Blair's Witch Project

Jayson Blair's memoir will hit bookstores March 6, whereupon Jay Leno will deliver the requesite joke about Blair's new novel, a handful of columnists will vent in 750 words or less, and the whole matter will be forgotten by April Fool's Day. But will The New York Times Book Review acknowledge their former colleague's work? Book Review editor Charles McGrath mulls the question for Editor & Publisher:

You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you don't review it, it looks like the Times is dodging criticism of itself and if you do review it, it looks like you are giving attention to something that looks like it doesn't deserve it.

For a publication which reviewed the memoir of Montgomery police chief Charles A. Moose, the standard of deserving attention seems fairly low. And regardless of precedent, the Blair tell-all—even if it tells far from all—is an important work. All the evidence one needs is contained within Monday's memo to Times employees (via L.A. Observed) from executive editor Bill Keller and managing editors Jill Abramson and John M. Geddes, which claims, "We don't intend to respond to Jayson or his book," but then does exactly that:

But after reviewing an advance copy we did want to convey something to the staff. Some of you may find the smears hurtful, even if they are utterly lacking in credibility. It pains us that, after all we have done together to put this newspaper right, any of you should be subjected to this.

My appetite is certainly wet. And note as well the memoir's title, Burning Down My Masters' House, which Maureen Dowd has already dismissed as "the most risibly tacky title in publishing history." With Times folk running scared left and right, how could the Book Review not review it?

Even from the standpoint of media studies, Blair's memoir is a significant work, both as an historical document and a current appraisal of American journalism. The Blair "debacle," as it is best known, raises some of today's most pressing media issues, including the "risibly tacky" topic raised in Blair's title. No, the rise and fall of Jayson Blair is not a case study in affirmative action, as so many chroniclers of the affair seem compelled to suggest. But the disgraced journalist is a significant reminder of the peculiar aversion to journalism felt by so many talented African Americans.

Blair appears to suggest Black journalists are fighting a losing battle in American newsrooms. That's a reasonable assertion. Some figures:

♦ Of the Times' top 25 political reporters, 23 are White. The only Black reporter, Lynette Clemetson, joined the political team in January and has written just four articles over the past two months. (Moreover, the top five Times political reporters are White males.)

♦ At The Washington Post, the political team has been described by Washingtonian as "an archaic male bastion." And yes, that would be an all-White, archaic male bastion.

♦ The Times editorial board, which purports to maintain a finger on the pulse of its city, boasts just one African American on its team of 15 writers. (Thanks to Eric Benson for this observation.)

African Americans tend to want nothing to do with journalism, and inspecting this trend ought be a top priority. Too bad, then, that the only journalist raising the issue at the moment is unemployed—and unbelievable.

Update: Chris Callahan, associate dean of University of Maryland's journalism college, is giving Blair the silent treatment, according the student newspaper, the Diamondback:

I received an e-mail on Friday that said it was from him, but I didn't open it. I saw the name, and I deleted it.

That sort of petty moralizing doesn't help anyone. And for a journalism professor, isn't deleting one's e-mail before reading it a grave journalistic faux pas? [9:48 AM]

Black Friday

Dana Milbank in The Washington Post reports:

The White House is moving swiftly to establish the administration's place in history as the Friday Night Presidency.

Last Friday afternoon, President Bush announced that he was circumventing the Senate confirmation process and appointing controversial judicial nominee William H. Pryor Jr. to the federal bench. It was the second such recess appointment to be made late on a Friday, following last month's appointment of Charles W. Pickering Sr. [...]

Indeed, Friday has become a Bush favorite both for dropping bad news and for making announcements that appeal to the president's conservative base, not necessarily the general public.

This could turn into a fun game. What will the White House unveil this Friday afternoon?

Errata

The Wall Street Journal ran this monstrous correction Friday:

CHAPMAN CAPITAL LLC didn't state in a 13D filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had earned $1.4 million from trading in Footstar stock. The $1.4 million estimate in a Jan. 28 Money & Investing article actually was taken from an article on TheStreet.com and should have been attributed properly. Chapman Capital hasn't specified the correct number. The offices of Robert Chapman, head of the firm, aren't decorated with sharks teeth and he doesn't liken himself to the fictional characters Darth Vader and the Terminator, as incorrectly stated in the Jan. 28 article. The article incorrectly attributed certain comments to a representative of the firm who had been identified as Robert Lewis; after publication, Mr. Chapman said he had made those comments himself.

How does that happen? Has Jayson Blair been writing more than memoirs?