Finding Hire Ground

By: Joe Strupp In the wake of the Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley scandals, background reviews for job applicants are on the rise. Still, all the reference checks and resume scouring in the world can't guarantee that a Blair or Kelley won't do their dirty work. "The problems that have been uncovered would not have been fixed through recruiting efforts," says Tara Connell, a Gannett spokeswoman, referring to the Kelley episode at her company's own USA Today.

And Jeff Cohen, editor of Hearst's Houston Chronicle, says the recent ethical lapses should not push newspapers to overhaul good

background policies. "Because Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley are reprehensible doesn't mean we have added the question, 'are you a liar?' to the standard [recruiting] repertoire," he says.

But that's close to what The New York Times is now doing. The paper has added a new recruitment questionnaire that asks, point blank, if would-be employees have ever plagiarized. "It is only being done when we are ready to make an offer," Bill Schmidt, Times associate managing editor/resources and planning, says about the requirement that went into effect in February. "We take this very, very seriously."

Schmidt says the document, which also asks for seven years worth of past residences, plus employment, education, and criminal history, is aimed at having each new employee's background on the record. But, surprisingly, he says an admission of past plagiarism or deceit would not automatically mean a job offer is removed. "We would have to get an explanation of what it is and sit down and talk about it," he says.

The Times is just one of numerous newspapers whose editors are taking recruitment more seriously. "I am far more skeptical of what I see on a resume," says Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, which withdrew a job offer from sports columnist Mike Freeman several months ago after finding out Freeman had lied about being a college graduate. "We are now verifying any academic records, and asking more questions of candidates about their professional backgrounds."

Sherrie Marshall, executive editor of The Macon (Ga.) Telegraph, reassessed after one of her former reporters, Khalil Abdullah, was found in March to have stolen elements of stories from several newspapers going back more than a year. She had hired Abdullah in 2002 knowing that he'd lost a previous job at the Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram for plagiarism. "He admitted it when we had talked about him coming on board," Marshall recalls. After careful consideration "and believing he had learned his lesson," she okayed him anyway.

But after seeing Abdullah commit similar offenses again, Marshall says she would never hire a known plagiarist. Her paper has even instituted new safeguards for investigating the backgrounds of applicants, including the use of Lexis-Nexis to check clips. "It's too big a risk to take," she said about hiring someone without checking.

The reactions of Ryerson and Marshall are common among editors who say they can no longer take job-seekers at their word. "Reference checks have always been part of what we do, but the tone is now different. Questions about character and what makes a person tick are more appropriate," says Peter Bhatia, executive editor of The Oregonian in Portland.

None of the country's major newspaper chains report changing their background check policies in the past year. Gannett Co., Inc. and The Tribune Co. have had what executives contend are thorough background checks in place for years. Hearst Newspapers has no such policies chainwide and MediaGeneral, Inc. contracts with an outside firm to conduct formal resume reviews of new hires.

But a more aggressive approach seems to be growing at various newspapers, where editors contend that they are reviewing even the most accomplished reporters with a closer eye. "It reinforces my belief that character is as important as anything else in a reporting job," says John Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, which has used a background check service for 10 years. "We will probably be even more attentive to character than we were."

But even with closer scrutiny of applicants, editors remain limited in what they can find out about a job seeker's past. While references can help paint a picture, several newsroom leaders say that they do not expect former employers to be completely honest about applicants.

"A lot of places, including us, remain circumspect," says Jack Fuller, president of Tribune Publishing, one of several newspaper executives who cited the reluctance of former employers to criticize their past employees for fear of prompting legal action against them.

During an ethics panel discussion at the ASNE convention in Washington, D.C., in April, several editors debated the wisdom of asking applicants to sign agreements that would waive their right to sue a former employer who discussed their past work. "I thought that was interesting," Fuller says.

In the end, however, newsrooms still must operate on trust, if there's any left.