Homicide: Life In The Newsroom

I don't think there's any difference between trying to change the world and trying to win awards. Ultimately, the "change the world" journalist wants to get recognized and win a Pulitzer.

The problem is it's so seldom done right. You know how you affect positive change? By reporting the news better. It comes about as a natural part of doing your job, not by trying to set the agenda for your community.

Mike McLary reporting about police brutality against Abner Louima -- "a story to stop the city" -- is brilliant journalism. Howell Raines leading a crusade against Augusta National is horseshit.

 

It's a bullshit notion at the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. For the 99.9999% of other newspapers, it's not.

 

Both come from the same mindset/motivation, which has nothing to do with serving your readers.

 

McAlary.

No one bats 1.000. Raines did some amazing work on the civil-rights movement. I'd say it had some impact.

 

And he was probably the worst editor in the history of the Times.

 

Because people disliked him and because he was too arrogant to listen to anyone else. But the guy was a great journalist. The fact that he was a bad manager and an unpleasant human being does not negate the fact that he knew what a great story was and how to get it. And he got lots of them. Hell, the 9/11 coverage -- it was amazing work on every level, and six days into his tenure. Served society, served readers and, not for nothing, served journalism by showing (although newspaper companies certainly have forgotten) that if you do good (and expensive) work, readers will buy it.

 

Raines did more damage to the status of the Times than any previous editor. That makes him a bad editor.

 

Janet Cooke happened on Ben Bradlee's watch. Does that make Ben Bradlee a bad editor?

People were unhappy working under Raines and the argument was made that his autocratic rule created an environment in which a Jayson Blair could exist. That's why he's gone. But in truth, Jayson Blair could happen at any newspaper.

 

Not to butt into a private point/counterpoint, but... Raines should have stayed a writer or copy editor or whatever, if that's what he shined at. The business already had plenty of bad managers -- didn't need him as another one. The higher he climbed up the ladder then, if he wasn't suited to dealing with staffers in a nurturing, professional manner, the more harm he was inflicting on the business. But his ego and greed made him move beyond what he did best.

 

And Jayson Blair couldn't happen at a lot of papers that a) don't send reporters on out-of-town assignments anymore because travel budgets have been shredded, and b) don't trust reporters to work from outside the office.

There are plenty of Blair-proof papers out there!

 

It's a results-oriented business. Raines' results were bad. I didn't even bring up Jayson Blair and anyone can have a major fuckup. Raines' stewardship of the Times was terrible.

 

Seven Pulitzers in one year! Increased circulation! Damned good product!

As a reader I thought the NYT was a better newspaper under Raines than it is today -- and I think it's excellent today. It wasn't until some mag -- New York or The New Yorker, I forget -- did a piece on Raines' management style that I knew there was a problem. It was a livelier, more aggressive, more agile product under him. Now it might have been pure hell to work there for all I know, but I read the paper every day that Raines ran it, and as a reader I was delighted. It's one thing to argue in hindsight that there were shortcomings, but except for Augusta National, it wasn't apparent to people who read the thing every day. I think it really was the best the NYT ever was.