NY Times with egg on its face....again

Cascarino's Pizzeria · May 10, 2003

Seems that a writer, Jayson Blair, fabricated dozens of stories for America's "paper of record" over a long period of time. He covered the DC sniper shootings "live" from Brooklyn, never submitted expenses for travel around the country ("so Jayson, how long did it take you to hitchhike to Texas & back?") and even described the family of Jessica Lynch "living on a hilltop" (they lived in a valley), "having cattle out front" (uhhh - nope) and her brother "serves in the W.V. national guard" (he's in the Army). He's also accused of plagiarizing several other writers & papers.

Now normally this could be chalked up to a young (27), apparently charming, rogue reporter seeking to make his mark in the industry quickly. But even NPR questioned Howell Raines' handling of Blair from the get-go. Raines bragged several years ago about the NYT's efforts to diversify their ranks:

Howell Raines boasting about the New York Times' affirmative action program to the National Association of Black Journalists two years ago, after specifically mentioning Jayson Blair as an example of the Times' successful recruiting efforts. According to Block, Raines said:

'This campaign has made our staff better and, more importantly, more diverse.'

So did Raines get burnt by his own paper's A.A. efforts? Is A.A., at least from the NYT's perspective, more important than good, truthful reporting? At least Raines put the Blair controversy out there in public, but I believe he and other senior editors at the NYT have to shoulder much of the blame. They really dump on this kid & make him a scapegoat in their "expose." Not saying that what Blair did was right, he seems to be living in a fantasy world of his own making. But the buck always stops at the top.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/11PAPE.html

BenReilly · May 11, 2003

Gee, you had to bring up race.

Metros#1 · May 11, 2003

Unfortunately, race might be a factor here. It appeared some senior editors kept their silence for a long time. Did they do that because they were afraid to hurt the career of a promising minority reporter? I won't be surprised. This is from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/index.html

Owen Gohl · May 11, 2003

According to reports in the Washington Post the Times published 50 corrections on Blair's stories during his 3-4 years at the paper. They had to be well aware of "the pattern" or whatever you want to call it.

Here's another (long) look at the Blair story:

http://washingtoncitypaper.com/cover/cover.html

Cascarino's Pizzeria · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
Gee, you had to bring up race.
Click to expand...

Read the story and tell me how you DON'T see preferential treatment for this reporter. 27 yrs. old, didn't graduate from college and had the ear of senior people at the Times. Plus he covered events seasoned reporters would find challenging. It may not have to do with race, maybe the kid was a good bush!tter. But it certainly looks like he was protected even after numerous screw-ups and concerns about his professionalism were brought up from other reporters. One thing that is certain from the article - Howell Raines is a jack@ss.

BenReilly · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by Metros#1
Unfortunately, race might be a factor here. It appeared some senior editors kept their silence for a long time. Did they do that because they were afraid to hurt the career of a promising minority reporter? I won't be surprised. This is from CNN:

Click to expand...

Perhaps. And maybe this needs to be addressed specifically, but I get annoyed when some people always bring up affirmative action and ignore dozens of vastly greater injustices in the USA. African Americans still get a lousy deal in the USA, affirmative action or not.

Nate505 · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
Perhaps. And maybe this needs to be addressed specifically, but I get annoyed when some people always bring up affirmative action and ignore dozens of vastly greater injustices in the USA. African Americans still get a lousy deal in the USA, affirmative action or not.
Click to expand...

Exactly what sort of lousy deal do blacks get?

cossack · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by Nate505
Exactly what sort of lousy deal do blacks get?
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked Mr. Supply-Side:

Thousands of layoffs recently made by the city unfairly target minorities, civil rights advocates charged Sunday.

Nate505 · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by cossack
Well, since you asked Mr. Supply-Side:

Thousands of layoffs recently made by the city unfairly target minorities, civil rights advocates charged Sunday.
Click to expand...

Considering that positions like teachers aids and the janitorial staff and other low paying positions tend to get axed in a budget crisis, how exactly does that equate to blacks getting a lousy deal (not to mention the fact that a poor white guy who holds one of these jobs is also getting the axe) in this country? Because a lot of blacks hold these positions? Or is it the simple reality that in times of a budget crisis, these jobs will get axed before the people that work at the assessor's office or zoning department?

Now, if someone wanted to make the statement that the poor get a lousy deal in this country, you're probably right.

BenReilly · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by Nate505
Exactly what sort of lousy deal do blacks get?
Click to expand...

For one thing, millions of African-American workers have no health insurance, but are paying for white people to have health care. Millions are paying for white people to have a comfortable retirement, though blacks, especially men, collect very little in Social Security. That's a pretty lousy deal.

Metros#1 · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
Perhaps. And maybe this needs to be addressed specifically, but I get annoyed when some people always bring up affirmative action and ignore dozens of vastly greater injustices in the USA. African Americans still get a lousy deal in the USA, affirmative action or not.
Click to expand...

Being in the workforce for 20 years, I've seen both cases -- minority got screwed and minority got away with things others couldn't. The SAD thing is usually the hardworking, honest minority got screwed while some slick, unscrupulous minority often take advantage of the PC climate...

Cascarino's Pizzeria · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
For one thing, millions of African-American workers have no health insurance, but are paying for white people to have health care. Millions are paying for white people to have a comfortable retirement, though blacks, especially men, collect very little in Social Security. That's a pretty lousy deal.
Click to expand...

Explain this. All white people have health insurance? No white people die before getting Social Security? When did things like health insurance & S.S. become race specific?

Nate505 · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
For one thing, millions of African-American workers have no health insurance, but are paying for white people to have health care.
Click to expand...

Would you mind explaining this one to one of the ignorant masses?

And I don't have health insurance either. Is not having health insurance exclusively a black thing, or is it a poor thing?

Millions are paying for white people to have a comfortable retirement, though blacks, especially men, collect very little in Social Security. That's a pretty lousy deal.
Click to expand...

And this is exclusive to blacks how exactly?

BenReilly · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by Cascarino's Pizzeria
Explain this. All white people have health insurance? No white people die before getting Social Security? When did things like health insurance & S.S. become race specific?
Click to expand...

Explain this, given that millions of blacks suffer disproportionately in America, why do some whites get so angry about a relative handful that benefit from affirmative action? I'd really like the answer to that question.

BenReilly · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by Nate505
Would you mind explaining this one to one of the ignorant masses?

Click to expand...

Yes, millions of poor working blacks are paying for (mostly) white people to receive medicare.

Nate505 · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
Yes, millions of poor working blacks are paying for (mostly) white people to receive medicare.
Click to expand...

Do you have any type of data to back this up with?

Cascarino's Pizzeria · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
Yes, millions of poor working blacks are paying for (mostly) white people to receive medicare.
Click to expand...

You can't be this stupid.

BenReilly · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by Cascarino's Pizzeria
You can't be this stupid.
Click to expand...

You can't be this ignorant. No wait, you can be!

BenReilly · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by Nate505
Do you have any type of data to back this up with?
Click to expand...

Hmm. I really figured that it was common knowledge that blacks have a much lower life expectancy.

http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar03/125645.asp

No matter how you cut it, millions of blacks are working without health insurance, but paying for others to have health care. But some would rather talk about a handful that get a little help from affirmative action. I find that curious.

Cascarino's Pizzeria · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
Hmm. I really figured that it was common knowledge that blacks have a much lower life expectancy.

http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar03/125645.asp

No matter how you cut it, millions of blacks are working without health insurance, but paying for others to have health care. But some would rather talk about a handful that get a little help from affirmative action. I find that curious.
Click to expand...

Ben, write your congressman/woman and suggest that black people should pay no S.S. tax because they are less likely to collect their full share. Don't expect a reply.

You've conveniently avoided the NY Times issue. Was he there because he was a good young writer (apparently he wasn't) or did the NY Times (the Howell Raines regime really) put "diversity" ahead of good journalism? Talk about THIS case, not about A.A. in general.

Cascarino's Pizzeria · May 11, 2003

A take on the NY Times scandal from a London journalist (courtesy of andrewsullivan.com):

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "As a denizen of much-denigrated Fleet Street - and the tabloid end, too - I have only three initial things to say about this sorry episode: Ha! Ha! Ha! There's got to be a great movie script in here. But it would never be made because Hollywood suffers from the same urge to mouth racial platitudes as the NYT does in its pages and hiring policies. It could never happen here in London. Why? Because other, scooped reporters who had been beaten on stories by what we call a "make-up merchant" would have grassed him up to organs like Private Eye. The whole thing has enabled us all to laugh heartily at the haughty Olympians of the NYT. And for that we should be very, very grateful." - from a gloating British hack.

Nate505 · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
Hmm. I really figured that it was common knowledge that blacks have a much lower life expectancy.

http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar03/125645.asp

No matter how you cut it, millions of blacks are working without health insurance, but paying for others to have health care. But some would rather talk about a handful that get a little help from affirmative action. I find that curious.
Click to expand...

Sorry, all of this doesn't equate to blacks getting a raw deal, especially since race is not a requirement for anyone to recieve this type of deal in this country.

BenReilly · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by Nate505
Sorry, all of this doesn't equate to blacks getting a raw deal, especially since race is not a requirement for anyone to recieve this type of deal in this country.
Click to expand...

Blacks are getting a raw deal, but you refuse to acknowledge that FACT just because our health policy doesn't specify race. A weak excuse.

Nate505 · May 11, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
Blacks are getting a raw deal, but you refuse to acknowledge that FACT just because our health policy doesn't specify race. A weak excuse.
Click to expand...

I refuse to acknowledge the 'fact' that blacks are getting a raw deal in health care as opposed to anyone else. Our health care system is bad to people of all races and creeds....

BenReilly · May 12, 2003

Originally posted by Nate505
I refuse to acknowledge the 'fact' that blacks are getting a raw deal in health care as opposed to anyone else. Our health care system is bad to people of all races and creeds....
Click to expand...

But it is unquestionably much worse for blacks. Those are the facts.

It's also highly unjust for millions of black working men to pay for old white people's health care when they can't afford the health care that might allow them to live long enough to retire.

And now we can return to our regularly scheduled bitching about affirmative action.