Dear Readers:

On May 30th, 2003, I wrote on Gawker: "I don't think this Jayson Blair thing is being covered extensively enough, and I'd like to propose a solution (thought up by an uncredited intern): the NYT should create a special pull-out section titled 'A Paper Challenged.' All Jayson Blair, all the time."

On June 15th, 2003, Frank Rich wrote in his weekend NYT column: "The paper thought that by running a four-page-plus, blow-by-blow account of Mr. Blair's infractions and a preliminary internal investigation, it was delivering the last word (or last 14,000 words) on the story. But the medium is indeed the message, and the encyclopedic size of our account, almost large enough to be a section titled 'A Newspaper Challenged.'"

Now, I'm not saying that Frank Rich reads Gawker. Or that he stole a joke from me, which I of course stole from an uncredited intern. It's not very likely, given that we keep him stored in a refrigerator box in the basement, where he's completely deprived of Internet access, green M&Ms and NEA funding reports. [NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. YOU DO NOT KEEP FRANK RICH IN THE BASEMENT.] [Ed. The attic. We keep him in the attic.] [CUT IT OUT.] [Ed.You fact checkers suck all the fun out of journalism.] [BITE ME.]

This image was lost some time after publication.

What I am saying is that Rich and I are on exactly the same wavelength. Rich's column focuses on a phenomenon he has coined the "mediathon," which he describes as "a relentless hybrid of media circus, soap opera and tabloid journalism we have come to think of as All Calamity All the Time." (He says "mediathon;" I say "eight or nine more Gawker posts." Potato, potahto.)

Rich goes on to explain that the Jayson Blair Crisis escalated to catastrophic proportions, in part because the NYT insisted on covering it extensively and, some might say, excessively. I prefer "thoroughly." Five weeks later, Rich breathlessly exclaimsor I imagine him breathlessly exclaimingand we're STILL talking about Jayson Blair! Only five weeks! (You don't have to read the actual article, because I haveVoila!summarized it for you.)

Which raises an important question: if Rich or anyone else at the NYT writes an essay next week talking about how they're still talking about Jayson Blair, does that technically constitute still talking about Jayson Blair? Or are we on some sort of materially different meta-plane where we're not really talking about Jayson Blair anymore? We're talking about talking about Jayson Blair, but it's not like it's six weeks later and we're STILL talking about Jayson Blair.

Not that it really matters. There's a larger question here. (I don't know what it is; only that it's slightly larger than the last question yet not quite so large as certain others, and when I put it in italics it acquires a palpable element of gravitas.)

I just don't think that the Jayson Blair case has been explored thoroughly enough. We, The Media, have repeatedly failed to engage in the collective self-absorpreflection necessary to produce a ridiculougorous program of continual evaluation and systematic improvement. During the recent war in Iraq, for example, there were numerous reports on media coverage of the war, and even a few on media coverage of media coverage of the war. But where, I ask you, was the coverage of media coverage of media coverage of the war? There was none!

Alright, there was some, but it appeared in an obscure Minnesota newspaper that even Romenesko wouldn't pick up.

At any rate, we must not let this happen again! We must examine the Jayson Blair case until every man, woman, and child understands the key tenant of journalism: Thou Shalt Not Just Make Shit Up, Unless Thou Doest Work For Certain European Newspapers Wherest Journalists Are Occasionally Allowed to Do That! In light of this, I'd like propose that we all make a commitment to focus exclusively on the Jayson Blair Crisis. (And by all, I mean more "you" than "me," but let's not get hung up on the technicalities.) No more reporting of non-Jayson Blair news until we figure this Jayson Blair thing out! The Baathist insurgents can wait. We need a little "me" time. Or should I say "we" time?

Respectfully,
Elizabeth Spiers