In 2003, Jayson Blair scared mass media in a way that it will never fully recover from. He wrote one fabrication after another, and they were put into print as fact - by The New York Times, no less.
Now, in 2007, a shock jock who hit it big with an on-air routine of name-calling and bipartisan political bashing has been fired for an off-the-cuff racist statement.
What do these two cases have in common? They put the image of real journalists in jeopardy.
Back when Blair was exposed as a plagiarist, The Times had some explaining to do - it started with a front-page story over 7,000 words long (think a little more than 10x the length of this column). The initial story from May 11, 2003 "focused on correcting the record" and probed into the fallen 27-year-old's career. The writers who put the facts together called it "a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper."
If anything, it was an understatement. Blair didn't just mar his paper with his actions; he hurt journalism as a whole. And the phrasing "betrayal of trust" was no accident.
Think of how the average newspaper comes together. In the morning, reporters covering everything from school board meetings to baseball games and concerts head out to work for the day. Depending on what they're covering and when they get the interviews they need, they write on deadline - imagine staying up late to finish a project, now imagine doing it every day.
After their stories are written (hopefully earlier, but sometimes later in the day), editors plow through them. They check spelling and grammar, syntax and layout. And facts, as best as they can.
Then the stories go to print, and by morning they're on the record as fact.
It's a fine system when it works, but when someone like Blair abuses it, it raises a lot of integrity questions.
Having faith that editors and writers almost always strive for accuracy and integrity, as true as it is, is where trust comes in.
And then there are people like Imus.
Imus didn't lie and he didn't make up facts. He didn't interview fictitious people or claim to be somewhere he wasn't. He made his career out of being rude and offensive, and listeners tuned in.
Last week the former talk show host bantered on as he usually did, taking cheap shots at the headlines and pausing for a moment to joke about the Rutgers women's basketball team, referring to them as "nappy-headed hos."
In subsequent interviews and his formal apology to the women, he states that he never even thought twice of the words he spouted.
So did Imus deserve the boot for his off-color, off-the-cuff commentary? Was making fun of some groups OK, but making fun of black people going too far? Or was it the combination with the insult to women what pushed it over the edge?
In discussion with some of the staff here at the paper, it occurred to us that offending both the African American community and all women together actually totals a majority of the country. Maybe that's what it takes to go too far.
Or maybe it was just about damn time. This wasn't exactly the first offensive thing Imus said on his show - he'd been hosting it with his usual style since 1979.
So what do Blair and Imus have in common? They both took over national headlines with their own unprofessional actions, leaving the world to question just how much integrity there is in the mass media as a whole.
They created doubt in a system based in trust.
As hard as it can be to believe, however, most journalism is still innately good. A lot of dedicated reporters and editors work day in and day out to preserve high ethical standards and accurate stories. A little skepticism is good, don't believe everything you read; just also don't stop reading.
As for replacing Imus in the Morning, try flipping over to Morning Edition. Steve Inskeep and Ren?(c)e Montagne are a lot more trustworthy than Imus ever will be.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
