perfidy

Kaus says:

It turns out we weren't reading the reporting of the famous, cream-of-the-profession Times employees, but the reporting of unidentified "stringers" we've never heard of. ... Conventional journalists sometimes sneer at blogs because there's no way for a reader to know whether what a random, unknown person says on his Web site is true. But it sounds as if the Times is not so different from a blog after all--what you are reading is really the work of random, unknown "legs" and stringers. ... 

Of course, in other ways the Times and the typical blog are very different forms of journalism. One obsessively reflects the personal biases, enthusiasms and grudges of a single individual. The other is just an online diary! ...

I don't quite understand his motivation - working at the Times in his twenties, great job prestige, etc. And he goes and makes shit up. Journalism is not hard. I am doing something like journalism right now, in my underwear. It would really be journalism if I called someone and interviewed them. But he was getting paid real money to write for a living. Didn't he realize that when you plagiarize, and put the results in the most important and widely read paper in the country, someone will notice? Holy Jeebus, what dimwitted jackassery. 

Blair is pathetic. The real shame falls on the editorial staff and their meese stuffed animals, who should have applied some standards and integrity to the "Paper of Record."