Journalist's sins not an issue of race

Miami Herald ^ | May 17, 2003 | Leonard Pitts

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Mr. Pitts should reflect further on the destructive aspects of affirmative action.

_____________________________________________________________

Florida blacks eye boycott over graduation exam ***"These kids have done what they are supposed to do," he said. "They have gotten the credits they need. They have done community service work. This test is damaging kids psychologically, because there is too much weight to it."…………………. The students being supported by the activists have been given six chances to pass the test with a passing test score of at least 40 percent, but have failed at least one element.

But no matter how many chances are given to pass, a single test should not determine a student's future, said Adora Obi Nweze, president of the Florida NAACP.

"There is more to education than writing an answer," she said. "You have students that can do so many other things, and all should be used to determine if they should be promoted."***

[Jeff Chandler]

Pitts left out a few inconvenient facts, such as the reporter's work being horrendously inferior for years, while his presence was touted as a positive for diversity, after which he was promoted to FRONT PAGE REPORTER. It sure looks as if he got preferential treatment in the name of political correctness.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It certainly does. He was so important to the NYT, they felt it was necessary to snatch him up before he received a degree in "journalism."

[Rome2000]

Maybe I should have reminded her that I am black.

Pitts with his usual whacked out take on reality.

That Blair was in a position to do what he did because of his race isn't debateable.

Yet Pitts tries anyway.

Pathetic.

I bet if Pitts boss was a white liberal male, he would have gotten that raise!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I bet if Pitts boss was a white liberal male, he would have gotten that raise!

Or maybe, he wouldn't be writing for the paper at all. That's what's really sticking in his craw.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Baltimore Sun - By Gregory Kane - Reporter's story a lesson on how not to find Diversity***The conservative National Review, never inclined toward political correctness, put it most bluntly of all:

"Blair was reassigned and promoted, often over the doubts and objections of editors, in part to honor the shibboleth of diversity - Blair, who is black, won his first job as an intern in a diversity program."

Journalists who defend affirmative action have groused that such comments are unfair, contending folks can't make Blair the poster boy for the perceived pitfalls of diversity.

But that's not what's being done. People are questioning, quite appropriately, whether Blair's faults were overlooked simply because he's black. If they were, that's just as wrong as not hiring him because he's black.

The one question not being asked is why the Times simply didn't go after a more experienced black reporter from the start. There are far more seasoned African-American journalists here at the Sun, and at other papers, who can write as well as Blair, have more years in the business and don't have a flair for fiction. The Times would have done well to seek out, and hire, one or more of them.

Of course, hiring a more experienced black reporter would have meant the Times would have had to shell out more money. In addition to the entire affirmative action/diversity debate surrounding the short but controversial career of Jayson Blair, we now have to ponder whether the Times hired him not only because he was black, but also because they could lowball him on his salary.

Liberal whites who support affirmative action and diversity had best heed the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s admonition that doing justice to black folks to compensate for past wrongs will not come on the cheap. Let that be the lesson of the day for our friends at the Times.***

[Howlin]

Journalist's sins not an issue of race

Right. His "sin" is being a fraud.

Now, The New York Time's sin IS an issue of race.

Jayson is the poster boy for affirmative action; the NYT is the poster boy for liberal white guilt being hoisted on its own petards.

Howell Raines should be pistol whipped and run out of town.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Right. His "sin" is being a fraud. Now, The New York Time's sin IS an issue of race.

Well put.

[Howlin]

Cincy, if I had come to you in January and said, "Before Memorial Day, both CNN and The New York Times will have been exposed for the scum they are," you would have had me carted away.

I must say, I'm thoroughly enjoying this.

My one hope is that Howard Dean gets the Dem nomination! That ought to be the final nail.

[JoeSixPack1]

I must say, I'm thoroughly enjoying this.

My thoughts exactly! :-)~

[Howlin]

My thought is that we had to endure eight long years of Clinton and his minions; hence, we are OWED this. :-)

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I wonder, who will be next?

[JoeSixPack1]

SO far this week,
the NYSlimes got slimed,
Suzy Estrogen got bleeped by the entire national media,
Texas rats played hardball with a hotel keycard in the wrong state,
Sidney blew'emoff is giving away the hitlery cookie receipes,
The rat's got 423 or so candidates with an equal chance at failure and their all freakin' out,
CutieKatie finally got to fire off a colon joke,
Affirmative Action got kicked in the gonads,

And it's now going to be a nice weekend. :-)

[ricpic]

"Yet somehow, it's [the Times] editors allowed themselves to be snookered by a 27-year-old."

Two key words in this sentence: somehow and allowed.

Somehow: The entire liberal culture of guilt (white and economic) that these editors are thoroughly steeped in.

Allowed: Follows from the somehow. What else could they do. Call a young and up and coming, potential "role model" black professional, on his clearly fraudulent and incompetent performance? That would make them harshly judgemental. And dare we say it.....even racist?

No. Best to look the other way, and hope he.....improves.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes. And the implication that 27 is "youth" hoodwinking "wisdom of the ages" is ludicrous too.

[OldFriend]

The FACT is that Blair would never ever have been hired if he wasn't black.

[MarkL]

No, the problem is that the reporter was simply incompetant. He never finished his jounalism degree, was constantly being corrected, and was known to be submitting erroneous and even false reporting. The simple fact is that he was incompetant.

The problem is that he was being brought along using the "Dilbert Principle," which pretty much states that the more incompetant you are, the higher you'll go in an organization. In this case, the driving factor was "affirmative action."

The "sin" wasn't the reporter's. The sin belongs to the NY Times. They should have never have hired him. Then, they should have done what all newspapers do with new reporters or writers. Bring them along slowly. Writing obituaries or ad copy. Then give them one or two small stories to see how they do. Give them time to mature and become a good reporter, or at least see if they might be capable of becoming one.

Because of affirmative action, the reporter was thrown into an environment that he clearly wasn't prepared for. Now, whether the innacuracies, lies, and shoddy reporting were just his way of trying to keep up with his position, or if it was simply because he has no morals or values, the primary blame for this belongs to the NY Times. This in no way excuses the reporter for what he did, but it was the Times that put him in the position to be able to get published. And the fact that management and the editorial staff was aware of the problem but ignored it proves that the Times wasn't concerned about truth in reporting. Of course, anyone who's the slightest bit conservative, or cares about "the truth" has known that for years.

Mark

[Freee-dame]

bump

[Zipporah]

You can't have it both ways.. first the black leadership wants special priviledges.. they when it goes awry, they won't pin the blame on affirmative action. Geesh.

[PLK]

a black celebrity accused of killing his white wife becomes the fulcrum of a national debate on race. Not domestic violence, mind you, but race.

Pitts has forgotten that the race card was first played by OJ and his attorneys, and no one else. They played it to the hilt in order to sway a jury and lead them to believe that jury nullification was not only O.K., but their duty to poor, oppressed blacks the world over. What a sham, and what a stupid statement on Pitts' part! Ugh!!!!!