• by Larry Dobrow , June 5, 2003

With yesterday's resignations of New York Times executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd, the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal finally engulfed two of the newsroom's highest-ranking leaders. But since internal politics - rather than public cries for the heads of Raines, Boyd or even publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - exacerbated the fallout from the scandal, few within the media planning or buying communities believe that there will be any long-term effect on the once-beyond-reproach New York Times brand.

"Remember that most of the criticism was coming from within the industry," stresses Robert Passikoff, founder and president of Brand Keys, a consultancy specializing in brand equity and loyalty. "Did the guy on a Metro-North train reading the Times in the morning think any less of the paper? What happened was a black eye and it was embarrassing, but I can't remember the last time anyone died of a black eye or embarrassment."

One of the most tumultuous episodes in the history of the venerable newspaper came to a head yesterday morning, when the company issued a press release announcing the return of former executive editor Joseph Lelyveld to his previous post on an interim basis (no replacement for Boyd was named; it is assumed Lelyveld will handle both roles). "While the past few weeks have been difficult, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our employees, our readers and our advertisers to produce the best newspaper we can by adhering to the highest standards of integrity and journalism," Sulzberger said in a statement.

Most media pundits accepted if not applauded the reasoning, citing a need for the paper to defuse the brewing internal strife and start putting the Blair episode behind it once and for all. "They will get past this, but it certainly will be easier to do if they start with a clean slate at the top of the management ladder," notes Tom Kunkel, dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. "As shocking as the resignations are, Raines and Boyd stepping aside makes it much easier for the paper to regain credibility among readers and advertisers, and put policies into place that will ensure nothing like this happens again."

Despite the buckets of ink devoted to the Blair scandal by the media itself (which perhaps indulged in more than the usual schadenfreude), there seemed to be minimal public reaction to the resignations - a positive sign for the advertisers who may have questioned their commitment to the Times and its highly educated, affluent readers.

"Most of the paper's readers aren't especially interested in the internal workings of the Times," says Charles Fountain, an associate professor at Northeastern University. "Sure, [the newspaper] is a little bit damaged right now, but it's mostly damaged within the industry, which tends to be a little bit insular and not really reflective of people who read the newspaper."

Whether the media as a whole will ever regain its former stature with the American public is another question entirely. A Gallup Poll conducted between May 19 and 21 revealed that 62 percent of Americans believe media outlets are often inaccurate in their reporting, while a mere 36 percent said that those outlets "get the facts straight."