All errors should be reported to

Monday, December 19, 2016

NYT is a white shade of pale

Having abandoned the pretense of objective journalism in a failed attempt to elect the failure Hillary Clinton as president, the New York Times lost credibility even among some liberals.

Liz Spayd, its in-house critic, actually is trying to shame management publicly into dropping the social justice warrior mentality in favor of reporting the news.

On Saturday -- the day when newspaper readership is lowest -- she filed, "Preaching the Gospel of Diversity, but Not Following It," in which she pointed out the Times staff covering President Trump is whiter than his Cabinet.

From Spayd:
The executive editor, Dean Baquet, is African-American. The other editors on his masthead are white. The staff with the most diversity? The news assistants, who mostly do administrative jobs and get paid the least.
Spayd began her report:
Only two of the 20-plus reporters who covered the presidential campaign for The New York Times were black. None were Latino or Asian. That’s less diversity than you’ll find in Donald Trump’s cabinet thus far. Of The Times’s newly named White House team, all six are white, as is most everyone in the Washington bureau.
Traveling to other departments, Metro has only three Latinos among its 42 reporters, in a city with the second largest Hispanic population in the country. Sports has one Asian man, two Hispanics and no African-Americans among its 21 reporters, yet blacks are plentiful among the teams they cover and the audience they serve. In the Styles section, every writer is white, while American culture is anything but.
And there was this:
In the past three months, I have interviewed people across the newsroom about the issue of race (and to some degree gender, which I’ll address in a future column). I’ve spoken with journalists of all racial and ethnic identities, in jobs high and low: white men and black women, editors and reporters, department heads and news assistants. It left me believing there is a level of frustration bordering on anger that would be institutionally reckless not to address.
New York City, which is the city the newspaper serves, is 45% white, 28% Hispanic, and 25% black.

Affirmative action has been around for 40 years.

The New York Times violates that, while DEMANDING diversity in other institutions.

This is not hypocrisy.

This is racism.



Do not tell me that there are not enough black journalists out there, not when black unemployment is so high, especially among youths.

This comes from a newspaper that regularly warns Republicans that they need to reach out to black voters and other racial and ethnic minorities.

Sadly, this racism is not unusual in newspapering. In my 30 years at the defunct Charleston Daily Mail, it had two black reporters -- one of whom I recruited -- and a copy editor. They spanned a total of ten years of coverage out of a newsroom staff. So you averaged one-third of an African-American in a newsroom that average thirty people -- which works out to 1%.

The liberal Gazette was worse with only one black reporter serving three years on a newsroom staff of fifty.

Outside the newsroom, rare was the black employee and at least three times, management faced a racial discrimination lawsuit. I know of at least one incident since I left that should have resulted in a white person's discharge. He called the cops on a black employee for "stealing" his own car. I guess a black man is not supposed to own a BMW.

Need I point out both newspapers endorsed Robert C. Byrd every six years?

Spayd ended her column: "Note: This column explores The Times’s diversity crisis, primarily through race. Future columns will address the struggles to fix this issue, news coverage, the widening gender gap, and the limited geographic, religious and ideological diversity. Stay tuned."

I shall.


Please read "Trump the Press," in which I skewer media experts who wrongly predicted Trump would lose the Republican nomination. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.

For an autographed copy, email me at 

Follow me on Twitter.


  1. I don't think this is overt racism. The Times has experimented with actual racial diversity and gotten burned with bad reporting and plagiarism scandals. The hypocrisy is that the Times elites are human biodiversity realists and won't admit it to themselves or anyone else. If they do they will have given up on their party narrative.

  2. "trying to shame management..."

    They have no shame - or scruples. - Elric

  3. Their hiring policies clearly have a disparate impact on racial minorities. By their own rules, that's racism, straight-up.

  4. Liz is the only NYTer I can have any respect for.

  5. "Affirmative Action has been around for 40 years." Sandra Day O'Connor said 25 years would be enough, tops, and then the Affirmative Action rules the SCOTUS were about to approve could be dispensed with. She was such a wise woman. The Court was so prescient.

  6. This is fake news from our leader. The slave Spayed is not concerned with real news as Don says in his lede or in the quotes he produces. She is only concerned the Times is not PC enough. Wasn't Jason Blair an African American? Wasn't that diversity enough for 1000 years? Probably but she they will never admit it. The job Spayed has is a PC genuflection in itself. She has no influence there nor have any of her multiple predecessors who seem to come and go like fireflies. The publisher of the NYT is a proud SJW and will always be so as will his heir. Dad gets a high from his principled positions, like he did when he laughed at GW's face to face plea in the oval office and then printed classified info to help Bin Ladin more easily pay to kill people, and sonny will never be any different. It is even possible dad has never met Spayed or personally signed her company approved and elegenly logoed Steel choker. Pointing out NYT hypocracy is fun for awhile but it is nothing new and is a useless endeavour. A post on the various forms of branch water would be pretty good though.

  7. The liberals' standard response?

    "But this is about MY stuff!"

  8. Diversity of color isn't as important as diversity of thought. The NYT appears to be lacking both.

  9. It IS to the left, Dan. Color most of all!

  10. Liz Spayd - I want to bear her children. OMG.

  11. More to the point, the Times is 100% radical leftist. They have precisely ZERO intellectual diversity.

    The races of the editors and reporters is meaningless.