A personal attack

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:54 pm

Howell Raines continues to be an insufferable prick. I'd sooner hire Jayson Blair than let Raines stain my newsroom. I'm beginning to think that the person who hired Raines and let him ransack the Times should be shown the door, too.Jim McGrath wrote a fine letter challenging Raines' apparent suggestion that he was hampered by the Guild in dealing with Blair.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:34 pm

Raines didn't blame the Guild specifically in the Blair matter. He blamed it generally for his alleged inability to get rid of deadwood and incompetents.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:40 am

I think the blaming of the Guild is implicit in any claim by that seersucker asshole Raines that he couldn't get rid of a miscreant toad.Incompetent managers are very quick to blame the Guild for everything, including for making sure that journalists are paid a living wage and have reasonable working conditions. What a tragedy it is that we have them at Guild papers.I have served on bargaining committees in Milwaukee and in Albany. Believe me, I have heard the "it's the Guild's fault" over and over.If Raines were half as resourceful as he is full of shit, he could have figured out a way to get rid of Blair. Fuck him.[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Bumfketeer ]

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:27 am

A colleague asks me to point out another thing: That executives do the hiring, not the Guild. When a hire turns out to be a mistake, it's THEIR mistake and they should pay for it, not point fingers at the union.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:06 am

Good point. One also should add that it wasn't the union that kept promoting Blair and giving him bigger assignments against the advice of his supervising editors.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:27 am

I've been reading over this excerpt from Raines's article for the better part of an hour this morning:Times people glory in their association with the institution, yet they despise their dependence on the money, security, cachet, and illusion of power that make leaving almost impossible. Like the French, New Englanders, Southerners, Idaho survivalists, or Mormon polygamists, they take a perverse pride in their idiosyncrasies and tend to make iconic "characters" of those who embody the tribal pathology in its purest form.
These newsroom characters are regarded less as role models than as holy fools whose wisdom, no matter how wacky, is still magical and oracular. For example, some of the weakest writers on the paper are opinion leaders on questions of style and copy editing. Great value is placed on the act of "speaking truth to power," with little regard for the substance of factuality of what is spoken.***I have concluded that the passage is gibberish. I challenge anyone to offer a coherent explanation of wtf he is talking about.***[ March 27, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:44 am

Maybe Maureen Dowd could put it in layman's terms.

adering · **Posted:** Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:06 am

Although it as hopelessly prolix as any of Kissinger's coma-inducers, I think Raines is making a point about the Times being a hot-bed of clique-ish favoritism and popularity. In the vulgate: "Like, um, who cares what Jimmy thinks? Rick has got such wicked cool hair. And have you seen his stomach muscles? Omigod!!! He can red-pencil my copy any time."But Raines is engaging in the second-oldest game in the world: Don't blame me! This is why I am certain (well, 99%) that there's gonna be another Jayson Blair Fiasco at the Times within five years. <blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
I've been reading over this excerpt from Raines's article for the better part of an hour this morning:Times people glory in their association with the institution, yet they despise their dependence on the money, security, cachet, and illusion of power that make leaving almost impossible. Like the French, New Englanders, Southerners, Idaho survivalists, or Mormon polygamists, they take a perverse pride in their idiosyncrasies and tend to make iconic "characters" of those who embody the tribal pathology in its purest form.
These newsroom characters are regarded less as role models than as holy fools whose wisdom, no matter how wacky, is still magical and oracular. For example, some of the weakest writers on the paper are opinion leaders on questions of style and copy editing. Great value is placed on the act of "speaking truth to power," with little regard for the substance of factuality of what is spoken.***I have concluded that the passage is gibberish. I challenge anyone to offer a coherent explanation of wtf he is talking about.***[ March 27, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]<hr></blockquote>

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:44 am

For example, some of the weakest writers on the paper are opinion leaders on questions of style and copy editing. Great value is placed on the act of "speaking truth to power," with little regard for the substance of factuality of what is spoken.
******Nice. What the hell does THIS mean?

KfitzR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:31 am

It's Management talking. You have to cut them a bit of slack.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:56 am

"These newsroom characters are regarded less as role models than as holy fools whose wisdom, no matter how wacky, is still magical and oracular. "
*****
And thus "Seersucker Howell" sums up my "career" as a slot editor.

Testy Copy Editors

A personal attack

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links