Andrew's Jayson Blair take
Jessica, do you mind sharing the pink jelly beans next time? Jeez, where are your manners? I didn't hear a peep from you. Haha...
Seriously, though, I enjoyed our discussion about the Jayson Blair situation. It's a case that has interested me from the start. I think it's unique that so many differing, yet intertwined, factors could lace together to create a 'controversial' situation that will leave an impression upon an industry's practices for a generation, and potentially, even longer. We have the obvious race issues that are at the forefront of Mr. Blair's rise. How fast is too fast when promoting underrepresented persons? How does a 'rocket rise' harm such a person, if at all? Why would management be willing to sacrifice product quality for a 'success story'? In the long run, does management's obsession with potential and talent harm the newsroom?
In my opinion, people, no matter their race, become sloppy when too much is given too fast. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I believe 'paying your dues', to some extent, has value that is paramount to the health of an industry's future. Young professionals can learn from their older colleagues, many of whom are more than willing to share their expertise. Remember, people want to share what they know as long as the receiving party has the right attitude about gaining new knowledge. Mr. Blair was betrayed by his superiors at The New York Times, because some on 43rd Street were too eager to see a young, ambitious black journalist succeed. In the process, everyone involved cut corners. These superiors betrayed Mr. Blair, a flawed and fake individual, because they neglected his capacity for growth. They betrayed him, because they let their egos get in the way of proper training. But most of all, they betrayed the entire industry, because journalists everywhere, minority and white, now and in the future, will now have to answer for the misguided actions of a few trigger-happy individuals. Everyone involved should feel ashamed.
Seriously, though, I enjoyed our discussion about the Jayson Blair situation. It's a case that has interested me from the start. I think it's unique that so many differing, yet intertwined, factors could lace together to create a 'controversial' situation that will leave an impression upon an industry's practices for a generation, and potentially, even longer. We have the obvious race issues that are at the forefront of Mr. Blair's rise. How fast is too fast when promoting underrepresented persons? How does a 'rocket rise' harm such a person, if at all? Why would management be willing to sacrifice product quality for a 'success story'? In the long run, does management's obsession with potential and talent harm the newsroom?
In my opinion, people, no matter their race, become sloppy when too much is given too fast. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I believe 'paying your dues', to some extent, has value that is paramount to the health of an industry's future. Young professionals can learn from their older colleagues, many of whom are more than willing to share their expertise. Remember, people want to share what they know as long as the receiving party has the right attitude about gaining new knowledge. Mr. Blair was betrayed by his superiors at The New York Times, because some on 43rd Street were too eager to see a young, ambitious black journalist succeed. In the process, everyone involved cut corners. These superiors betrayed Mr. Blair, a flawed and fake individual, because they neglected his capacity for growth. They betrayed him, because they let their egos get in the way of proper training. But most of all, they betrayed the entire industry, because journalists everywhere, minority and white, now and in the future, will now have to answer for the misguided actions of a few trigger-happy individuals. Everyone involved should feel ashamed.
posted by Andrew Astleford at
6:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home