The New York Times is not only “at risk”; it is in danger of losing the “diversity” race.
After a 10-month study, the New York Times Diversity Council issued its confidential internal report yesterday. The 39-page document, made available to staffers, describes The Times as “a newspaper at risk” on diversity matters and says the paper is “losing ground in comparison to business that are among the leaders in diversity.”
You probably think all this trouble stems from the Jayson Blair affair, but according to NYT’s “Diversity Council” you’re wrong.
The report says that no evidence connects Blair’s transgressions to the diversity efforts then in place at The Times, but that the perception of such a link still lingers: “[in] the minds of many, however, Mr. Blair remains an example of newspaper diversity run amok.”
“Many in the newsroom said they believed the Blair case had a lasting, deleterious effect on the way minority reporters and editors were viewed, both inside and outside the newsroom,” the report says.
Curiously, and I believe inconsistently, the NYT’s preferred response to this “perception” of “diversity” run amuck is … more “diversity.” (Note, however, that the “Diversity Council” is careful to point out that the only “diversity” it cares about is limited to “employees’ race, gender and sexual orientation. Religious and political differences were not accounted for.”)
Regarding the freedom of political speech, however, the NYT sings a different tune. In that arena its concern with “perception” causes it to advocate restrictions on how much citizens can contribute to political campaings and how much political campaigns can spend to promote their message because of the perception that creates of buying and selling influence.
I am sure it is no more than coincidence that restrictions on the political speech of others serves to amplify the weight of its own editorial voice. Or maybe that’ s just another “perception” that should be ignored.
The audacity of the diversity police at major newspapers is astonishing. They aren’t even discreet about the fact that they are more interested in the color of a reporter’s skin or if the reporter has a “z” on the end of his name or not. I even knew non-Hispanics with Hispanic surnames who were eagerly counted as minorities when they clearly were not. But if you were white and wanted to cover something like Black History Month, you were banned because you “wouldn’t understand.” It’s no wonder people don’t take these guys seriously anymore.
I wonder. In circumstances like these (journalism, education), how much diversity is race driven and how much is a proxy for ideological bias, given the known group voting patterns. Such a substitution would have two benefits. First, a defined ideological requirement would undermine institutional integrity faster. And second it gives the institutions the ability to portray opponents as racists.
Maybe I’m just feeling cynical this morning.