-camera presence. You’re a natural, he told her. As Commonwealth Chronicle reporter Cameron Steele took the student’s seat, Blair commented on her stiletto boots.

He said he would’ve liked to throw one of the high heels at Toni Locy’s head when she interrogated him after his speech the night before. After a pause, Blair continued.

“She probably wanted to throw one at me.”

To watch the Commonwealth Chronicle interview that followed, click on the video above.

7 of the most inspiring videos on the web from Mashable

Low-Power radio and what the media won’t tell you

Cuban bloggers abducted and beaten from CPJ

Comcast-NBC deal: Equivalent of Godzilla swallowing 30 Rock

Child protection or censorship in Kentucky?

Media Democracy Day: Independent media’s moment

Hillary’s dope deal from At Largely

Colorado lawmakers ready bills to curb medical marijuana

Solutions in search of a medical marijuana problem

Jayson Blair address Journalism Ethics Institute

“Eu me lembro de ter cruzado essa linha e dito para mim mesmo ‘cara, eu não vou fazer isso de novo. Amanhã, voltarei para o lado do bem e farei as coisas como se supõe que elas devem ser feitas’”.

A frase é de Jayson Blair sobre um deslize cometido logo após os ataques de 11 de setembro, quando inventou o nome de um personagem de uma reportagem. Segundo ele, teria sido a primeira mentira de uma série que levou sua carreira à ruína.

Responsável pelo maior escândalo da história de 158 anos do New York Times, Blair foi demitido em 2003 após confessar que havia inventado aspas, fatos e personagens. Atualmente ele trabalha numa clínica psiquiátrica onde também se submete a tratamento.

Ontem, voltou a circular num ambiente jornalístico ao palestrar para estudantes da Universidade Washington e Lee, em Lexington, numa cadeira sobre ética.

É sempre bom manter vivo na lembrança o caso Blair e suas consequências.

Cameron and I will have exclusive access to all of the Institute sessions, not only to Jayson Blair’s public address.

For up-to-the-minute updates, follow us on Twitter.

Follow Becky Bratu here. Follow Cameron Steele here.

This is just too ridiculous to even need to comment on.  This is like having the guy that just slapped you lecture you on how you should turn the other cheek.
+

No Joke: Mass Times Plagiarizer Jayson Blair to Speak on Media Ethics

This is not a parody: Disgraced serial fantasist (and former Times reporter) Jayson Blair will address the 48th Journalism Ethics Institute at Washington & Lee University tomorrow.

As recorded in a university press release reprinted by the Rock Bridge Weekly of Lexington, Va, Blair will be the featured speaker at Washington and Lee University’s 48th Journalism Ethics Institute on November 6.

From the release:

Blair resigned from the Times after an investigation found that he had plagiarized and fabricated major portions of stories that he had written during four years with the Times. Some of the stories that he covered in this manner were such major news events as the D.C. sniper case and the rescue of POW Jessica Lynch.

“Inviting Jayson Blair to keynote this institute was definitely a departure for us,” said Edward Wasserman, the Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics at W&L. “In the past, we’ve brought heroes to Lexington, people of great accomplishment and stature, such as Hodding Carter, Helen Thomas and Lowell Bergman, and people who stood up to pressure in the name of principled journalism, such as Matt Cooper and my W&L faculty colleague Toni Locy, both of whom faced jail time because they refused to give up the names of sources they had promised to protect.

Wasserman further explained: “My expectation is that he’ll talk not just about his own susceptibilities, but about the pressures and temptations that might induce ambitious and talented young journalists elsewhere in the business to do the wrong thing.”
+

Jayson Blair (Photo: Washington and Lee University)

By Becky Bratu and Cameron Steele

To the dismay of some online media outlets, former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair is the keynote speaker for Washington and Lee University’s upcoming 48th Journalism Ethics Institute.

Mediaite and The Wall Street Journal are only two of the media organizations that found the news hard to believe. (Click titles for links to stories.)

In 2003, Blair resigned in shame from the Times after an investigation uncovered he had fabricated and plagiarized major elements of his stories. But, while most journalists see lies, scandal and compromised journalistic integrity when they see Blair’s name, W&L’s Knight Professor of journalism ethics sees a learning opportunity for his students.

Edward Wasserman, Knight Professor of journalism ethics (Photo: Washington and Lee University)

In August, Edward Wasserman read a profile of  Blair in The Washington Post.

“He sounded interesting [in the Washington Post profile], like he might have some perspective on the scandal,” Wasserman said. “And he lives right up the road.”

Wasserman e-mailed Blair later that week to invite him to the Journalism Ethics Institute, a two-day event during which journalism students, professors and more than a dozen journalism professionals discuss ethical dilemmas facing the news media.

As the keynote speaker, Blair will give a 20-minute public talk entitled “Lessons Learned.”

“The idea seems absurd of Jayson Blair keynoting an ethics institute, but it’s an opportunity for students to confront a key figure in a major ethical scandal,” Wasserman said.

Like past institute keynoters, Blair was paid $3,000, a sum that’s well below what other W&L public speakers earn, according to Wasserman.

The news about Blair’s keynote address at an ethics institute was met with some support and a lot of criticism by local and national media professionals. Mediate writer Philip Bump calls Blair “one of this decade’s biggest disgraces,” while National Public Radio ombudsman Alicia Shepard believes Blair is enjoying the attention.

In an email, Shepard said she didn’t see the educational value in having Blair speak to students about the temptations a young journalist may face.

“There may be some temptations, but that’s not the issue,” Shepard said. “He was lazy, deceitful and didn’t do the job.”

But Wasserman doesn’t believe Blair is as attention-hungry as his detractors portray him.

“[Blair] did not seek this out and, by his account, he hasn’t done this [spoken publically about the scandal] before,” Wasserman said.

Shepard, who attended the Ethics Institute last year, hopes panelists and participants “come down hard” on Blair, otherwise his presence “might just be entertaining, not educational.” But Wasserman is confident his students are not going to sit back and let Blair place blame on others or avoid the issue of deceit altogether.

Rosemary Armao, assistant professor of journalism and communication at State University of New York at Albany, says Blair will speak to her students in December.

“I cannot imagine a more illustrative lesson for my students than to talk to the person whom we have painted as the biggest bogeyman of journalism ethics of all time,” Armao said in an email. “I want them to think about, to quiz him, to press him on how he could go so wrong.”

McGregor McCance, managing editor of Charlottesville’s Daily Progress, agrees that students have a lot to learn from Blair. “He is exhibit A for how to screw up a journalism career and diminish the credibility of an industry that can’t afford to lose credibility,” he said in an email. “The Ethics Institute deserves praise for doing something unpredictable with its forum this year.”

But Wasserman says the Blair case has been an ongoing study for the institute. “This is not our first rodeo,” he said. “Over the years we’ve done a lot with and had a sustained, considerable interest in this affair.”

Gerald Boyd, the Times managing editor who lost his job following the Blair scandal, attended the Ethics Institute in the past. Last year, Lorne Manly, Times‘ media editor while Blair worked there spoke at the institute. Manly was in charge of developing a project about the long and painful post-mortem at the Times after Blair resigned.

Cable network C-SPAN, non-profit media watchdog Accuracy In Media, and documentary filmmaker Samantha Grant will be among those present at Washington and Lee University on Friday, Nov. 6 to cover Blair’s speech.

Photo courtesy of MSNBC.com

Most of the news-people that we speak with here at “Life After Deadlines” who have been forced out the industry, are asked to take buy-outs or are laid off as a result of cost-cutting measures.

For Jayson Blair, he was asked to leave the industry because he fabricated and/or plagiarized portions of his stories while at the New York Times.

So what is a “disgraced” out-of-work journo doing with this? He’s giving lectures about journalism ethics.

It’s laughable to suggest that anyone could think this is a good idea. He was at this pinnacle of journalism excellence, taking a job at perhaps the No. 1 newspaper in the world before getting his degree at the University of Maryland College Park, and he threw it away by violating the cornerstone of ethical conduct in the field.

Why thrust him back under the spotlight for committing a sin in the holy church of newspapers? There are good journalists out there who deserve opportunities to share their knowledge, who deserve second chances to stay in the media. Mr. Blair is certainly not one of them.

For journalism students and news professionals, would you want to listen to what he had to say? Would you give him the time of day? Do you need a NYT screw-up telling you not to make up your stories?

Just as a refresher, give a look to this Columbia University journalism ethics class take on ethics:

A group of J-School students. A project to write a journalist’s oath of ethics. Pretty standard stuff, right?

This rambunctious group of grad students add a little hip-hop twist to their assignment, freestyling their oath to Jay-Z’s “Empire State of Mind.” In-jokes to avoid the mistakes of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. And the promise to “assume nothing, G. Cause if you assume, son…” Fun to watch these future journalists liven things up a bit.

Who’s Patrick Martin, you might ask? He’s a Globe and Mail reporter who’s written this week’s favorite Charedi bashing article, and earned his journalism degree from Clown College.

His article, A Hostile Takeover of Zionism is already burning up all the zOMG HAREDIM ARE TAKING OVER THE PLANET bloggers.

Problem, the article is actually pretty unintentionally hilarious. It would be like me trying to write a burning hit piece about how the battles inside the American Anglican Church, without being too clear on who Anglicans or what the difference is between them and Catholics. Well done Paddy, well done.

It’s really hard to read paragraphs like this, without breaking into laughter…

While the NRP has disappeared, the ideas and the name have grown. The powerful Shas Party, of Sephardi and Haredi disciples, is the best example.

Seriously, can anyone who knows Israeli politics read this without blowing milk out their nose? To put this into terms that Paddy can understand, the equivalent of this paragraph would be…

“The Presbyterian Church have since disappeared, but the Catholic Church has risen to take its ideas and its place.”

Listing how many ways Patrick Martin screwed up a simple paragraph almost defies the imagination. The NRP did not disappear, it renamed itself. The NRP does not care about El Al flying on Shabbat or segregated buses, it’s on the liberal side even of the Dati Leumi spectrum. Shas has nothing to do with the NRP, it’s a Sephardi Religio-Nationalist party, and shares very few concerns with the NRP. Its birth had more to do with the Haredim, who viewed the NRP as the enemy.

Patrick Martin’s A Hostile Takeover of Zionism is full of mind bogglingly insane paragraphs like that. Any journalist who wrote a similar article about any other group that his colleagues were actually familiar with, would be out on his ass, sweeping out the stables next to Jayson Blair.

These days, many of the Haredim – the word means “those who tremble” in awe of God” – have joined with right-wing religious Zionists to become a powerful political force.

Martin’s whackoid premise is that Haredim and Religious Zionists have joined forces. He has no real proof for any of this, especially since he can’t tell apart any subgroups of Haredim or Religious Zionist. The only tie to Haredim that he does cite involves a former Sefardi Chief Rabbi. But as far as Patrick Martin knows, Haredim are the whackoids in black, and Religious Zionists are the settlement whackoids. So it’s common sense for the Globe and Mail’s Jayson Blair to stitch them together with lots of statistics, some of which are actually not made up, but without any actual demonstration of how this supposed takeover by the two groups is running.

A decade ago, there were almost no Haredim in the West Bank settlements. Today, the two largest settlements are entirely ultra-Orthodox, and the Haredim are about a third of the almost 300,000 settlers.

Seriously, dude. If you want to define down settlements enough, you can also call all the Haredim in Jerusalem, settlers.

Will Israel adhere to its founding secular values or will it become a theocratic Jewish state?

What founding secular values? You mean like bans on Shabbat transportation and flights? Bans on stores selling meat? Israel’s principles today are more secular than they used to be. Try buying pork in Israel in 1961.

In the Haredim, the religious Zionists have acquired potent allies. Their followers obey orders without question.

Like robots! Except where does this alliance actually exist? Not in Disengagement, which the Haredim backed. Not in conversion, which the Religious Zionists are opposed to. But why should Patrick Martin actually have to provide actual examples of his conspiracy theories.

To obtain these goals they have influenced the platforms and growth of political parties, appointments to the rabbinical courts and government policy. As a result, religious schools get a disproportionate share of the education budget, El Al planes don’t fly on the Sabbath and publicly run buses are segregated on a growing number of runs.

Which happened just last week when Shas and the NRP and all the Haredim got together! zOMG! Except like totally not. Sabbath transportation bans are not new, and the El Al controversy was a Charedi issue. Bus segregation is opposed by Religious Zionists. And the appointments have been part of a quiet civil war between two sides.

I’ll skip a bunch of paragraphs in which Patrick Martin recites a whole bunch of stuff about Haredi violence, that once again does not serve to support his thesis. Finally he wraps up the insanity by citing a claiming that Israelis are leaving the country because it’s becoming more like Iran. Because Haifa and Tel Aviv, totally like Bnei Brak now. All the discos have shtreimels in them! And pork comes with a hasgacha.

Naturally the usual idiots like Failed Messiah are all over this, in between reporting on how the Gedolim are really David Icke’s lizard people.

There’s plenty to criticize about Haredim, without making up a whole lot of crap to do it. The key to writing articles about religion in Israel seems to be to have no clue what you’re talking about. People like Patrick Martin find it easy to spread conspiracy theories that are laughable, because none of his superiors will question anything negative written about Israel or religious Jews. It’s the Noah Feldman principle.

According to Jack Cashill, journalistic fraud.

In case you had forgotten about Blair, you can read NYT’s retrofit here.

According to the National Affairs Adviser to Palestinian Authority President (and Holocaust denier) Mahmoud Abbas, the Jews are trafficking in organs harvested from Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers:

“The facts show that Israel and its army are trafficking in the organs of Palestinians. There are documents to this effect. Why is Europe trying to stop this [from being exposed]?

“Why must the Palestinian people pay the price under occupation? Why must it be tortured and the organs of its martyred sons used for trafficking? This is the result of the [moral] bankruptcy of the U.S. and Europe and the cover they provide [Israel]. These countries must rise to their responsibility, if they are interested in making peace and reaching a settlement in the region.”

The name of this statesman? Omar al-Ghoul. I wonder if his official portrait was done by Richard Upton Pickman?

BACKGROUND: The organ-harvesting story started in a Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, the editor of which later admitted he had no evidence. He should work for the New York Times.

Por Héctor Rodríguez

Traición y deshonra son dos palabras que figuran entre los calificativos más empleados por la prensa mundial para definir lo que hizo Jayson Blair, ex periodista de The New York Times, desde que llegó con 23 años y fuera despedido con 26 después de que una investigación interna en el prestigioso rotativo descubriera que al menos 36 de 73 artículos escritos por el periodista se basaban en noticias fabricadas desde su casa.

Los métodos que usó Blair para engañar a los lectores, redactores e incluso altos cargos del periódico (llegó a dimitir el propio director del diario estadounidense) pasaban por tener acceso a la información que ocurría en el momento a través de internet, buscar detalles en las fotografías del hecho noticioso que le permitieran hacer creer que se encontraba en el lugar de los hechos o el plagio de artículos publicados en otros medios.

El despido de Blair se llevó por delante el prestigio del New York Times, pero el periodista consiguió sacar partido del asunto un año después con la publicación de un libro en el que se confesaba de haber cometido las irregularidades y del que recibió antes de que saliera a la venta la cantidad de 150.000 dólares. Además, según publicaron medios como El País, pretendía vender derechos para realizar una película sobre el asunto.

Precisamente, en el año en que se destapó el escándalo de Blair (según recoge la base de datos IMDB) Hoollywood estrenó una película sobre el caso de Stephen Glass, un periodista de The New Republic que también fue acusado de haber engañado a su periódico con noticias fabricadas por él mismo. Peter Sarsgaard, que en la película El precio de la verdad encarna a Charles Lane, jefe de Glass y descubridor oficial de sus fantasías, dijo que “la gente no dudó de la veracidad de esos artículos porque confirmaban ideas preconcebidas de los que tenían una idea política concreta”.

Al ‘estilo’ periodístico de Blair y Glass se le suman el de otros redactores que fueron descubiertos en su momento. Como recoge Juan Varela en su blog Periodistas 21, un ejemplo es el del caso de otro redactor de NYT, Rick Bragg, quien fue acusado de usar la información de un compañero de la profesión ‘freelance’ sin citarlo para publicar un reportaje sobre ayuda a estudiantes negros en Missisipi. Otros periodistas como Jack Kelley, de USA Today o Janet Cooke, de The Washington Post forman parte de este recuerdo de ‘mentiras de rabiosa actualidad’ que provocaron heridas en el honor del orgullo periodístico estadounidense.

 “She is my little girl…I raised her and I have never doubted her gender. She is a woman and I can repeat that a million times.”
- Jacob Semenya, father of South African sprinter Caster Semenya, whose gender has been questioned after setting an 800-meter world record

That’s gotta make you feel comfortable in your own skin.  

“People say, ‘Wait a minute. You’re a life coach?’ That makes no sense.”
- Jayson Blair, ex-journalist who plagiarized and fabricated stories during his time at the NY Times, commenting on his new vocation: a life coach

Anyone who says he’s a life coach makes no sense.

“Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.”
- Rep. Barney Frank, responding to a protester at a health care reform town hall meeting who asked why he supports what she referred to as a Nazi policy

Haha, great response.

 “They can’t just expect students to show up any more. They have to go out and recruit.”
- Lisa Relou, marketing expert, on school districts turning to ad campaigns to raise enrollment numbers

Marketing campaigns to encourage kids to go to school…what is this world coming to?

 “I don’t consider myself as a great golfer. I’m still more of the lower-than-average PGA Tour players.”
- Y.E. Yang, South Korean golfer who beat Tiger Woods to win the PGA Championship

“Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time.”
- President Obama on the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy

“[Officials] willfully trained and encouraged the dolphins to throw water.”
- A lawsuit filed by Allecyn Edwards, who says she fell and injured herself on a floor made slippery by a dolphin show at a zoo

She should be thrown in jail.

“It is somewhat serious.”
- Nick Jonas, 16, on his aspirations to become president some day

T.O.O.L.

“Hedgehogs — why can’t they just share the hedge?”
- Dan Antopolski, comedian whose one-liner won the funniest joke prize at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival

Hahahahhahahahahhaha

“It was a ridiculous movie.”
- Brad Pitt criticizing Valkyrie, the Tom Cruise Nazi flic

I wasn’t initially sure what to make of disgraced Jayson Blair’s new profession. Seems the former New York Times reporter, who took down some top news execs at the revered institution after heavyweight plagiarism, has been working as a life coach in McLean, Va.  for the last couple of years.

 The Associated Press, which broke the story, quoted psychologist Michael Oberschneider, who hired Blair and urged him to become a life coach, as saying, “He can relate to patients just beautifully..Sometimes you just meet people in life who have these electric personalities. Well, Jayson is now using his talents for good.”

 While fellow journalists are split about Mr. Blair’s new profession, see, Richard Prince’s Journal-isms (Aug. 21) http://mije.org/richardprince , after consideration I decided that I’m on the side of those who believe that he deserves a second chance, though staying away from the media profession would be advisable. We are, after all, a country of second, and third and fourth chances.

 You decide for yourself. Read the New York Times own account of the debacle here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/11PAPE.html?ex=1367985600&en=d6f511319c259463&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

From the “In Case You Missed It” Department…

Maybe he...

Former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, a cause célèbre in 2003 when he had to resign for stealing other people’s work, is now a life coach.

How much can you make telling someone, “I ****ed up.  Don’t do what I did.” 

I think I could be good at that.

...could coach him.

And former New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress has hired a prison consultant to, in the words of his attorney, “…advise us, Mr. Burress and his family, on what to expect while incarcerated, and how to use his period of confinement as productively as possible.”  (NY Post)

Mr. Burress, as you probably know, was convicted of carrying a concealed, unregistered gun and managing to shoot only himself in the leg.

How much can you make telling someone, “Think twice before carving yourself a shiv and hiding it in your pants.”

I think I could be good at that.

Ashburn Psychological Services has been honored this year with Dr. Michael Oberschneider, the founder and director of the practice, being recognized by his peers in the Washingtonian’s (July 2009) “Top psychologist” category.  Dr. Oberschneider, who also wrote a piece in The Washington Post earlier this year on the impact of the economic crisis on mental health, was featured on News Channel 8’s “Let’s Talk Live” and has since contributed to an article for the Washingtonian Magazine with professionals across disciplines on preparing students and parents for returning to school.

APS’s life coach, Jayson Blair, was honored by the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Independent of London, WNYC Radio and NPR for his work providing peer-support to those with serious mental illnesses and his life coaching at the practice.

APS welcomed four new members to the team in 2009, Dr. Joseph Novello (child, adolescent, adult and forensic psychiatrist), Dr. Imran Akram (adult and geriatric psychiatrist), Dr. Zafar Rasheed (child, adolescent and adult psychiatrist) and Dr. Al Jerome (child, adolescent and adult clinical psychologist). We invite you to review our team’s bios at Ashburn Psychological Services APS is thankful to the local professionals and families for entrusting us with their referrals and care.

****

Ashburn Psychological Services is the premiere clinical psychology and psychiatry practice serving several areas in Northern Virginia, including Ashburn, Leesburg, Great Falls, Lansdowne, McLean, Fairfax, Herndon, Reston, Middleburg, Purcellville and Sterling.  Dedicated to excellence in psychological and psychiatric practice, Ashburn Psychological Services offers a wide array of diagnostic, psychotherapy, medication and consultation services for children, adolescents, adults and families.

At APS we effectively integrate the most recent advances in psychology and psychiatry with time-tested treatment approaches.  We offer you the expertise you expect from a leading clinical practice in a supportive, nurturing and therapeutic environment.

All of our practitioners have extensive experience in clinical practice, as well as training from some of the top institutions in the country.

Happy Holidays from the APS Team