Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Grey Lady Falters
May 10, 2003 10:14 AM   Subscribe

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception The New York Times runs a long article detailing its preliminary findings in the matter of Jayson Blair, The Times' young staff reporter who made up sources, facts, and anecdotes in potentially hundreds of stories. Does this investigation help the Times avoid permanent disgrace? Or does this just confirm what you've always thought about the Times? Slate magazine is attributing part of the problem to affirmative action (Blair is black). Is AA relevant here?
posted by hhc5 (39 comments total)

 
Affirmative action seems irrelevant here. If the account in the last article is correct, people thought that he had promise. He was assigned to stories for sensible reasons, like that he had personal history in the area.

The problem is that NYT clearly lacks quality control. Affirmative action has little to do with failing to recognize a dishonest and stupid employee.

"Oh, Johnny always huffs paint in the back and steals from customers, but he's black so we can't fire him!" Sensationalist tripe. Not the story here, in any case.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:33 AM on May 10, 2003


[More about Blair's wacky coverage of the DC sniper case can be found in this article from Washington City Paper.]
posted by arco at 10:37 AM on May 10, 2003


Very good of the Times to be publishing this article today. FYI, Howell Raines said on PBS's Newshour last night that he refused to preview today's article in advance of its publication, and provided the reporters full access to anyone in the newsroom and editorial staff, including himself.

And this seems particularly damning to the paper: His mistakes became so routine, his behavior so unprofessional, that by April 2002, Jonathan Landman, the metropolitan editor, dashed off a two-sentence e-mail message to newsroom administrators that read: "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now.''
posted by PrinceValium at 10:41 AM on May 10, 2003


Ignatius: You may take issue with this, but the article states pretty clearly near the end that "quality control" of the industrial sort - random checks and whatnot - wouldn't necessarily work at a daily newspaper. What sounds more reasonable is what the story then goes on to suggest - that there was a serious organizational problem at the Times. To be more specific, there was a problem with communication between lower-level employees and management, etc. It's a classic org theory problem. I don't think the Times honchos do themselves any favors, however, by acting as if this were all solely the reporters' fault, however. "The buck almost stops with us, but not when the reporter is an emotionally unstable, dishonest and immature asshole who heaven only knows why we hired, although, y'know, maybe the f***wit can go back to college and make a life for himself - or somethin'" is a pretty weird and convoluted sort of message for the Times to be sending out, even if kind of understandable.
posted by raysmj at 10:55 AM on May 10, 2003


Wow... Long live the NY Post! :-)
posted by Plunge at 11:16 AM on May 10, 2003


Geraldo can probably put him to work :p
posted by Trik at 11:28 AM on May 10, 2003


raysmj:
Thanks for exposing the fact that I don't really know what "quality control" means. What you describe is almost exactly what I meant to say, but I don't see how this is germaine to the larger questions of affirmative action.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:58 AM on May 10, 2003


Another example of the failure of affirmative action.

The reasoning behind aa is moral, but when you rob the individual of herself, ( such as when aa associates your achievement to a group, not to yourself) there becomes little for which to be held accountable. Also, it does not encourage personal directly encourage personal achievement. Although the possibility for self betterment is certainly there.

Maybe if there was more progress in urban design (or redesign) and education, and less in political dime bags, there would be true progress.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:12 PM on May 10, 2003


Another example of the failure of affirmative action.

So if the reporter had been from some small town and the editors had played him up as being a representative of that community at some dinner function, all the while knowing he was a problem, would people call into question the hiring of reporters from small towns?

As it stands there needs to be more evidence that his race played a role in tolerating his incompetence. Otherwise, all it is a case of the times having a crap reporter...and that isn't exactly unheard of...
posted by srboisvert at 1:35 PM on May 10, 2003


There does seem to be a little bit of the Times protesting too much in their article in regards to AA, though it might just be in repudiation of claims like Slate's. What is obvious to this lay person at least is that Blair should have been stopped much earlier on, not been promoted, and the current organizational system failed.

(Don't want to stoke the fires, but as a person who would benefit from affirmative action, I cannot condone or promote the practice. It really is insulting, but try to argue that without sounding like a traitor to "the cause;" it's nearly impossible.)
posted by lychee at 1:47 PM on May 10, 2003


Last time in Chinatown, I had a great lychee ice cream.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:59 PM on May 10, 2003


I want this incident remembered for the record. It demonstrates clearly and precisely that, contrary to common opinions, there is not a monolith of thought, opinion and behavior at the New York Times.
posted by Mo Nickels at 2:00 PM on May 10, 2003


I've been very disappointed by all the interviews where NYT execs say the guy's name over and over. It is a sin that gets catalogued as "scandal", when you create a situation (in this case the use of huge media power) to embarrass or shame a person over and above what he has managed to do to himself.
posted by loafingcactus at 2:56 PM on May 10, 2003


The more I read that article the NYT published this morning, the more it seems to me that Blair had a serious personal problem (drugs? booze? illness, mental or physical?) that was affecting his ability to report, write, and goddamn, to just get out of Brooklyn, and so he spun lie after lie to cover up his impairment.

His improprieties are so profound that it would be wrong to cite, as the root of Blair's problem, incompetence that might result from AA promoting an unqualified applicant. (If we are even to consider that shibboleth as valid.) After all, let's not forget Stephen Glass, whose crimes were just as bad and for whom AA was irrelevant.

BUT, it's very, very unusual for someone to land at the Times right out of college. His being black possibly/probably/certainly increased his chances of being hired there (take your pick, but does anyone think it didn't have any impact?) Did he fuck up because he was an AA baby? I doubt that. Whatever demons he carries around would have driven him off track at the Podunk Herald-Tribune, too, I think. But b/c of AA, he fucked up big -- very, very big -- at the New York Times.
posted by hhc5 at 3:01 PM on May 10, 2003


I want this incident remembered for the record. It demonstrates clearly and precisely that, contrary to common opinions, there is not a monolith of thought, opinion and behavior at the New York Times.

Damn straight. And I want this incident remembered the next time (and all the times after that) that the NYT decides to smear an entire corporation because of a few employees.

Interesting that not only is the Times (and it's supporters) asserting that it is just one rogue reporter, but the "investigation" of this reporter is being done ... by other NYT reporters. Where are the calls for independent oversight? The demand that the investigation not content itself with simply fully articulating what one guy did wrong, but insist upon digger deeper into processes and procedures? Into ... executive management.

In other words, where are the demands that the NYT apply the same standards to itself that it so delights in applying to others?
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:48 PM on May 10, 2003


Whenever a big tragedy-tinged news story breaks (Columbine, DC snipers, Oklahoma Fed Bldg. bombing, etc.) a Black friend says she cringes until she hears the race of the perp(s).

I just asked her about the Jayson Blair story and if this case fits her reaction phenomenon. She said that it does, and this is a particularly distressing case for her. Typically, her feeling is that if the perp(s) is/are White, like Columbine, pundits do not then go on and on about race as a factor. If the perp is Black, then there is a perceptible backlash, and much talk about the evils of affirmative action and the uncivilized actions of the "underclass minority."

She feels calling out race in these high-profile cases is an excuse to bash all Blacks when one Black is found to have participated in any notorious public wrongdoing.

Being a psedo-Melungeon (Black/Native American/Irish-Catholic) I have a little of that fear myself, and know where of she speaks.

Anyone for taking the world and it's people case-by-case? Anyone?
posted by Dunvegan at 4:00 PM on May 10, 2003


nevermind the plagiarism, fake travels and his fabrications -- Blair's corrections rate alone _was_ appalling anyway, he deserved to be fired months ago. I'm surprised that the Times didn't kick him in 2002. whether it was out of the top editors belief in his potential to become a good or even half-decent reporter or out of fear of a discrimination lawsuit nobody except Howell Raines can say

(sidenote: if you re-read his stories, Blair wasn't even that good a writer. Janet Cooke at least could write like a dream, and Glass' fabrications -- after Michael Kelly's style editing especially -- were very well written and entertaining. one wonders what his editors saw in Blair, really)
posted by matteo at 4:34 PM on May 10, 2003


I just asked her about the Jayson Blair story and if this case fits her reaction phenomenon. She said that it does, and this is a particularly distressing case for her. Typically, her feeling is that if the perp(s) is/are White, like Columbine, pundits do not then go on and on about race as a factor. If the perp is Black, then there is a perceptible backlash, and much talk about the evils of affirmative action and the uncivilized actions of the "underclass minority."

As the perpetrators of Columbine were two young men, there was speculation about whether they were really gay...followed promptly by some horrible punditry on how mass murder was an inevitable result of homosexuality. (Including, but by no means limited to, comments by Fred Phelps.)

When someone has done something catastrophically wrong, there seems to be a desire to pin the blame on some "other" group whether or not there's even a reasonable connection. And unless Jayson Blair actually benefitted from AA, I don't think the black community should suffer the indignity of his race being dwelled on more than briefly.

Interesting that not only is the Times (and it's supporters) asserting that it is just one rogue reporter, but the "investigation" of this reporter is being done ... by other NYT reporters. Where are the calls for independent oversight?

Why is this necessary? The problem was discovered and exposed by the Times' own staff; if this were not just an isolated event, it could surely have been covered up altogether were the Times not committed to journalistic ethics.

At any rate, I think the concept of "independent oversight" lost quite a lot of credibility in the late 90's. Who would the investigators be? Who would choose them? If the investigation turned into a disgusting hatchet job (after all, the paper is nominally the primary left-leaning media source in the country), who would have the authority to call them off? Who should feel entitled to demand this in the first place? No, this is more than enough...assuming the Times also proceeds with a significant reorganization after this, to ensure that these situations don't develop again.
posted by Epenthesis at 5:42 PM on May 10, 2003


The affirmative action calls seem a little far-fetched to me - if the Times/major media had a history of letting minorities off the hook when they plagairized, then sure, look into AA. But this isn't the case; as noted, Glass at TNR was the last big plagairist in the media, and he was quite white. I see no evidence that race had anything to do with the Times keeping Blair on the staff.

Now, as Instapundit (I believe) noted, Apple's (the NYT "Analysis" writer from the Iraq War) correction rate was nearly double what Blair's was, and " though he plagairized, at least what Blair was writing was true.
posted by Kevs at 5:51 PM on May 10, 2003


Midas Mulligan sez: Where are the calls for independent oversight?

And who would you nominate for that independent oversight? Another newspaper? The government (wouldn't that raise certain constitutional questions?)


The demand that the investigation not content itself with simply fully articulating what one guy did wrong, but insist upon digger deeper into processes and procedures? Into ... executive management.

That was discussed and proposed in the article - you really should try reading the links sometime.

You know, they could have just kept quiet about it and hoped that no one found out or talked. Give them credit for being honest about it.
posted by pyramid termite at 6:06 PM on May 10, 2003


Midas Mulligan sez: Where are the calls for independent oversight?

And who would you nominate for that independent oversight? Another newspaper? The government (wouldn't that raise certain constitutional questions?)


How about the Columbia School of Journalism? Or any one of a hundred different public and private organizations that monitor the press? Are you really saying that there are no objective observers qualified to look into the NYT?


The demand that the investigation not content itself with simply fully articulating what one guy did wrong, but insist upon digger deeper into processes and procedures? Into ... executive management.

That was discussed and proposed in the article - you really should try reading the links sometime.


Unfortunately, I read the thing - the entire thing - all too well. Perhaps you ought to read the links. Permit me to quote from the last page:

But Mr. Sulzberger emphasized that as The New York Times continues to examine how its employees and readers were betrayed, there will be no newsroom search for scapegoats. "The person who did this is Jayson Blair," he said. "Let's not begin to demonize our executives — either the desk editors or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher."

Indeed. I wonder how the NYT will address the next corporate scandel. Will they say it is a "person", and there is no reason to demonize executives?

You know, they could have just kept quiet about it and hoped that no one found out or talked. Give them credit for being honest about it.

Indeed, and tell me, does the NYT give credit to Republicans, or corporations, when they are honest about mistakes? Or do they cry for greater coverage, and deeper independent investigations? And no, they couldn't have kept quiet about it. The lies were too great, and involved far too many people. Their choice was to break it themselves and spin it with there own spin (which they did), or wait until the fabrications started being reported by others.

I'm absolutely loving the fact that the NYT is exposing itself for what it really is - a newspaper adamently determined to apply to it's own faults a degree of understanding and forgiveness considerably greater than it has applied to so many others. It actually has the guts to talk about how hard it is to manage a newsroom of 375 reporters. Gosh - try several thousand stock analysts, or investment bankers. Yet somehow the same standards they've so vocally called for in so many other industries apparently don't apply to themselves.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:18 PM on May 10, 2003


As a journalist myself, I understand the need to have every little thing correct. But that said, the eight page (online pages, that is) list of corrections in Blair's stories has some hilarious tidbits.

Like this one: "He wrote that Stacy L. Menusa and her 3-year-old son were "standing in the driveway of her parents' home" when two marines arrived with news of her husband's death. Ms. Menusa, in a recent interview, said that she and her son were inside the house at the time."

Gee, thanks for clearing that one up, Times!

Why did he never leave New York? Was he afraid to fly? Getting out of the newsroom to report is a huge perk! Was he really just that unwilling to work, or was there some bizarre phobia involved? I wonder.
posted by GaelFC at 7:24 PM on May 10, 2003


nevermind the plagiarism, fake travels and his fabrications -- Blair's corrections rate alone _was_ appalling anyway, he deserved to be fired months ago.

I agree completely. Blair's 6.9% correction rate was way too high.

But by comparison Adam Clymer, the NYT's Chief Washington Correspondent, in the same period of time incurred a correction rate of 9.0% (36 Corrections/400 Bylines) and the Associate Editor R. W. Johnny Apple Jr has an astounding correction rate of 14.1% (46/327).
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:30 PM on May 10, 2003


Hrm, sounds like the average news reporter here in Taiwan. Perhaps he's on his way here to make up "facts" about SARS.
posted by Poagao at 8:05 PM on May 10, 2003


noticed this morning that the NYT has advertising banners all over the onion. 2 on the front page alone. i've yet to see a single correction from the onion, fine paper that it is; it must have some damn fine editors/factcheckers. perhaps this is just what blair needs at this stage of his career...
posted by n o i s e s at 9:19 PM on May 10, 2003


Are you really saying that there are no objective observers qualified to look into the NYT?

Objective or not, anyone can read the facts for themselves in the paper, can't they?

Unfortunately, I read the thing - the entire thing - all too well.

And you conveniently ignore the sections where it says they are going to be reviewing their proceedures and the oversight of their reporters.

Indeed, and tell me, does the NYT give credit to Republicans, or corporations, when they are honest about mistakes? Or do they cry for greater coverage, and deeper independent investigations?

It seems to me that you've got your own agenda here that really doesn't have all that much to do with the story. But, I really don't know what you think this independent investigation you espouse would accomplish, unless you're accusing the Times of having people on their staff who aided and abetted the reporter in his deceptions. Even if there were, what laws have been broken? It seems to me that many of the instances in which investigations of corporations have been demanded have involved law-breaking. It also seems to me that Republicans, being elected officials, ought to be prepared for a certain amount of scrutiny when official actions are questioned.

What happened at the Times isn't ethical and it wasn't good - but, as a recent case involving FoxNews has shown, there's no law against lying.

The guy's fired - the Times is embarrassed nationally with a scandal and faced with some difficult changes in their editing of the paper. Just what more do you want from an investigation?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:07 PM on May 10, 2003


Hey Midas, the problem with your comment is that at those other companies the executives were the ones acting like freaky/lazy forgot-to-graduate-college, charmed-their-way-into-a-job NYT cub reporters.

Whereas here it was one guy.

Plus, while this is a scandal especially for a "paper of record," the NYT didn't cause the power to go out in California or unsuspecting middle income Americans to lose their entire life savings.

Context and all.
posted by zaack at 10:51 PM on May 10, 2003


Am I the only one who sees a difference between "corrections" and just making stuff up out of thin air? To compare the correction rates in this case is absurd.

Did AA play a part?

Howell Raines boasting about the New York Times' affirmative action program to the National Association of Black Journalists two years ago, after specifically mentioning Jayson Blair as an example of the Times' successful recruiting efforts

That seems to settle that.

Most mature adults understand that if this had been a middle class white male he would have been fired at the first HINT of displeasure from his superiors.

Why did it have to be emailed around that they had to "Stop Jayson"?? Why was he not summarily fired? That's a damn fine way to "stop" someone. But for some mysterious reason he was unable to be fired. Wonder why?

Yeah. Race played a part. Of course it did. It ALWAYS does in America.

And that is the real story and the sad commentary on America. Fear of lawsuit? Probably. Poster boy? Probably.

Spineless idiot editors? Definitely. He filed no travel or lodging expenses. Idiots. A bookkeeping major at a community college could have "uncovered" this fraud.

On preview: it doesn't have to be either-or. The reporter was certainly to blame for his deception. The editors were certainly to blame for not catching it. They are BOTH to blame. There's plenty to go around.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:03 PM on May 10, 2003


Hey Ynoxas, you ever hear of a union? They go into that in the article. And as a transplant from an "at-will" state, let me tell you, people in a union in NY get away with a lot more than us 'regular folks' can.
posted by zaack at 11:08 PM on May 10, 2003


Why did he never leave New York? Was he afraid to fly?

From the article:
"According to cellphone records, computer logs and other records recently described by New York Times administrators, Mr. Blair had by this point developed a pattern of pretending to cover events in the Mid-Atlantic region when in fact he was spending most of his time in New York, where he was often at work refining a book proposal about the sniper case."
posted by boltman at 11:08 PM on May 10, 2003


Associate Editor R. W. Johnny Apple Jr has an astounding correction rate of 14.1%

Completely off topic, but does anybody actually read this guy's ramblings? Once, long long ago, he was a reporter, but now he apparently has free rein from the paper to go wherever he wants and spout a few thousand words about what drifts through his head in his hotel room or beach cabana, and it all gets printed sans editing, fact-checking, or any other modifications. Whenever I open a section and see "Chile: They're Making Wine at Affordable Prices!" or "The South of France: It's Enjoyable in the Sun!" I know before I look that the byline will read "By R.W. APPLE, JR." and I can safely skip it.
posted by languagehat at 9:19 AM on May 11, 2003


Comparing Apple's and Blair's corrections is like comparing....well, you know.


Typical Apple corrections:

An article on Feb. 16 about architecture in Paris misspelled the surname of a French painter whose works included depictions of the Eiffel Tower. He was Robert Delaunay, not Delauney.

Because of an editing error, an article last Wednesday about the endurance of steak as Argentina's national dish even in difficult economic times misstated the term for a cut of sirloin with a shape reminiscent of a gun. It is cuarto pistola, not corta de pistola.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:43 AM on May 11, 2003


What Ynoxas said ....

and I hope this inspires the Times to tighten up some of their practices. It sounds like they have gotten too complacent. Every big bureaucracy can stand a wakeup call now and then.

That said, I am a regular reader of both the New York Times and the Washington Post. Guess who gets it right more consistently? The Times, hands down. What is my basis for saying this? Both papers periodically cover where I work. The Times reportage is consistently better, more in depth, and they obviously have better sources than the Post (even though the Post has the home town advantage.) Obviously I can't speak personally on their reporting of other stories, but based on what I know about their coverage of my workplace, I generally trust what they say.
posted by gudrun at 9:52 AM on May 11, 2003


I'm absolutely loving the fact that the NYT is exposing itself for what it really is - a newspaper adamently determined to apply to it's own faults a degree of understanding and forgiveness considerably greater than it has applied to so many others. It actually has the guts to talk about how hard it is to manage a newsroom of 375 reporters. Gosh - try several thousand stock analysts, or investment bankers. Yet somehow the same standards they've so vocally called for in so many other industries apparently don't apply to themselves.

Right. Except that the Times' failure to manage a single bad employee in no way compares to the sorts of organizational corruption that they seek to expose in large corporations. And that standard they so vocally call for is nothing more than full disclosure; do you have any evidence that they're not aiming for that here?

As to why Blair might not have been dealt with sooner, he seems to have been seen as one of the Times' up-and-coming stars. People probably didn't even dream he would plagiarize and invent interviews he never gave; it's unthinkable, for a journalist. And journalism is very much sink-or-swim; editors rarely have time (not to mention inclination) to really help new reporters learn the ropes. So I guess they ended up waiting until Blair had really sunk before they actually did anything more than talk about the problem that had developed.

Also, the affirmative action angle doesn't fly, because they seem to have really liked this guy — it's not like they brought him in and kept him around as a token homage to diversity.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:06 AM on May 11, 2003


[Meant to add this yesterday, but got caught up in work, so apologies if this doesn't seem to fit the "flow" of the current conversation.]

As mentioned by others, the AA angle is a red herring in this case. So is the "utter corruption at NYT" discussion (IMO). The real concern here, if you care about such things as journalistic integrity, is what if anything this case and other recent incidents say about the state of "real" news in contemporary society. Instantaneous digital communication and access to information has "freed up" the old information bottleneck of traditional media outlets, but it has also blurred the boundaries between entertainment and news. What I see happening is an erosion of the discipline necessary to provide clear, impartial (as much as possible) insight into the events of the world; this is what the "traditional" media outlets should be counted on to do best. Unfortunately, when successful news is determined by the ratings it brings in rather than the accurracy and insight it provides, and when speed to market is considered more valuable than presenting facts (a factor in the LA Times photo case [scroll down to the interview]), journalistic integrity is usually the first ballast tossed overboard. The "old media" outlets have a distinct and important role to play in society; no, they're no longer your only source of news and information, nor should they be. But they should reflect a commitment to integrity and truth that create a level of trust between them and their readers (or viewers, or listeners), and this integrity should hopefully be a higher organizational priority than simple ratings or being "first on the scene." (I realize this may be asking a lot in the age of Fox News, but, again, there is a vital place for this kind of accurate reporting in society.)

The Canton Repository has much more to say about this.
posted by arco at 10:59 AM on May 11, 2003


This sounds like cronyism, not an affirmative action issue. Blair was obviously well-liked and the pet of the managing editor, Boyd, who protected him and withheld information from lower level managers about Blair's abysmal record. The fact that both Blair and Boyd are black is irrelevant. This kind of thing happens all the time: Newsweek says they used to smoke together in front of the building. They were pals.

The other issue that seems to get lost is that The Times corrects everything, every damn little thing. Have you ever read NYT corrections? That "inside the house/outside the house" thing is typical. It's no wonder Blair had so many corrections.

I think the New York Post ran something like 4 corrections
last year, compared to hundreds and hundreds in The Times.
I read the Post. They fuck up things all the time. They never run corrections unless somebody's suing them. And corrections are no indication that somebody's a plagiarist in waiting. Too separate problems.

The AA issue... Doesn't a good newspaper need young reporters? Doesn't it need black and chinese and French speakers and old white hacks too? Now let's say there was an AA issue here. The New York Times doesn't have to settle for second best. It can pick and choose THE VERY BEST minority
journalists and intern candidates in the country. Blair was considered among the best by his professors. He worked at the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. He fooled a lot of people.
posted by Slagman at 2:44 PM on May 11, 2003


UPDATE: Susanna Cornett and Laurence Simon blame affirmative action. Well, maybe -- but I seem to recall seeing a post somewhere to the effect that Johnny Apple had an even higher percentage of corrections. So maybe the problem goes deeper.

--instapundit. The fact of the matter is, his correction rate isn't that high. He had a lot of corrections because he had a lot of articles.
posted by delmoi at 6:37 PM on May 11, 2003


Mr. Blair was just one of about 375 reporters at The Times

Well thank goodness he wasn't two or three of them!

Throughout both the 10-page article and this thread, the opening scene of "The Music Man" kept playing in my head. You know..."The fellow sells bands. Boys bands. I don't know how he does it. But he lives like a king and he dallies and he gathers and he plucks and he shines, and when the man dances, certainly boys, what else? The piper pays him. Yessss Sir."

His writing ability made him a reasonable hire. His personality likely made him a desirable hire. Given these two factors, his skin color made him a must hire. The NYT's commitment to racial diversity also made him a must-not-fire. Notice that even after the scale of his deceit was clear, he was permitted to resign from his job rather than be fired -- something I suspect the NYT insisted on so as to avoid lawsuits down the road. This opinion askew to anybody?
posted by Bixby23 at 11:40 PM on May 11, 2003


An article in Newsweek raises some good questions about the Times' investigation, too.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:16 AM on May 12, 2003


« Older CSS Zen...   |   Earth to Bill Gates: Thank you... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments