Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

Black and white and read all over?

Partha is technically correct: there is no formal proof that race was a deciding or even relevant factor in the Jayson Blair scandal. For all we know, Blair could have gotten special treatment because he was a University of Maryland graduate. (Or at least a pretend University of Maryland graduate, since he never actually did the work.) But to the best of our knowledge, Blair wasn't hired under an affirmative-action-for-Terrapins program. He was hired under an affirmative-action-for-ethnic-minorities program. To the best of our knowledge, the top brass at the New York Times never spoke out on the need to increase the ranks of turtle fans at the paper. The top brass at the New York Times spoke out on the need to increase the ranks of minorities at the paper. To the best of our knowledge, executives at the New York Times never singled out Blair as an example of his alma mater's importance to the paper. Executives at the New York Times singled out Blair as an example of his race's importance to the paper.

There is, of course, no evidence that Blair's malfeasance was caused by his race -- but that's a strawman, since nobody was claiming such. He's not corrupt because he's black; he's corrupt because he's corrupt. The issue is whether the treatment of Blair -- kid gloves doesn't even begin to cover it -- was affected by his race. And in that, there's no doubt. He was hired under an affirmative action program with virtually no credentials – not even a college degree. His own editor at the paper -- as the Times' own narrative recounts -- felt that Blair's race made his promotions a fait accompli.

There aren't that many possibilities. Either

• Blair is the first dishonest reporter they've hired, or
• Black and white reporters alike get away with murder at the Times, or
• Blair got special treatment.

And why would he get special treatment? No, there's no smoking gun memo saying, "I know Blair's work is shoddy, but let's be lenient with him because he's black." (At least, none I know of. Boy wouldn't it be a journalistic coup to find it, if there were.) But the Times was openly lenient with Blair for his lack of credentials, because of his race. And the Times was incredibly indulgent of him during his career there, despite his poor performance. Connect those dots, and where do you end up?
posted by David Nieporent at 5/13/2003 02:54:00 PM |