After the rather infamous Jayson Blair affair, The New York Times (NYT) predictably went through a phase of intense introspection. The visible result was the appointment of a senior editor (Allan Siegal) for ensuring standards of editorial content.

But even before the new standards editor could act, the Holloway article appeared.

Allan Siegal is the Times' first standards editor - appointed to develop rules and educate the staff on matters of accuracy and ethics while functioning as an internal guardian. And as current executive editor Bill Keller has indicated, his suggestion to appoint an ombudsman is being taken seriously. But with the recent episode of Lynette Holloway, NYT continues to make news for the wrong reasons, within months of the infamous "Blair affair".

And that was a couple of months ago. Things haven't changed much today - going by the continuing "blunders" published by the gray lady. (To be fair, it is too early to predict the effectiveness of the standards editor. Yet, on the other hand the matter is serious enough to have warranted immediate changes in the news gathering & vetting process.)

The reasons behind these apparently chronic problems seem to be multiple - lack of basic processes in the editorial room are compounded by poor internal communication, editorial high-handedness, favoritism, relentless pressure and even pseudo-racial concerns !

So many inaccuracies & errors so soon after the Blair and Bragg blunders in a newspaper with the Times editorial resources is to say the least, surprising. Here's a brief analysis.

The Blair Affair
Having joined as trainee in 1998, African American Jayson Blair reportedly developed a reputation for incorrect reporting early in his career. His immediate boss Jonathan Landman apparently chose to remain silent because "of the racial dimension of this issue." (This gives an idea of the polarization that had already set into the news room.)

But in 2002 April, the same Landman wrote a memo to Boyd declaring "we have to stop Jayson from writing for the New York Times. Right now." Blair was then transferred to the Sports department where he was soon caught fabricating an interview with a Kent State University official.

Despite this, Boyd chose to put him on the Washington beat. At this stage, the utter chaos and lack of co-ordination in the newsroom starts to become clear. (Executive Editor Howell Raines remained unaware all along.)

It appears that Blair's antics went unpunished because Boyd (who also happens to be African American) shielded him. Ultimately Boyd left in disgrace for his role as (unwitting?) accomplice in Blair's violation of ethics, taking with him executive editor Howell Raines.

Blair's is a case of reverse exploitation of racialism by a member of a minority community ! Aided & abetted by "isolation, intimidation, favoritism & unrelenting pressure" to use the words of Keller.

The Lynette Holloway episode
Lynette Holloway's claim to fame is an article that pronounced Tee-Vee-Toons founder & president Steven Gottlieb a defaulter on a $ 23.5 million loan, thus losing control of his company in February to financial giant Prudential. The article further claimed that Prudential was looking for buyers for the company.

Not wanting to draw any attention to this article, the Times kept it a secret, while making a "settlement". Till Keith J. Kelly of the New York Post spilled the beans and quoted the Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis as saying that they had reached an amicable settlement.

It is rumoured that the Holloway article shattered the morale at the Times Square so badly that the newspaper had to internally reiterate its commitment to diversity & higher standards.

And it did not help that all this happened just a few weeks before a 28-member internal committee submitted a report on the Blair Scandal which recommended the appointment of a standards editor along with an ombudsman.

Incidentally, Holloway's resignation followed the Gray Lady's 2nd longest correction in her history (published in July 2003). The correction that appeared as an editor's note (on page 2) admitted that the offending article was inter alia, based on the misunderstanding of the subject, scope and status of the legal proceedings. It further admitted that it was not fair to describe Mr Gottlieb as litigious as it was wrong to state that he had lost control of Tee-Vee-Toons. This was propped up by an article by Diana B. Henriques in the business section which admitted that the article by Holloway (published the week before) was riddled with inaccuracies & a number of factual errors.

That the Holloway article followed a couple of months after the Blair episode shows the stunning lack of processes in the newsroom. Holloway actually demonstrated the sheer lack of vigilance that allowed so many inaccuracies and errors in her report !

The Slips Continue
NYT readers continue to exorcise fresh indiscretions committed by the Times' reporting staff. An article by an editorial writer Adam Cohen (Oct 12, 03) referred to Indian American and Republican gubernatorial candidate in Louisiana Bobby Jindal as the dark-skinned son of immigrants from India. Angry readers referred to this as liberal bigotry.

And a week before this, the Times retracted a report which (mis)quoted California governor Arnold Schwarznegger as saying that, "I admire (Hitler) for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it" when what he said meant quite the opposite. (Naturally Arnold's critics used this quote to advantage during the election campaign!)

In a way, the Times gaffes are nothing but pointers to its "dis-connection" with its readers. Lost in irrelevant issues like editorial high-handedness, favoritism and even pseudo-racial concerns. Compounded by lack of processes and made worse by relentless pressure of competing news agencies including television.

The appointment of an ombudsman (for the reader) will serve as an online check for the inherent flaws. What Executive Editor Keller visualizes as "a pair of professional eyes, familiar with us but independent of the day-to-day production of the paper, to enhance credibility by becoming more sensitive on matters of fairness and accuracy." And resulting hopefully in better processes, checks & balances.

All said & done, the gray lady serves as a standing example of what could happen to any successful organization which forgets its raison d'etre.