E.R. Shipp, former ombudsman for the Washington Post, has an article in its Sunday Outlook section that minimizes, even denies, the role of race in the Jayson Blair affair.
[I]t wasn’t Blair’s race that made him a favorite with his editors. It was his charm, his bonhomie, his ability to schmooze. I’m sure his bosses took pleasure in the fact that a young black reporter was rising in the ranks. But other talented black journalists didn’t get the kinds of breaks that Blair received at such a young age.
So, Blair was not given special treatment coming and going because of his race because other young black Timespeople did not advance as fast? This is a curious and rather glaring non sequitur.
Equally curious is Shipp’s contention that at the top of the Times “there were relatively liberal editors, most of them white, who perceive themselves as color-blind and diversity-friendly.”
Relatively liberal? Colorblind? I wonder what New York Times she’s talking about.
How can a person be colorblind and diversity-friendly at the same time? Is this what put the oxy in oxymoron?