By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
What's most amazing is that even some Times staffers who worship the brand are intent on ramping up the damage. They say Blair's meteoric rise at the paper demands an institutional fall guyand who better than executive editor Howell Raines, an autocratic manager who has discouraged dissent and alienated large swaths of the newsroom? However, Raines has said he will not step down unless asked to, and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says he will not ask Raines to resign.
The staff's distaste for Raines became official on May 14, when newsroom employees crowded into a town hall meeting led by Sulzberger, Raines, and managing editor Gerald Boyd. According to the Times' own reporting, Raines told the crowd he accepted responsibility for the fact that "our institution has been damaged" and acknowledged that his own management style was on trial. He recited specific complaints he had heard: He is "inaccessible" and "arrogant," his newsroom is "too hierarchical," he dictates, promotes favorites, and presides over a culture of fear. The now on-the-record complaints were eerily similar to those first reported in a recent Press Clips column ("Republic of Fear," April 16-22, 2003).
But Raines's critics remain unmoved, and one said, "Wednesday settled nothing." Some hope an internal investigation will expose a "second smoking gun," that is, another Times reporter whom Raines has favored despite a tainted track record. The hunger for a scapegoat may extend all the way to the top: Last week, a rumor went around that the Sulzberger family, which owns the Times, is dissatisfied with the performance of Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
But there is no truth to the rumors of the publisher's demise, according to Peter Tauber, a member of the extended Sulzberger clan who has known the current Times publisher for more than 35 years. In an interview with the Voice, Tauber said, "Nobody's after Arthur. No one attributes this in any way to his leadership and no one is anything but admiring of the incredibly successful job he has done." As for Raines, Tauber added, the top editor is "very secure. It would be completely inappropriate for him to lose his job over this. This is not the cause for a revolution. This is the cause for correcting systemic errors."
Tauber dismissed complaints about Raines's style, explaining that there will always be grumblers in a hierarchy of supremely talented people. He credited the Sulzbergers for the "thankless, but amazing" job of maintaining a national institution. "I hate to sound like Pollyanna," he says, "but things are good at the Times." Any damage from the Blair scandal is clearly mitigated by the fact that financially, the company is doing "extraordinarily well."
Many Times staffers are grateful to the Sulzbergers for giving up a chunk of their profits to support good journalism, especially in the wake of September 11. But don't the Sulzbergers care about staff morale?
"Howell is unnecessarily antagonizing some very good people," said one reporter. "His job is to hold the hands of all these neurotics and get them to be more productive. Dissing people doesn't get you anywhere." Citing inspirational newspaper editors such as Gene Roberts, Ben Bradlee, and Abe Rosenthal, the source said, "People will run into a burning building for them. Nobody's going to run into a burning building for Howell."
The question on every insider's mind last week was whether Raines would survive the attacksnot from the furies outside the building, but from the furies within. Staffers puzzled over the available evidence: Raines, now 60, a former D.C. bureau chief, has always played favorites and ruled like a bully. Sulzberger is said to have known he was taking a risk when he appointed Raines to the top job. On the other hand, Raines is said to have cultivated Sulzberger and lunched with him every week for years. "Arthur is in love with Howell," notes one source, and others observed that Sulzberger has now tied his fortune more closely to Raines's than ever before.
If Raines rides out the storm, it may only enhance his profile as a keen student of power. He is said to enjoy invoking the decisions of presidents in times of crisis, and his recent actions certainly merit a chapter in the annals of executive privilege. According to one insider, Raines helped appoint the team that worked on the Times account of the Blair scandal published on May 11. When Times reporters interviewed their boss for the story, he was said to be "very confrontational" and "in-your-face." And when Raines expressed an interest in reading the story before publication, sources say, his colleagues had to politely dissuade him.
According to a Times spokesperson, neither the publisher, executive editor, nor managing editor read the May 11 story before it was published. But Raines's aggressive posture may account for certain gaps in the narrative, such as what motivation he and Boyd had for promoting a young employee with admitted "personal problems" and a long list of corrections to the status of national reporter last fall, or why he and Boyd did not ask for the identities of Blair's anonymous sources shortly afterward, when prosecutors challenged Blair's sniper stories.