Seth Mnookin: 'There's a Huge Interest in the Media'
The author of a new book about the scandals at the New York Times says that recent journalism mishaps are making consumers "much savvier about how they get their information."

By Patrick Phillips
I Want Media, 11/12/04

Seth Mnookin, a former Newsweek media columnist, explores the implications of the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal at the New York Times for the rest of the media world in his new book, "Hard News," published this week.

Mnookin, who has also written about media for Inside.com and Brill's Content, says that the pressure to become "more up-to-the-minute and snazzier" is impacting many news outlets, even the "agenda-setting" New York Times.

I Want Media: Haven't we heard enough about Jayson Blair?

Seth Mnookin: The narrative of my book is really about the two years beginning a little bit before Howell Raines's tenure as executive editor of the New York Times and ending a little bit after he left. It's about the Times institutionally, both about how [the Jayson Blair scandal] was allowed to happen and then about the ways in which the paper attempted to rectify the situation. The driving force of the book is the story of the reporting team within the Times that put together the paper's own comprehensive, infamous four-page story on what Jason had done.

Obviously, from sites like yours, there's a huge interest in the media. But I think that a lot of the public, or "civilians" as we call them, still don't know how day-to-day journalists really do their jobs. So there's a lot about that in the book. And for some of the overarching themes, I tried to look at the ways in which the last couple of years at the Times embodied other trends that are going on in the journalistic universe.

IWM: What trends in journalism does the New York Times embody?

Mnookin: Like the pressure to become more up-to-the-minute and snazzier and feature more entertainment and less in-depth news. People don't think of the New York Times as succumbing to those pressures. But some of what Howell Raines was trying to do was the Times's version of being snazzier and quicker. Be first, be first, be first.

IWM: What was the matter with Jayson Blair?

Mnookin: I have no idea. He wrote in his book about some of the struggles he's had with his mental health and with drug and alcohol addiction. His behavior is consistent with someone who would be diagnosed as being bipolar or manic depressive. The extremes, the incredible burst of energy, the almost pathological dishonesty.

But that's a kind of armchair psychoanalyzing that I don't know would do anybody any good.

IWM: Do you have any sympathy for Jayson Blair?

Mnookin: It's hard for me to say that I have sympathy for him because I have not gotten the sense that he has felt sadness or remorse over any of this. So I'm not sure what I would feel sympathetic about.

IWM: What's Jayson Blair doing now?

Mnookin: I don't know, specifically. I know that he's occasionally speaking on college campuses about his book. The book did not do well at all. And I've heard that he's either living down in Virginia with his parents or is back in Brooklyn.

IWM: Jayson Blair's book didn't sell very well. Will yours?

Mnookin: It's apples and oranges. I thought he wrote a not very good book and it wasn't illuminating. It didn't offer up an honest discussion of any of the issues. There was no reporting in it, so there wasn't a lot of new information. His book was a memoir about a very specific situation. My book is a totally different exercise.

IWM: Do you have any sympathy for Howell Raines?

Mnookin: Yes, absolutely. He is a monumentally talented journalist and an amazing political reporter. In certain ways, he's an amazing editor. From my reporting, he wasn't very nice when he was an editor and he didn't listen to a lot of people. But it's hard not to feel sympathy for someone who fought their whole life to get to a certain point in their career and then see that all go to hell.

IWM: Have you received any reaction yet from the New York Times?

Mnookin: I've probably heard from about 30 people there -- reporters, editors, executives. They've been very generous with their assessment.

IWM: Does the Times plan to review it?

Mnookin: My suspicion is that they will. But I don't know for sure and have specifically not asked. If they review it, I think they would get someone who didn't work there to do it.

IWM: Your book already won a positive review from New York magazine. But Columbia Journalism Review's review was not as positive: "The subtitle of 'Hard News' suggests that the author will take us beyond a retelling of the Jayson Blair affair. But 'Hard News,' at heart, is a magazine piece with padding at both ends."

Mnookin: Right. I would love to get a magazine contract that lets me write 90,000-word stories.

My sense of the CJR review is that they wanted the book to be something different than it was. They criticized me for not writing more about Judy Miller and Iraq, and that's not what this book was about. This book is about the investigation that occurred under Howell Raines and the aftermath of that.

IWM: CJR referred to the subtitle of the book: "The Scandals at The New York Times and Their Meaning for American Media." So, what do the scandals mean?

Mnookin: The New York Times sets the agenda for much of the rest of the media world, so there's a trickle down effect. The Times has completely reworked its inner workings. They have instituted new and different types of checks. They've hired a public editor. So now, smaller newspapers around the country are starting to take similar actions.

Consumers are much savvier about how they get their information -- what it means to get a story in the New York Times versus what it means to watch a news report on Fox News.

The other big picture question is the ways in which institutions that we hold most dear, like the New York Times, are going to survive in a much different media landscape. I certainly don't pretend to be able to see the future. That's something that I can only guess about.

IWM: Care to make any guesses?

Mnookin: No, thanks. But I would never bet against the New York Times. They've been the dominant paper in the country for the better part of a century. On the other hand, virtually all media companies are joining up with big corporations, and the New York Times is not doing that. I think that that's going to be one of their central challenges.

IWM: What did you learn about the New York Times that surprised you the most?

Mnookin: I've always known that readers have a unique relationship with the Times. But I was blown away by the extent to which the people who work there think of it as something distinct from a job. They think of it almost like a duty.

One of the reasons the Times is so great is because it has all of these brilliant, talented people who are willing to sacrifice money, free time and wealth in order to be a part of this greater good. There are a lot of people there who would make a lot more money if they decided to go and write for magazines. And they would probably have more dinners with their families and have better vacation time.

But they believe in the New York Times. And I found that to be awe-inspiring. A lot of the Times people I spoke with said they wanted to participate in the book because they believed in getting a true and accurate version of what happened out into the public. They believed it would be better for the paper. These people really believe in the institution of the New York Times. That kind of faith is really remarkable.



PREVIOUS "MEDIA PEOPLE"