RAINES BLOCKED REVIEW OF BOOK ON HOW DIVERSITY CRUSADE CORRUPTS NEWS

Just a year ago, NYT editor Howell Raines refused to allow the Times to review a book by Bill McGowan on How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism. That was at a time he knew it was actually happening to himself at the NY Times, but before he "flooded the zone" with Augusta Golf Course crusading. It was also before he employed what some call "nice" racism by nominating the irresponsible Blair to cover the D.C. sniper case -- and allowing him to embellish that coverage to slam the White House.

That assignment was not only cruel to Blair, but it has now created a brand new racial tension in newsrooms and readers as some wonder if other black journalists at lesser liberal papers are being given a similar pass on incompetence. That's because the root of the liberal diversity problem is obvious. Liberals in the media leave a much smaller pool for potential success when, in hiring decisions, they start off by discriminating against minorities who don't fit their intellectual stereotype. At least conservatives will generally hire all qualified minorities, then keep and promote only the most competent.

Howell Raines recently "looked into his heart," just like Trent Lott did, and reflected on the racial angst that led to his decision to set high-school grad Jayson Blair up (for national humiliation) with the sniper story assignment. Raines admitted race played a part. Jayson Blair adds that race was everything at the Times.

"Anyone who tells you that my race didn't play a role in my career at The New York Times is lying to you,” he said. “Both racial preferences and racism played a role. And I would argue that they didn't balance each other out. Racism had much more of an impact."

"Howell and Gerald have certainly had their problems. But using me against them is kind of unfair. Because what I'm a symbol of is what's wrong with The New York Times. And what's been wrong with The New York Times for a long time."

That brings us back to the NYT book review story. Let's just have the liberal Nat Hentoff tell it:

But the editor of the Times Book Review gave the San Francisco Chronicle another reason for his dismissal of Coloring the News: "I also think there's a question, and I don't know the answer: Is this newspaper . . . the best place to discuss a book that is so critical of this newspaper?" The book review editors of The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times had no difficulty answering that question.

...McGowan quotes Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.'s remark in 1992 that "diversity is the single most important issue" facing the Times ". . . . We can no longer offer our reader a predominantly white, straight version of events." He was right, of course.

But the failure to seriously cover diverse viewpoints on issues has led to clear political correctness in the pages of the Times—as in the paper's unflagging support of collective affirmative action that violates the "equal protection of the laws" guarantee of the 14th Amendment. As McGowan notes, Sulzberger has neglected a very important issue of fairness still facing the Times.

Dan Seligman captures an essence of the book in his review in The Wall Street Journal: "Paul Teetor, an award-winning reporter at Vermont's Gannett-owned Burlington Free Press, is covering a local forum on racism. A young white woman tries to speak and is told by the moderator, a [black] mayoral aide, that only 'people of color' are allowed to speak. Mr. Teetor agrees with the woman that this is 'reverse racism' and says so in his next-day news story. The mayoral aide says he will organize a march on the Free Press if Mr. Teetor isn't instantly fired. He is indeed fired, in a 90-second meeting at which he has no chance to defend himself. . . .

"The editor who fired him is under pressure from Gannett to improve his 'mainstreaming' scores. . . . Editors are supposed to meet a variety of racial targets in hiring, in the use of sources, and in positive news coverage."

That diversity goal misfires when it leads to identity politics masquerading as reliable journalism. [emphasis mine]

As far as the Times and Jayson Blair, he often injected racially provocative quotes into stories that weren't really much about race. I'm wondering if that was that something he was hired for, or else maybe just pressured to play up for diversity points?

Finally, last year Raines tried to avoid the book author at an awards dinner:

[Coloring the News author Bill] McGowan actually applauds efforts to increase the number of minority journalists, but deplores the effects he says it’s had on many newsrooms: political conformity, ethnic hypersensitivity and racial favoritism.

...In accepting his award for media criticism, McGowan thanked the National Press Club. Looking at Raines, he said, “It would have been easy to turn an eye of polite indifference to this book as some in the profession have done.”

Ouch. Raines refused to even review a book that should have become his bible. It could have saved his career and the paper. Instead he's being offered advice from Jayson Blair:

Mr. Blair said. "I feel bad for the situation he’s in. But I think a lot of it is by his own hand. He is a good man. He is well-intentioned.

"Maybe it’ll make him a little mature," he said. He broke out into laughter, stomping his foot on the ground. "That’s coming from me!"

I don't blame him for mocking Raines' immaturity. Patronizing minorities with "benign" racism can sometimes be more destructive than blatant bigotry. When the two are combined in one newsroom, the difference may become indistinguishable -- as "nice" and "mean" racists feed off each other's racial biases.