By now you may have heard of Jayson Blair. The 27-year old reporter on the national desk of the New York Times caused a firestorm when the newspaper admitted that Blair had "committed numerous acts of journalistic fraud." Among his crimes against truth and journalism, Blair stole material from other news organizations, manufactured quotes and repeatedly lied to his editors of his whereabouts.

More about Blair and the Times trying to recover from his fraudulent acts can be found here:

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage2.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/913147.asp?0cv=KB10
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0320/cotts.php
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003493
http://www.drudgereport.com/nyt.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13....investigation/
http://nypost.com/business/75672.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082896/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-j...air2_05-12.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003May13.html

But the issue that is troubling minority journalists is what effect Blair will have on the effort to increase greater racial diversity in America's newsrooms. Already the opponents of diversity have seized upon this incident as an example of what can happen when an unprepared minority rises too fast while engaging in sloppy journalistic practices.

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post: "Look, this was a promising young black reporter,” he said. “I wonder if a middle-aged hack would have gotten away with 50 mistakes and still be at that job."

Pat Buchanan: The Jayson Blair scandal at The New York Times is a case of the chickens of affirmative action coming home to roost.

William Safire of the New York Times: This is about diversity backfiring. [/]

and finally this scathing blast from Mickey Kaus of SLATE: [i]The NYT story's party line -- that the underlying problem "appears to have been communications" -- is a defensive euphemism worthy of Nixon. Everyone at the paper seems to have communicated quite clearly in January, 2001. Rather, the Blair disaster appears (in large part) to be a fairly direct consequence of the Times's misguided race preference policy. Plenty of other factors were involved, but without "diversity" it wouldn't have happened. ...

The question I would like to pose is this: Is "diversity" just another excuse for lowering standards and allowing unqualified minorities to be placed in positions they may not be ready to handle?

Or is the case of Jayson Blair an isolated case that does not reflect negatively on the thousands of minority journalists that do the job right?

perhaps you would care to ellaborate on what it is you wish to debate?

I was still editing the post when you replied Unabomber, but I believe that Jayson Blair bears the primary responsiblity for his acts of journalistic malpractice.

And his editors at the Times who apparently ignored his history of sloppy work and a specific warning that Blair was an accident waiting to happen, also have to shoulder some of the weight.

However, while the drive to bring greater racial representation to newsrooms has been damaged by the acts of this one individual, it should not be used as an excuse to recruit more black, asian, latino and other people of color.

The critics of newsroom diversity have some valid points and through this painful experience some reforms of the system should be undertaken to ensure truly qualified and committed candidates are accepted.

The process needs to be mended, not ended. Reformed, not discarded.

It's obviously the person, not the race. He didn't commit fraud because he was a minority, just as a white reporter who commits fraud doesn't do it because of his whiteness. Buchanan's response is unsurprisingly insipid, because he is ultimately saying that affirmative action at its core is about hiring unqualified women and minorities, as though everyone else, who is "qualified," never gets into this sort of trouble.

Opponents of Affirmative Action who feel that no consideration should be given at all to race will be putting their foot in their mouth by assigning race as a causal here.

The fact that Mr. Blair is black is irrelevant. The fact that he was supposed to be a credentialed journalist who follows their code of ethics is entirely relevant.

So fire the guy, prosecute him if it's indicated, and hire somebody else--I don't care what color.

I think you miss the real issue here. The AA discussion revolves around how Blair was handled after his lousy ethics were apparent. His editors called for his firing as early as Jan 2001, but the top brass failed to act. They even gave him more important assignments instead.

He wasn't lousy because he's black, but was he allowed to stay around far too long because of it? Did the Times simply expect less from a black reporter? Would a white reporter have been let go a long time ago under the same circumstances?

passion51:
You're right. I saw the newstory again today: there is a real question as to whether Mr. Blair was cut an inordinate amount of slack because of his race.
On the surface, I would have to say yes. What a pity, and how unprofessional. Shame on the boss!
Mr. Blair is going to have a hard time getting as good a job as he just screwed up, and deservedly so.

For those interested in how black journalists are handling the fallout from Blair I would suggest checking out the following link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003May13.html

and visit the website www.trottergroup.com, a website featuring African American columnists.

Can someone please explain this one to me? Is this an oxymoron, or am I just too cynical to grasp the entire concept?

Not too cynical Dayton, I laughed as I read it myself. Funny thing is, I don't think it was intentional but I'd bet it will be defended as such when brought to his attention.

Dayton & Passion - who are you quoting? I can't find that quote anywhere in this thread but in your two posts. Did it come from one of the articles? If so, which one?

Jaime, first two sentences in Terry Neal's column from the Washington Post. It's at link given by nighttimer.

I think the most obvious thing that can be said about the Jayson Blair story is that, if he had been a white guy, it wouldn't have been much of a story.

Shame on Blair. If anyone at the Times treated Blair any differently due to his race, shame on them. If this story has any impact beyond the offices of the Times and those directly involved with Blair, shame on everyone else.