Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on May 11, 2003, 03:45:30 AM
-
was my thought as I read through this article and sure enough he was.. I for one cant think of one other reason this con job was allowed to go on for so long with all those red flags and oddities except for thew fcat that he was black and part of an outreach program. Truly despicable lazy behavior on the part of his employers and this is sort of stuff that gives outreach programs a bad name.
Read for yourself....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/index.html
-
You, sir, are a dip****. Guess that means you have to be white.
:rolleyes:
MiniD
-
Lol, no doubt. A white guy wouldn't have lasted a third that long with that kind of performance.
-
You horrible little totallitarian freak.
-
Ahhm I think a few you missed the point......
I was criticizing the newspaper for letting this go on and promiting him so fast when his performance was terrible and all sorts of red flags went up by his direct supervisors and coworkers, did anyone actually read the article?
-
Yeah, I read the article earlier this evening. I also read the title of this thread. I didn't miss the point... its quite visible at the top of your head.
MiniD
-
But here let me be more deatiled in my thoughts.
As I read this article and others about one mistake after another and another and the dozens of corrections to his works and oddities all followed by a string of rapid promotions and praise from high executives at the NY Times it just dawned on me that something had to give, that there had to be something else going on here and something that covered his bellybutton from being fired and actually got him promoted and it just struck me that he he had to be black and that he was being kept on because he was a young black reporter with some promise - and thats exactly what seems to have happened. He was hired as part of a minority oureach program and he was touted as great evididence of the program's sucsess by NY Times executives at their presenetations to black bussines/political groups. Just seemed to me that was going on.
Now I hope thats pretty clear..
So let me conclude by saying quite simply.
I dont think his decision to lie in reporting was because he was black - thats nonsense and if you think thats what I said then please reconsider your judgement.
I do however think him being able to continue doing this and get promoted so quickly was at least in some part influenced by the fact that he was a young black reporter and part of an outreach program which the newspaper leadership found useful for image purposes.
Is that more clear?
Comments?
-
Yeah, it is probably true what you said.
Affirmative Action was (hell, still is????) a decent idea in theory, but in practice it pretty much sucked.
I worked with a guy in a gypsum wallboard factory in Quanah, TX back in the late '80's who more than once just skipped work. No call in, nothing.
He did this for FOURTEEN consecutive days on one occasion; I, and the other guy working that station, covered his shifts the whole time. We wondered aloud between ourselves how long it would be before they put his job up for bid. No-call, no-show two or three times and you were pretty much terminated as an employee. Not this guy.
Fourteen days after ANYONE had heard from him he comes bee-bopping into the plant, lunchbox in hand, grinning from ear to ear.
I asked him if he was alright, "Yep, just fine."
Shift foreman calls down to the floor when he sees him standing at the work station and says he wants to see him in his office.
Now the guy isn't smiling. He throws his lunchbox under a table and heads off to the foremen's office. I figure I'm gonna get more overtime today, since this guy obviously is done here.
"Yup, he gets his pink slip today," I tell myself.
He comes downstairs to the floor in about 10 minutes, laughing the whole way.
I ask him what happened.
"He tried to tell me I was fired since I didn't call in."
"And?"I asked, wondering what the hell the smiles and laughter is about.
"I told him right quick that if he tried to fire me I would have the NAACP here and and they would fight for my job, AND sue his WHITE ASS. He backed down quick. Man, you should have seen his face when I said NAACP!" The guy goes on getting ready for his shift, but now I am getting pissed.
Up to this point, I had considered the guy as a friend, or almost one. We had been pretty tight, ran around and drank beer together, all that stuff I did back then.
"You remember when he told me a few weeks ago that if I was late to work one more time I was gone?" Subtle nonthreatening probe from me.
"Yeah, I remember that. You were screwed. I kinda felt sorry for you."
"Why is that?"
"Simple: You're white. They can fire you and the union won't care, they'll just hire somene else. I'm black. They even try to fire me and the union will be all over them, PLUS, I got the NAACP if they ever mention firing me again. I got them right where I want them."
"So, the NAACP would do what?"
"They would call and raise hell, and more than likely I would keep my job AND get rid of the guy who wanted to fire me."
"Even if you were dead wrong? Like right now?"
Now the guy knows what I am thinking. The smiles are gone, there is a pissed look in his eyes.
"Tell ya what, if the NAACP did come in here, they would have to do an investigation to see if it was racism, and THAT is where you're wrong. There are 20 other guys right here on the floor who know what you just did and what you are trying to pull off. And we ain't all white. Just look around. I think you're gonna have a long day, man," I commented as I grabbed my stuff.
Sure enough, the union president shows up later that afternoon to help this "mistreated" employee file a grievance against the foreman. And against myself.
Why?
#1: Not sure now, but back then people who were considered minorities got away with murder. It was more important to keep them on the payroll than it was to look at their job performance.
#2: The NAACP was feared by a lot of employers. Even if they were 100% right (the employers), the fact that the NAACP was involved automatically meant that the media would look upon them as evil, racist, and oppressive. The NAACP didn't have to prove anything. Classic example of "guilty until proven innocent", and then the media wouldn't care. My employer did not want the publicity, so this guy got off without even a slap on the wrist.
FWIW, I agree with ya, Grun. Even if it ain't politically correct to point out the truth, I stand beside ya on this one.
-
You shoulda seen what I had to go through to try to fire a woman.... I at least made everyone above me admit that it was the fact that she was a woman that made em drag their feet... gutless wonders.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Steve
Lol, no doubt. A white guy wouldn't have lasted a third that long with that kind of performance.
Or if you were shed from the right loins you could become prez...
-
You shoulda seen what I had to go through to try to fire a woman.... I at least made everyone above me admit that it was the fact that she was a woman that made em drag their feet... gutless wonders. - Lazs
They had good reason to drag their feet. At least its understandable anyway. The EEOC is a terrorist organization that will entertain just about ANY allegation that is submitted to them, no matter how unsupported or flimsy the documentation.
And when the EEOC accepts the case, look out. They have almost total power over your org. at that point.
-
I had very good documentation and I have been on the stand before.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I didn't miss the point... its quite visible at the top of your head.
MiniD
Ok, now that was funny. :D
-
There goes what little credibilty the NYT had left.
-
let your hate grow.
maybe you can kill them one day or own them.
p.s. i think you are finding questions for answers. and yea its buhl****.
-
Keep this in mind...30% of the NYC fire dept. are women, over 400 fire fighters were killed in the towers, not one was a women. very simple reason. They are not suited to lugging heavy equipment up many flites of stairs. You will never see this in the media.
-
My God! You guys really have turned this into a "Minorities aren't fit to do the job" rant and a half... haven't you.
Being black might have gotten this guy a job with the NYT... but it didn't get him on the front page. He wasn't promoted because he was black, he was promoted because he was turning in the kind of articles that sold papers. Of course, they were mostly lies, but what the hell. That's never stopped the NYT from selling papers before.
Seems if the guy would have been white, this wouldn't be an issue to most. I mean, he probably would have been fired long ago... right? I doubt it, but you guys hold onto that if it makes you feel more confident with yourselves and your position at your jobs.
Sheesh... what a bunch of ****ing malcontents.
MiniD
-
get rid of affirmative action and other race quotas and let performance/ qualifications be the measure and we all win.
-
MiniD who is turning this into an issue of blacls being unable to do the job? You are the only one who ever brought that up. I made it abundantly clear my real issue was with then newspaper and how they I belive its very likely he was treated with kid gloves because he was black and part of their public relations minirities outreach program. And it does matter if the stories are lies and it does sort of matter that half of his stories needed corrections and it does matter that his immediate supervisros wanted to get rid of him and stop him writing fror the times - yet he was rapidly promoted while senior management literraly braged about his "success" to influential black business/political groups.
The simple fact is this particular individual clearly proved himself unworthy of the job, he chose to lie, cheat, steal, decive, be dishonest and be personally disgraceful and this was factually and blatantly evident in his performance time and time again yet he was quickly promoted time and time again with no regard given to his lackluster, actually downright atrocious performance. My entire position is that I doubt the fact that he was part of this desirble outreach program and a young black reporter in a company publically trying hard to increase and emphasize it's diversity was merely a conicidence inhim being able to peretrate his misdeeds over the past four years.
You seem to see some blanket statement against blacks in my posts or in the responses - while i cannot speak for the other posters I do challenge you to demonstrate and explain how you see such attitudes in my posts in this thread. In fact find a single criticizm of HIS improper behavior based on HIM being black - I doubt you will find any. My issue with this lies with the newspaper and their behavior in letting this charade go on unchecked and even actually promoting this lier over and over again despite his terrible performance and questionable veracity. His behavior had nothing to do intrinsically with the fact he was black - him being able to get away with it over and over and get promoted so much and so quickly prolly had something to do with him being young and black and part of the times' minority outreach program which times executives lauded repeatedly to influential black groups.
-
Wow grun... I'm the only one who brought it up?
LOL!
OK.. you guys go off and have your "only a black guy or woman could get away with this" session and pretend I'm the only one that brought it up.
LOL grun.
And you wonder why I'm making fun of you for thinking its everyone else.
MiniD
-
I had very good documentation and I have been on the stand before. Lazs
I don't doubt you had your ducks in a row, Lazs! Thats my point :D From what I've seen in the public/govt sector, the bean counters, company attorneys and upper management always tiptoe around protected class terminations.
Down where the rubber meets the road, where you and I seem to be, its all uphill to terminate bad employee females, blacks/minorities, and people over 40. I know you really have to resort almost to overkill in documentation to make it happen.
I blame the EEOC...
-
But MiniD I think the fcat that he was part of this agressive outreach program gave ( mostly liberal white?) upper management incentives to disregard his poor performance and actually promote him- thats a valid topic for discussion and a timely social issue these days.
However you seem bent on thinking I am saying he did this because he black - which is clearly not the case. You seem to tbink I'm criticizing him based on race - which is also clearly not the case. My biig issue is with his employers who touted him as their rising young star and model of sucess while at the same time he was doing extremly poor woork - unless of course the satndard for accuracy at the times is that low...
So yea I think you are the only one who brought up this briad issues of balcks being unqualified as journalists. Thats simple nonsense and is completly unrealted to this thread.
This was about one man who made bad decisions and chose to lie, I think maybe he got away with it for so long and got promoted beacuse of agressive efforts on part of management to increase diversity with apparently no regard to performance - which IMHOP is wrong and does a discervice in public image to the many eager qualified and honest young black journalists. Hell look how you reacted to this thread your first thoght was that I was saying balcks were braodly unqualified - thats the kind of destructive image this case puts out.
Sorry Minid but I feel your reaction is wildly off base - I hope you reconsider your inital judgement...
-
'Nice' choice for the title, I must admit...
-
Why is this particular title so sensitive?
Basically it was just a sarcastic thought on my part while reading the article - I could not understand why this man was promoted so eagerly with such obviously poor performance so I sarcastically said to my self "what the hell is going on, is this guy black or something or hes gotta be black if he is getting this bizzare prtefferential kind of treatment" and sure enough a few paragraphs down they say he is. Maybe thats how I read it based on my experiences at my community college where over eager progressive liberal teachers often gave some poorly performing black students easy treatment and often did not challenge them to improve - I guess they did not want to offend them or something - I donno.
I dont see anything wrong in my intuition about the article and I made it perfectly clear from the first post that my issue was with the employers and their handling of theit preference programand not him being black...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"what the hell is going on, is this guy black or something or hes gotta be black if he is getting this bizzare prtefferential kind of treatment"
-
Yea Animal?
-
Grun how could you?
He might have been disabled or gay too.
-
Way I see it, Grun stereotyped this particular fella based on Affirmative Action...
That in itself says a lot about Affirmative Action, what I'm getting at here should be easy enough to follow.
If it isn't: Proves Affirmative Action has outgrown it's usefullness and is now creating it's own forms of racism, bigotry and hate.
-SW
-
Yeah, he's gotta be black. If he was white you wouldnt even hear about this.:rolleyes:
-
Any bets on how long till this thread gets locked?
:rolleyes:
Ohh, and I do agree with Grunherz even though it ain't the politically correct thing to do.
-
Grunhertz. I'll spell it out for you. YOU would not have started this thread if the guy was white. You started this thread to make yet another point. The point you want to make is that white men ie YOU are being discriminated against for being white. You wanted to make the point the black men get preferential treatment because they are black. That may even be true and in the case you mentioned it's quite possible, even likely.
Meanwhile in the real world, us white men have most of the good jobs, the high paid jobs, we are the Chief Executives. We are the cops and the lawyer and the decision makers and we are the people who look around and realize that we, the white men control everything and that over the years we have prevented other races and women from getting good jobs or even jobs at all. We looked down on others and make jokes about them and highlight situations where other races screwed up or did wrong.
So we looked at that and decided that this was racist and that holding back women was sexist. We made a few changes to make things fairer. It didn't always work and some people abused the system, others took advantage and quite a few found themselves in jobs they were no good at. But it worked for some and now we no longer keep slaves and force women to leave their jobs when they got pregnant or even just got married.
Perhaps you would prefer the old ways Grunherz?
But hey look around you! What's really changed? We white men still control everything, we have the money and the power. We are the Politicians, the Judges, the Lawyers, the Chief Executives, the Cops, the Supervisors, the Doctors, Dentists and Military Brass. We paid lip service to equality. Some of us white guys lost out but most are doing very well thank you.
That is the reality.
And now I know I will be criticised for attacking you rather than your opinions but the two are inseperable.
The main thing about this thread is that it confirms what has become become obvious from all your rantings on this site.
You are, and I choose my words very carefully, a racist and a fascist. You are a super patriot, an American supremacist who isn't even American. You are a foreigner who went to America and simply doesn't understand what America is all about. But you spout your bile in some form of misguided attempt to establish your 'Americanism'. What's wrong? Are you afraid they will kick you out if you don't continuously spout what you think Americans want to hear? America is not a totalitarian state yet, you should have left all that behind in the Balkans. Why did you bring the Balkan mentality to America? It started wars and killed thousands there. You of all people should know that.
Let me suggest something radical, go and read the American constitution, written by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who had their hearts set of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' and all that nonsense. They wanted a country where everyone had a chance. They wanted freedom and tolerance and equality. There isn't an addendum saying 'except for non whites and women'. They wanted to get away from the bitter bigotry and rivalries of old Europe. What fools they were. (Or were they?)
Have you heard this phrase 'It's a free country' Of course that means you too can have any opinion you like. You though, abuse the privilege along with one or two others here.
It seems you have a lot to learn about being American.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Any bets on how long till this thread gets locked?
It's gone on too long already. There are less discriminatory ways to express your views on affirmative action.
-
Whenever some idiot points to the founding fathers or to the constution in such a fashion as below
Let me suggest something radical, go and read the American constitution, written by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who had their hearts set of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' and all that nonsense. They wanted a country where everyone had a chance. They wanted freedom and tolerance and equality. There isn't an addendum saying 'except for non whites and women'. They wanted to get away from the bitter bigotry and rivalries of old Europe. What fools they were. (Or were they?)
just shows how ignorant they are. The US constitution originally defined "man" by percentage of white blood they had. It wasnt a broad sweeping statement that applied to anyone. It referred to land owning white men.
The constitution replaced the English monarchy with an oligarchy of mostly wealthy white land owners and it took a war to begin to change that.
There may have not been an amendment specifically excluding women and others but there was one put in place to include them.
Gruen maybe all the things you described but you are a self rightious idiot who doesnt know wtf hes talking about. You may feel guilty about being white but if you only knew American History you could find whole veins of untapped guilt just waiting on you.
-
Originally posted by blue1
You are a super patriot, an American supremacist who isn't even American. You are a foreigner who went to America and simply doesn't understand what America is all about.......
........Why did you bring the Balkan mentality to America? It started wars and killed thousands there. You of all people should know that.
Let me suggest something radical, go and read the American constitution, written by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who had their hearts set of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' and all that nonsense. They wanted a country where everyone had a chance. They wanted freedom and tolerance and equality. There isn't an addendum saying 'except for non whites and women'. They wanted to get away from the bitter bigotry and rivalries of old Europe. What fools they were. (Or were they?)
Have you heard this phrase 'It's a free country' Of course that means you too can have any opinion you like. You though, abuse the privilege along with one or two others here.
It seems you have a lot to learn about being American.
Ahh Blue your little tirade lost all respect no matter how much it started out with on a few counts with me...
#1. The man (Grunherz) is an American now. He has immigrated, and become a citizen, and no matter how much his opinions and / or ideas grate you, don't ever try and take that away from another citizen of this country. Just because you have the fortune to have been born here, Grunherz had the desire and drive to seek a better life for himself, and hence, it was granted to him because he came here and asked for a chance.
#2. Don't blame all the racism on him because of what goes on in the Balkans. THe troubles there are far beyond one man, and actually goes back to the friggin crusades when the Christians tried to erradicate the Muslims. That alone has gone far beyond racism ever has in this country, but it is not his fault.
#3. Since when did "liberals" write the constitution, or are liberals now gun totin revolutionaries that over threw a corrupt occupation over taxation and representation issues (two huge fug ups of the liberals).
#4. Don't ever tell another American he has a lot to learn to be "an american" THat just is not your right and it makes my blood curdle to hear you say that. Get off your high horse, and just disagree with him rather than say he has to "learn" and / earn his right to be here... that's just plain bullsh*t!
Otherwise, while I think he led off the title wrong, he touched an extremely sensitive subject in this country which is affirmative action... which is simply reverse-discrimination, that needs to be stopped, or "racism" will continue to get worse.
-
Well was I wrong when I assumed he would be a minority? Nope. Why black? Well by his name he wasnt a woman, he wasnt asian he wasnt hispanic and with the particular spelling of "Jayson" with a "y" which I have most often seen black guys use I assumed, from that experience, that he was black. So the whole black thing was purely coincidental on the particualrs of his case - I guessed right. Knowing yoiu guys it was a mistake titling the thread the way I did - I just opened myself to easy attacks. if any black person was offended then I want yoiu to know that was not the intent - if any guilty white person was offended, then who cares. :D
Now Blue seems to think I'm a racist... Why is that blue? Is it because I disagree with some negative aspects of outreach/affirmitive action programs? Is it because I criticized this newspaper? Because if thats all then you are right, you are attacking me and not the argument.
Tell me this how does the obvously lax handling this man recieved help qualified black proffesionals advance in the workplace? Look at the response from you guys in this very thread. I NEVER said once that I think blacks are bad journalists yet so many of you jumped to that conclusion - why? Perhaps that reflects on your prejudices? Perhaps thats indicative of excatly what I am arguing - that these outreach programs when handled badly and abused prove terrible for blacks and minorities.
By the strenght of your reactions I'll assume you agree that you also feel he was given prefewrential treatment - hell a few of you openly disregarded his poor performance and lies on account of his stories being good reads. But that doesnt make a journalist, it takes integrity and honesty. And in this case it seems those virtues took a back seat to political and public relatuions expediancy.
This thread is very funny in its own way, you know why? All of you largely appear agree with me on the likely facts yet some of you seem outraged that I brought up and personally attack me for it - and that in itself is very very telling.
The problem is in you, in your own insecurites and uneasiness about the issue. One only has to read blue's post to see how obvious that is. And there is nothing wrong with that, it is acomplicated issue, it is an imprtant socioecomonic topic to discuss and as we have seen in this thread one is likely to be attacked and called names for bringing this up - and thats why it is impprtant to do so.
Maybe I'm wrong but I dont think this thread should be locked up, thats what some want and thats prolly why the personal attacks and name calling satarted up but thats silly and and unnecessary. The real issuue wil not be discussed openly like that and I wont throw away this opportuity to discuss it.
So lets have your opinions here, feel free to contribute positvely.
-
Let me present the opposite perspective.
I was a white police officer working in a predominantly black department for 7 years... WE were the minority there.
We had a white police officer get fired for beating up someone in a nightclub while he was off duty. He had a long history of unacceptable behavior including several domestic violence related calls to his residence, and excessive force complaints during arrests he had made. This guy was absolutely the worst possible person that should be wearing a badge.
At any rate, they finally fired the guy. Two years later he won a lawsuit based upon "reverse discrimination", got his job back, and won $250,000 in damages from the Police Department as well. His main defense was that affirmative action related rights were denied him because was the minority at that particular police department even though he was white.
This guy was an absolute love muffin, and should have been fired long before he actually was. Yet he got his job back and won a ton of money as well.
Anyone who thinks affirmative action isn't a good idea gone bad is totally blind. It's taken advantage of in the worst possible ways.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
was my thought as I read through this article and sure enough he was.. I for one cant think of one other reason this con job was allowed to go on for so long with all those red flags and oddities except for thew fcat that he was black and part of an outreach program. Truly despicable lazy behavior on the part of his employers and this is sort of stuff that gives outreach programs a bad name.
Read for yourself....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/index.html
Please learn to read, then read "The Peter Principle". This crap goes on and on regardless of race, color or creed. Only one with an agenda would ascribe race as a cause here.
-
A couple of points in reply,
Batz,
I know damm well the US Constitution was originally written by land owning white men for land owning white men. That doesn't take away from the what it says or what it means now.
I'm no idiot and I have no guilt about being born white. None whatsoever. I'm pleased to have been born white male. I don't have to put up with all the BS other people have to put up with. I can just get on with my life as I see fit and all my failures and successes are my own.
Bodhi,
See above, I was being a bit sarcastic when I said liberals. But they were in fact liberals of their times. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what a liberal is. So I suggest you look it up in a dictionary. It might surprise you.
It takes more than a passport stamped 'American citizen' to make someone American. Anybody can become an American citizen. That's a long way from what it means to be an American. It's as much a state of mind as anything. Not everyone makes the leap not even people born in the USA.
Grunherz,
I refer to the above, whatever the flaws of the affirmative action programme and they are legion. It changes nothing. The subject and example was simply a hook to hang your views onto. You are racist because you assumed the man was black before you knew he was. It's as simple as that. That is racism. Your biggest problem is that you cannot separate your bias and prejudice from the facts. In fact you have no evidence you he was fastracked because of affirmative action. You simply assumed he was almost as soon as you assumed he was black. So this time you were right, but if it turned out he was a WASP from Connecticut who got where he was because Daddy was something in publishing, I somehow doubt you would have posted anything here because that would not have suited your agenda.
It's your assumptions and actions that make you racist no matter how valid the example. You need to see that yourself and move on from it.
-
Yes my initial guess is it had something to do with an overactive affirmative action program - does that make one a racist? What if it was a woman or a hispanic. Your basic premise is that assuming some aa program gone wild was at fault makes me racist... Thats ludicrous..
-
I for one cant think of one other reason this con job was allowed to go on for so long with all those red flags and oddities except for thew fcat that he was black and part of an outreach program.
So, what did you base that opinion on, Grun? Its certainly not on anything reported in the article, which stated:
Blair, who is black, came to the Times as part of an internship program designed to help the paper attract more minority reporters. Times officials insisted that fact had nothing to do with his subsequent hiring and quick rise to full reporter status, despite editors' concerns about his work.
Since the article flatly states differently, your opinion that this guy was advanced and tolerated because he was black can only come from one source -- your own prejudices. That is why people are calling you a racist.
As for the idea that there can be no other reason that such an employee would be tolerated and promoted, well, that is bull****. This guy was a con man, and making people believe in them is what con men do. There are plenty of non-black con men that have been so good as to make a rise before their fall when their fraud was discovered.
-
I never said that blacks cannot be good reporters - why on earth do people want to think that? Do people actully think thats what I beleve? Where have I said that?
My guess was that the most obvious reason he was given the spacial treatment was so he could be lauded as an AA sucess story by times senior management - and he was used just in such a way when times exec literally bragged about him to black advocay groups. This is a a fact and you can look it up.
My belief is that in large part he was allowed these discrestions because he was being useful as a PR tool by times executives and firing him earlier for his many known outright lies would have looked bad.
-
My guess was that the most obvious reason he was given the spacial treatment was so he could be lauded as an AA sucess story by times senior management
Q: Why is that your guess
A: Bigot
Just cause you don't realize it... doesn't mean you aren't.
This isn't a story to you because a newspaper has failed to check on complaints of erronious reporting or published front page reports from someone that never conducted interviews. Its news to you because it was done by a black man that was hired under AA.
Once again in case you missed it...
A: Bigot
MiniD
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
My guess was that the most obvious reason he was given the spacial treatment was so he could be lauded as an AA sucess story by times senior management - and he was used just in such a way when times exec literally bragged about him to black advocay groups. This is a a fact and you can look it up.
My belief is that in large part he was allowed these discrestions because he was being useful as a PR tool by times executives and firing him earlier for his many known outright lies would have looked bad.
The report never stated once he was used as PR for the times, or lauded as a success for the intake program, nor does it state the paper used him as an ethnic slant for his stories.
It would then seem the particular fact of his colour is irrelevant, apart from how he got his start.
Tronsky
-
So MiniD somebody cant be guessing thats AA was a problem in this case without being a bigot? Is that particular to this example or is a broad opinion you hold about criticism of AA?
-tronski-
I read other articles that say so very clearly. Scroll down this page - its there among others.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082661/#blair
Basically this comes down to your opionon about AA, it seems that a few of the staunch AA defenders only argument is calling me a racist. Although I dont like it because its not true and because its a very damaging tag ultimately such name calling is meaningless and proves the weakness of your arguments.
Look if you guys think being skeptical of certain excesses of AA thinking, like I think were at work here, makes me racist then thats your problem. Hell even in my first post I clearly said abuses like this give outrueach AA programs a bad name - I didnt even say anything against AA in general. I just think this time it screwed up and allowe people to let this guy get away with repeated serious abuses while still promoting him.
-
My first thought when I read this article was of the "French help Iraqi officials to escape?" thread that was started citing the Washington post in a story that has not been substantiated nor reported by another news agency since. Then my thoughts turned to a "Jessica Lynch... Hero? Liar? Pawn?" post on AGW where someone was using obviously fabricated stories from various newspapers the day after her rescue to "debunk" the scenario, as if she had anything to do with them. Then it turned to "Don't these guys have fact checkers?" The last thing I thought was "I wonder if weazel would still quote him."
Somehow, the whole thing has since been spun into "Affirmative action caused this!" I got news for you Grun, in the middle of all your blind bigotted rage, you've failed to realize too much. The NYT printed front page stories without checking facts. I seriously doubt that was because the author was black and they didn't want to offend him (Oh yeah... but this is an AA thing).
Kudos for the NYT for displacing blame on federal regulations as opposed to some of the sloppiest edditing ever seen. Kudos to you for sucking it up like the biggoted hate monger they were hoping to support them.
And just so we're very clear here grun... I'm talking about you.
MiniD
-
I think this is the crutch of the story:
Since he began his career in journalism, Blair has been known for two things: being able to play the internal politics of an institution with uncanny skill and having a problem with accuracy.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/912116.asp?cp1=1)
Tronsky
-
But why is it biggoted to think that AA action played apart here when the executives at the times used him for PR purposes as an example of their successful outreach programs while he under serious performance review procedures. Its not that outlandishg a thought you know - diversity is a big buzzword and a major goodwill item these days in business. All I see from you is you calling me a racist for thinking AA had a large part to do with this.
Be straight forward do you deem all criticism of AA as racist?
-
Grun if you had just said "has gotta be an affirmative action case..." you woulda had it made in the shade. :)
-
Yea funked true and both my title and that mean exatly the same thing - I was criticizing a likely AA scenario gone wrong and not the guy as a black man. People are too uptight and afraid of race issues - it seeps out of every post here. Hell I bet most of the most vocal guys calling me a racist in this thread are prolly reformed KKK grand wizards so maybe they are trying to be more PC than Jesse Jackson. :) ( BTW that was a joke - I do not think you are former KKK members - I know them all personally and I dont recognize any of you <---- that was also a joke :rolleyes: )
Isnt it funny how they desperatly want to paint me as a racist when in reality it has more to do with their own insecurity and unseasiness to talky freely about the subject....
-
Grunherz is an racist, afterall hes from Germany and we know that all Germans are racists! if not nazis.
Have a good day
:rolleyes:
-
Small correction Deja - the French passport story wasn't the Washington Post's, it was the Washington Times'. Which makes the whole thing that much more stupid. A two page thread and not one person stops to notice that the story their arguing about is total bunk. Heh, I was half expecting another lecture about my trying not to believe something after posting as much in that passport thread, but it turns out we agree. We also agree about this Grun thing... go figure. :) And I reckon it makes no difference if Grun realizes it or not.
-
So you agree that criticizing likely AA abuses ir racist? Thats the absurd argument MiniD is trying to make....
-
Correcting an injustice with another injustice is just .. unjust :)
In other words, Affirmative Action is a discriminatory policy meant to redress previous discriminatory policies. Find another way!
-
You're now saying:
"But why is it biggoted to think that AA action played apart here when the executives at the times used him for PR purposes as an example of their successful outreach programs while he under serious performance review procedures."
When tronski called you on it, by pointing out that in the article you posted about and gave us the link for it said nothing about any outreach program (etc.), you replied that you read that in a different story, somewhere else.
The problem is, the story you initially read where your first thought was that he must be black still did not contain any of those details. Who cares if you read it somewhere else later.
It looks like you're dancin' when the replies here were not what you anticipated. No, it's not racist to criticize AA. The angle at which you aproached this is another story....
-
Originally posted by Mini D
in the middle of all your blind bigotted rage,
Blind? Hardly. He may miss a lot of details but he sees color real good. :rolleyes:
-
Actually, when I read the article, the first thing that popped into my mind was an overly-educated white guy who knew how to suck up to his superiors by talking-up his Ivy-League or northern university education. Sure enough, he was a graduate of the Univ. of Maryland. For some reason, the northern papers fall all over themselves for northern university graduates but give southern and western school grads the "not one of us" brush-off. I think Katie Couric (love her or hate her) actually turned media eyes on the Univ. of West Virginia as a quality broadcasting program.
I got a kick out of these pieces from the story:
Blair started as an intern who was promoted to a full-time job covering police and eventually covered such high-profile stories as the Washington-area sniper investigation and the homecoming of rescued prisoner of war Pfc. Jessica Lynch.
According to the Times, no one in Lynch's family remembers speaking to Blair, even though he filed five articles, datelined from their hometown of Palestine, West Virginia, that vividly described them and their home. The article described the home as overlooking tobacco fields and cattle pastures, when it, in fact, does not.
Blair resigned this month after the San Antonio Express-News raised questions about whether he had plagiarized its story about the family of a soldier missing in Iraq.
The Times said its own investigation showed Blair's deceptions to be much more widespread, with problems in at least 36 of the 73 articles Blair had written since transferring to the national desk in October. The investigation is continuing into more than 600 articles he wrote, and the paper is urging readers who know of additional discrepancies to come forward.
In April 2002, Jonathan Landman, the metropolitan editor, was so concerned about the quality of Blair's work and the number of errors he was making that he sent an e-mail to newsroom administrators saying, "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now."
Blair was eventually promoted.
Blair, who is black, came to the Times as part of an internship program designed to help the paper attract more minority reporters. Times officials insisted that fact had nothing to do with his subsequent hiring and quick rise to full reporter status, despite editors' concerns about his work.
"He was a young, promising reporter who had done a job that warranted promotion," said Gerald Boyd, the paper's managing editor.
If there were concerns about his work and an editor said he had to be stopped, then how could he be doing a job that warranted a promotion? I want to work for the NY Times! I think it would suit my surfing the HTC message boards on company time quite well. :p
-
I'm just enjoying the heck out of Mini-D's posts here. You just keep on carrying the torch sir, well done.
And Grun.. I read about a bigoted student who is causing trouble up in the Bay Area.... I immediately thought.. must be Croatian!
-
Grun, you still don't get it. The article made the statement that this con-man's advancement in spite of "red flags" had nothing at all to do with him being black. You insisted that the opposite was true despite no evidence to support this conclusion other than the con was black and got promoted some before the higher ups caught on. Therefore, one can only assume that you are, if not a racist, prejudiced or biased and that this is why you see this as an example of a black guy getting preferential treatment.
And even if your idea had any factual merit, this would be as much an indictment of AA as Columbine was of gun ownership. Affirmative action didn't con the NYT, this guy did. Just like gun ownership didn't kill those people at Columbine, those kids did. If AA's time has past, this is not an example of why.
-
Its not racist to think think its possible that an overzelous AA program was at fault.
It simply comes down to that.
-
I don't really want to get into the whole AA thing again. (been there done that & changed nobodys mind, everyone still has the same opinion as before our last 4 page thread on the subject)
but just dealing with GRUNZ original post-he didn't HAVE to be black (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml)
-
Grun, what in that article supports your notion that this guy got promoted and was tolerated because of AA?
-
It was a sarcastic hunch Lance. Look as I read the article it just didnt add up on one hand he was being a terrible reporter and then was getting promoted left and right. So I just sracastically though hell he must be black or something and there was an AA angle in this. And surely enought two paragraphs down they mention he is black and was part of an AA outreach program. It was a hunch, a guess an opinion. And frankly it's still open to debate and I am surely not the only person raising the issue - many in the media have questioned this acse just in the same way.
And I plainly said I also read other articles after this one that gave me more supporting info. I posted a link to one journalism site that mention him being used as ane example of the times successful AA program. Here is the page.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082661/#blair
The only thing that really bothers me about the angry responses is that some of you are coming from the angle that I dont think that blacks can be good reporters or that good qualified black reporters can suceed on their own merit. Frankly for one I hvae no idea whewre you got that from my posts - my criticizm was always with the newspaper and what I thjought was likely a case of overzelous AA gone wrong and maybe that they went easy on him because he seemed to be a promising young black journalist at a time when they were touting their diversity program.
I know it must be easy to just call me a racist and be done with it - but thats simply not the case.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its not racist to think think its possible that an overzelous AA program was at fault.
It simply comes down to that.
It comes down to that....
Hmmm.... interesting choice of words.
It sure as hell didn't start out as that. Along your road to discovery, my bigotted friend, you made a few mistakes. The title of this thread definately being one of them.
I have no doubt that you believe an overzelous AA program is the cause of this problem. Your downfall was letting slip as to why.
Not really much more to say to you grun. You go on thinking that AA causes these situations. I'll go on saying that the media's greed for stories the public will like has long since skewed their perspective on truth and its importance.
The media needs a skapegoat for shoddy editing and pandering to popular oppinion. You're more than happy to support their choice. Wew... good thing it was a black guy... made making him a villian that much easier.
MiniD
-
But was my assuming he was black what makes you think I'm racist?
-
AA is a racist program. it's that farging simple.
The title to this thread may have hurt the overly wound up feelings of some people but that's their problem. These kinds of people are perfectly willing to discuss race when doing so furthers their agenda but when someone brings it to the table as an argument that they do not agree with those same people cry assinine things like" Bigot" or ""Racist".
One day you hypocritical love muffines will be exposed as the true racists and maybe....just maybe we can get to work on genuinie race relations.
miniD, in case you're not clear, I'm talking to you.
-
Stephen Glass looks mighty white to me.
If anything, this episode reveals a systemic problem with editorial fact checking and giving the benefit of the doubt to questionable stories that sell papers. Is it surprising that one of the many publications he snookered was The New York Times Magazine?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
DMF you are right - that was a big problem but he was caught lying and in error dozens and dozens of times over his brief carrer. I'm not sure of the other cases of journalistic forgery like Glass, but I am sure in the case of Jayson Blair that people knew he was lying. I think it was an article on the NYT website that said something about him lying about a 911 related story - he was asked to cover 911 but then lied that one of his relatives died at WTC, when the newspaper checked up on the family of the "relative" they said they never heard of Jayson Blair. And then there is the history of countless corrections to his articles only matched by one promotion afther another. I'll tell you the AA angle is playing a big part here - thats was my inital hunch and I'm pretty confident that as more comes out that thsis will be the case. If not then I'll be wrong and that will be that..
-
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
-
And the wellspring for your "sarcastic hunch" that this must involve a black man and AA is? Left with no evidence in that story that race or AA played any part, I am left wondering what is inside of you that would lead you to this conclusion.
Call it a hunch that you are a racist;)
-
Originally posted by Dune
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
And the color of their skin when it comes to affirimative action...
-
Lance its obviously stated in the CNN article that he was in an AA action program.
Its obviously stated iin other articles that I linked to that he was used as a PR stunt as proof of the AA action programs sucess even while he was putting in substandard performance.
Those are FACTS.
Basicakky all your "racist" name calling restys on thew fact that i criticized a possible case of overzelous AA. And if you try to say it was because I assumed he was black - then thats the largely the same thing because how could think AA was involved unless some minorty person was involved?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But was my assuming he was black what makes you think I'm racist?
Your assuming he was black doesn't make me think you're a racist. It lets me know that you're a racist.
-
Hes been spouting his racist crap for years on here...
-
Arfann do you think that I assumed he was black based on his poor job performance?
If thats what people are assuming then I can understand why yoiu all think I'm a racist.
But that is not what I was saying. I thought he might have been black and part of an AA program because his poor performance was often swept under the rug for PR purposes of the AA program. And now we know that he was iused as an examply by NYT executives of AA sucess even as his performance was quite poor. You see that my criticizm was always with the his employers not him. In my first post I palinly wrote somehing like "This is the kind of stuff that gives outreach programs a bad name"
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Hes been spouting his racist crap for years on here...
Like what? Find some posts.... I'm actually curious what you guys will find...
-
Grun, it is a fact that this guy was hired as part of an internship to attract minorities. What is not a fact or at all demonstrated in these stories is that AA and his color had anything to do with how long he stayed at the paper before he was ultimately fired. That you would arrive at such a conclusion before even finishing the first story is what makes me wonder what internal bias you have that leads you in this direction.
-
Im reporting all of you to the AARP because one of you said something about age.....
Ihate this guy because he was incompetent...... way down the list because he was young. :) .... color doesn't enter into it. Anybody who gets an advantage and doesn't do the most with it deserves ridicule. Fact is I doubt whether he will work again at anything approaching the stature of the job he had at the Times.
Problem with this thread (which is enjoyable to read) is that theres a grain of truth in most of these posts..... the real problem is what seems to be the vitriolic replys....... Is BLANK a racist? I doupt it.... is someone a pinko commie left wing bedwetter.... well maybe..... either way I don't care..... concentrate on solutions vis-a-vis casting aspersions.
The solutions lie in why people think the way they do...
Anyway your all under senior citizen arrest......
-
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
'Huge Black Eye'
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON
Just about everyone at this newspaper is sick at heart at the way one Times reporter betrayed our readers and all of us with his sustained deceit and plagiarism.
The Times team investigating the lies of Jayson Blair — grimly front-paged and spread over four inside pages of yesterday's paper — found his phony interviews and faked articles "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper." The publisher called it "a huge black eye."
How could this happen at the most rigorously edited newspaper in the world? We had plenty of warning: his 50-plus corrections in less than four years as a reporter, his evasion of questions about his whereabouts, complaints from colleagues.
Apparently this 27-year-old was given too many second chances by editors eager for this ambitious black journalist to succeed. As he moved to more responsible assignments, some editors failed to pass along assessments of his past shortcomings while others felt the need to protect the confidentiality of his troubles. Result: the con artist gamed a system that celebrates diversity and opportunity.
The Times's executive editor, Howell Raines, is determined to get right with readers by letting the "terrible mistake" be examined in excruciating detail. In addition to this opposite of cover-up, he assigned another newsroom group to come up with ways to prevent another failure of communication among our editors, the most expert of communicators.
What's the reaction in Washington, where — we now know — the fraudulent reporter came down to stain The Times's coverage of last year's attacks by snipers?
Liberals down here, who only last week had been gleeful at the revelation of conservative Bill Bennett's high-rolling gambling habit, are rendered glum by this embarrassment of the newspaper whose editorial policy they favor. But now my right-wing friends are suddenly up to their hips in their own Schadenfreude. (That's the German word for "the guilty pleasure one secretly takes in another's suffering.")
First comes the culture war. Some of my ideological soulmates say: See? There goes the prestigious New York Times, world paragon of accuracy, newspaper of record, winner of far more Pulitzer prizes than anybody — suckered for years by one cunning kid. About time those snobby Eastern elitists, twisting the news to fit their prejudices, got their comeuppance.
Then to the affirmative-action angle: See what happens, they taunt, when you treat a minority employee with kid gloves, promoting him when he deserves to be fired? Oh, we know your editors insist that "diversity" had nothing to do with it. But remember what Senator Dale Bumpers said about our impeachment of Clinton: "When you hear somebody say, `This is not about sex' — it's about sex." This is about diversity backfiring.
Here's my reply to their Kulturkampf: For exactly 30 years, I have been supported handsomely for disagreeing with The Times's editorial page, which is dovish on defense, leftist on economics and (with the exception of civil liberties) resolutely wrongheaded. Never have I been silenced, and conservative thinkers have an ever-fairer shake on the Op-Ed page.
As for news coverage being influenced by editorial policy, I evoke the name of my predecessor: that's a Krock. On occasion, a leftist slant on a story slips through the backfield, but with conservatives boring from within and fulminating from without, the news side soon straightens itself out. What is "fit to print" is the truth as straight as we can tell it, which is why Times people are so furious at this galling breach.
Now about the supposed cost of diversity: A newspaper is free to come down on the side of giving black journalists a break if its owners and editors so choose. What's more, this media world would also benefit from more Hispanics and Asians coming up faster.
To the 375 Times reporters who make up the greatest assemblage of talent and enterprise in the field of gathering and writing the news, I submit this hard line:
Self-examination is healthy but self-absorption is not; self-correction is a winner but self-flagellation is a sure loser. Let us slap a metaphoric cold steak over our huge black eye and learn from this dismaying example — so that other journalists in the nation and around the world can continue to learn from ours.
-
Yea I saw that artricle as well montezuma - it was a good read..
I think I definetly fit into the group that thinks ( as in opinion lance :) ) that there is a credible opening to the idea that the NYT AA policy went wrong. I;m not saing it is wrong gernerally but that I feel it's very likely it did.
-
Originally posted by Lance
Grun, it is a fact that this guy was hired as part of an internship to attract minorities. What is not a fact or at all demonstrated in these stories is that AA and his color had anything to do with how long he stayed at the paper before he was ultimately fired. That you would arrive at such a conclusion before even finishing the first story is what makes me wonder what internal bias you have that leads you in this direction.
I did not arrive at that conclsion - it was a guess a gut feeling, I assume you never hvae guesses or hunches based on your past experiences in certain situations. For me much of my judgement here was based on my experiences at the local community college where I saw progessive liberal white teachers going very easy on and not chllenging certain underperforming black students - you could see that the teachers were setting the bar lower based on their political views on race issues. This type of behavior was rampant at my school and it pissed me off. It did not affect me in any way I got good grades for every class my time there but I dont think that the black students who were treated like this benefied in any way.
You know I did phrase the title in a stupid way but my heart is in the right place. I feel that the NYT let everyone down including this man in allowing him to keep making these mistakes and keep openly lying in his reports. My take on it is that they saw him as a useful PR prop to brag about their diversity program - and we now know that they in fact did brag about him to promote their aa program. And thats what got me pissed off thats why I said cases like this hurt the image of outreach programs. Thats what I have been saying from the first post in this thread.
-
A JCB is a much more efficient earth-moving tool.
-
Lol Dowding!~
Grun is sure giving a JCB a run for its money. :D
-
Mini D is DejaVu?
-
I think so.
-
I just watched the News Hour on PBS and they asked about the same points Gruen brought up in this thread. They mentioned an editorial in USA today (I think it was USA today they mentioned)that brings up his "blackness" as a reason for his "fast track".
Those racist bastards.
-
Ya batz... and I bet they said that only a black guy could get away with something like this... or at least... that was their first instinct... no... gut feeling... no... wait.
MiniD
-
I think MiniD that you have point I was wrong in saying the only reason he got away with was because he was black. I should have thought more about and said that that It was my opionion that him being black and a part of this AA program was a very likrely reson for his unsual treatment at the NTY. And I think as more comes out about this case that will become more clear, we allready know that the NYT exectutives used his career as a bragging tool for their diversity initaiative - I think they had a vested interest in him not being fired all of a sudden for lying until it just got too bad and somebody outside the NYT began asking questions and complaing.
-
Wooohoo my first double post. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I was wrong .
:D
I agree with Grun completely.
-
Yea I think I phrashe things badly MT - in real life too people often get pissed at me at the start but we find agreemt in the end.
If I just said I thought this was a failed AA case then I dont think anyone wold have got mad mad at me too much. But spomehow me guessing he was black, BTW how could I not - essentially its the same as guessing that AA was involved because you cant have AA without a minority is the same thiong, pissed people off..
-
You should be proud of the fact that you are passionate about things GRUN. Seriously! Too many young people just don't give a crap. At least you have conviction, that is a very good thing.
-
There you go grun. Now you're getting it. No... wait... you aren't.
I mean... an office with 390 white people having to hire a black guy. Do you realize that actually means a more qualified white guy wasn't hired to fill that slot? And... its not like the company was trying to overcompensate for 50 years of hiring prejudice... its hand was FORCED by that DAMN AA! I mean, if they'd just been able to not hire this guy in the first place... everything would have been better for everyone.
Ya.
Do you guys still wear hoods to the meetings?
MiniD
-
Not that it matters much, but I can see where Grun thought black and minorities could be interchangeable.
Case in point: I got a cab ride home a while back when I was tanked as hell from this dude who used to live in Pakistan. He came to this country several years ago, with two degrees- Chemistry and Biology... yet he drives a cab.
Another reason why I can't stand Affirmative Action, because it's BS... complete BS, doesn't help minorities... helps a select race for reasons that have long since expired.
-SW
EDIT: Change Affirm Action to minorities.
-
MiniD go read my first post, read the last sentance. What does it say?
I think this kind of stuff gives AA a bad name, the very appearence that it might have had something to do with him being being part of a minorty outreach program is very bad. And there are now many many respected people begging to question that.
MT - you are right I am very passionate about my disike of the abuses that seem to have struck here - I feel that if AA programs allow substandard performance for the sake of convenient diversity then there is somthing wrong. I bet there were 100s of qualified young black journalists who would have been redy to take that guys job in a second, but I feel the NYT management was lazy and just wanted to keep up the charade because he was good for their image as they paraded his career story out in front of black advocacy groups.
And yes that is merely my opinion of what happend based on the articles I read and that I linked to.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
MiniD go read my first post, read the last sentance. What does it say?
Grunherz,
Man, give it a rest, MiniD is not interested in learning, gaining, or constructively participating in anything that is posted. All he is concerned about is trying to bring the bad out of every possible situation and advance his liberalist agenda at the expense of any minority that happens to provide him with ammo. He is like a long list of liberal panzies before him, and like the future of his ilk....
they will fade to nothingness in time.
:D
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Grunherz,
Man, give it a rest, MiniD is not interested in learning, gaining, or constructively participating in anything that is posted. All he is concerned about is trying to bring the bad out of every possible situation......
:D
Yep..He is DejaVu.
-
Oh, right bohdi. You got me figured out.
I just want to bring bad things to the most positive uplifting converstations.
And here.. this thread could have been such a peacefull discussion about the pitfalls of affirmative action. Where a bunch of people that hate it got together and discussed it in a rational form.
Yes... I just want to bring bad things to the most positive discussions.
Of course, the problem just might be that this argument is so far out in left field that all those in agreement don't even realise it. It could be that "the need for affirmative action" hasn't disappeared, its just become more covert.
Yes... the problem is that a black man hired under AA was bad and thus AA is bad. The problem isn't that there were zero black people working at the NYT, a newspaper located in downtown NY, a city with some 5,000,000 black people living in it. The problem wasn't that managers didn't know how to handle black people because... well... they'd never seen one before. The problem was that damn AA.
So... pick and choose examples of AA and wrongdoing. Just don't get too upset when people pick and choose examples of gun ownership gone bad. You can't look at the good one does while ignoring the good the other does. When you do... well, you are a bigot just like grun.
MiniD
-
In the news report they didnt bring up AA specifically. What they brought up was the possibility that because this guy was black they may have fast tracked him for promotion inorder to help "diversify" their national news desk. There were discrepencies in the Times management in regards to who knew what. One guy said senior management was aware of the problems, another saying they werent.
I could give a damn either way but painting Gruen into corner over what he thinks as if hes the only one is stupid. Other folks think the same thing and have said so. But they are a racists to.
Its not up to Gruen to decide whether AA is bad. The courts, governments and institutions are. Slowly it will done away with. So the clan better get to working on some new white hoods because lotsa folks agree that AA should be scrapped entirely.
-
Originally posted by Batz
In the news report they didnt bring up AA specifically. What they brought up was the possibility that because this guy was black they may have fast tracked him for promotion inorder to help "diversify" their national news desk. .
And why do you think they felt this was necessary?
-
Originally posted by Batz
In the news report they didnt bring up AA specifically. What they brought up was the possibility that because this guy was black they may have fast tracked him for promotion inorder to help "diversify" their national news desk. There were discrepencies in the Times management in regards to who knew what. One guy said senior management was aware of the problems, another saying they werent.
Ah... so this is what is making the news.
How is his "fast track" the issue with this whole scandal? It seems more people are reacting because this guy was considered a goldenboy than anything else. Most people seem to attribute this to the fact he was black, instead of the fact he was blatantly lieing to enhance his stories (making them front page worthy).
This is called racism... when you chose to ignore all else involved and focus on the color of skin as the reason for the whole situation.
MiniD
-
But MiniD his case specifically was used to promote the NYT times diversity program - while management knew he was performing poorly. Thats a FACT.
"The problem isn't that there were zero black people working at the NYT, a newspaper located in downtown NY, a city with some 5,000,000 black people living in it. The problem wasn't that managers didn't know how to handle black people because... well... they'd never seen one before. The problem was that damn AA."
And i find it funny how you say there are no black people working at the times - do you know this for a fact or are being full of crap as you have been so far. In fact there seems to be quite a number of blacks and other minirities working at the times at all levels of the organization. But hey why let the fcats get in the way of a good witchunt...
:rolleyes:
And frankly I dont think I ever said AA was broadly at fault for this. I did say that I think a mishandled AA case carried out by lazy management like this is what gives outreach programs a bad name. I said so clearly in my first post. And have been saying that the whole thread - that a FACT. But again lets not let the facts get in the way of a good witchunt - that would be no fun at all.
-
No Grun, you seem to have your facts somewhat mixed up.
The individual was having articles printed on the front page of the New York Times. This is not because of shoddy performance. The articles were highly controversial and were selling papers. The fact that they were based on lies is the only thing that made this an issue.
You see... despite all of the NYT's use his case to specifically promote the diversity program, he was still a liar. The AA did not make the NYT promote this individual. Fear did not make them promote this individual. Threats did not make them promote this individual. For some strange reason, they thought that because he was selling papers with his articles, with his fabulous articles that nobody else seemed to have the inside track on, he should be promoted. Him being black made it all the better, cause they could prove how diverse they were by promoting a minority. Yippee. Touting your diversity program... that's the answer.
The point is, he was not being promoted just because he was a minority. He was not being promoted because AA told the NYT that they had to promote him or else. He was being promoted because the NYT made a long series in errors in judgement for completely self serving reasons. He was writing the kind of articles they loved to print, he was the only one with the sources, he sold papers, and he was black.
But this thread, and most responses are all about how a black man can get promoted just because he's black. Nevermind those that will never be promoted for the exact same reason. AA is bad and caused this. Its not the managers that are ever trying to cover their ignorant blame everyone else asses.
Nah.
MiniD
-
But his managers knew he was lying, they knew he made constant factual errors in more than 1/2 of his stories over a given period of time - yet he still kept getting promoted. Is this how the NYT runs it business regularly? If so then thats ok, my bad and I take it all back. But do you really think thats true?
Couple the discrepancy of performance/promotion and tie it into the fact that that he was a useful PR prop to upper management because of him being in the minority outreach program and I dont think it's too much of a streach to think there were some conflicts of interest and that some corners were cut.
And guess what more and more people are seeing it that way, and I feel that as more facts come it's likely that will become clearer.
-
Oh.. so now its about how the NYT regularly runs its buisness... because I didn't see that stated anywhere in the articles. The story was about one man... you filled in the rest based on... what was that term again.... bigotry.
I don't know what newspapers do in every situation where factual errors occur. The point is, neither do you... you just think you do.
I do know that newspapers have fact checking divisions for a reason. Sounds to me like the NYT's let the team down. They didn't print 4 pages about all the errors the caught then corrected, they printed 4 pages on all the errors that they missed. They don't miss errors because of AA.
And... this is not a story because of the errors they caught... its a story because of the errors they didn't catch. Nobody forced those articles to be printed and nobody forced them to be on the front page. The NYTs made its own decisions on what to release and how to release it. That's pretty much the end of the story.
Well... unless you get ahold of it... that is.
MiniD
-
MiniD is a racist and a hypocrite. The only thing I can do is hope he doesn't procreate or vote.
-
he wasnt a "golden boy", he wasnt even high yellow . He was known to turn in poor work but was advanced anyway and he wasnt advanced along the normal lines either. There were numerous red flags that in all reality its pretty hard to believe that senior management didnt know about.
The facts are he was advanced to broaden "diversity" at the NYT National News Desk. Whether you wanna call that AA or not is up to you. But his color had more to do with it then his work. Early on folks were aware of the problems with his work. Thats documented.
-
MiniD I do know what newsapers do when there are factual errors in their articles - they print corrections and your examplary employee had tons of them for his articles - apparently some 1/2 of his articles needed corrections to be published - those are serious errrors people knew about. So in 1/2 of his articles in a given period of time he made serious errorors and lies, errors that people knew about. His direct supervisors wrote things about his perfomance like this (paraphrasing) "we have to stop jayson from writing for the times right now." Yet he got promoted and promoted and promoted as senior executives touted him as a model of their diversity program.
What you are propsing in his defense is that its standard NYT procedure to deisregad errors and lies as long as the articles draw readers. You broughtv that in to this discussion not me, and now that I called you on the absurdity of that argument you are trying to distance yourself from the matter. Go ahead everyone can read that in your posts.
-
His stories were on the front page batz and grun. Call them what you want, they were on the front page. That does not happen because someone is black. Its that simple. How many of the NYT's writers do you think had front page articles last year? Or the year before?
Don't tell me he wasn't turning in good articles. Oh yeah... but they had errors. Errors are bad... they are the end all be all of quality workmanship... but not wording.
You guys are focussing so hard on the negative, you're failing to take in much of what was around it. You're focussing so much on "reports of his errors" that your failing to see what was printed and where it was displayed. What newspapers do internal via promotions is one thing, what they print is entirely different. Surely you guys must see this distinction... you can't be that blind.
Then again.. I guess you can.
Not much point in going on here guys... the same thing is just being said over and over again.
Continue your self reassuring bigotry without me. I'm done with you guys. Keep at it long enough and you might even convince yourselves that you were right and you are just concerned about the welfare of everyone.
Good luck to you... let me know if you ever decide to run for office.
MiniD
-
Its funny how you are trying to diminish the impact of his poor performance and open lying over and over again. And then he gets promoted again and again even with his direct superiours saying things like that he must be stopped right now.
Whats your take on that MiniD his direct superiors though he should have been stopped from writing for the times right now! How does that reflect with your idea that somehow he was a star reporter and had good performance? And yes If you ask ill give you a link to a direct quote saying just taht - so go ahead and feel free to answer the question...
-
His stories were front page because of subject matter not because of his writing style. Look at the stories he covered. Even if he turned in a badly written article on the Washington sniper I doudt it would have been buried in the back some where.
Do you think a story on Jessica Lynch would not appeared on the front page? Even if the writing was poor on its first draft it would have been sent to be edited.
Pick a story of his that made front page that wasnt there do to subject matter.
The folks who looked at his work new it was poor. Even so he was still promoted.
Newspaper reporters are a dime a dozen.
-
I don't care much for journalists anyhow. The profession has gotten a sleazy rep over the years, at least as regarded by non-journalists.
The rules of engagement have changed...and pretty much anything goes, unfortunately.
I believe Grun's ire is directed at journalists, and especially yankee liberal ones, with no discrimination of race, color, creed, religion, or national origin.:D
As far as whether someone is racist or not, it depends on how they treat people. Look at Archie Bunker. Was he a racist? I think not. Though he did stereotype, which is a normal thing and everyone does it.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. Carry on.
Les
-
What countries do white guys come from?
Is Italy one of them?
What about France? Spain?
What about "black Irish"?
German Jews? I always wondered if Jews qualified as being white people, because it seemed at some point most of Europe and the Middle East hated the Jews for one reason or another, so they would therefore qualify a persecuted minority, right?
Are Polish people white? I used to hear a lot of Polish jokes. Were the joke-tellers racist? Poles certainly seemed persecuted.
-
This guy did a story on a family anxiously waiting for word on their son in Iraq (a Marine). He described the look on the mother's face as the news came on the TV. He descried the blue and white flowers in the garden. It was a beautiful piece of writing by all accounts. The mother even wrote a letter to the editor of the Times praising the reporters work.
But he never went to their house. The descriptions were from wired pictures. The problem wasn't the quality of his writing, it was the accuracy of his sources. He was a good enough writer to fool the management for a long time.
The NYT should be commended for actively blowing the whistle on themselves.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The NYT should be commended for actively blowing the whistle on themselves.
But they really didnt MT - not until it went outside the NYT. People at the NYT knew he was outright lying for years and they knew he was unproffesional and a poor journalist. They only called him on it once an outside newspaper writer from New Mexico noticed he had lifted parts of her report.
And thats another one of things that made wonder if there was internal pressure from executives to keep this guy on the paper. He may have been a good creative writer but his collegues and direct supervisors knew he was a poor journalist and wanted him stopped from writing at the paper. Yet he got promoted and promoted while high executives lauded his acivements as testament of sucess of their diversity outreach program. Now all of that has been established as fact, either admit directly by the NYT in their 10 page apology article and the rest discoverec by other newssources - the only thing thats left to debete is if you belive this positive diversity PR spin that jayson's "sucess" added for the paper created a conflict of interst for the NYT executives whose main job is to promote and sell the company. Basically if you belive there has been a failiure in this case of the NYT AA outreach efforts.
-
Affirmative action at work.
-
We don't seem to have this color issue up in Canada (there aren't many black people to begin with). Instead we have cultural issues (English/French) to display our prejudice :) So from a disinterested viewpoint it looks like you can have three stances on the racial subject.
1) Race is the deciding factor. This is obviously racist. Examples can be "No blacks allowed in our club" or "I'm not having a black man managing our team".
2) Race is part of the deciding factor. This is also obviously racist. An example could be "All candidates being equal, I will hire the white guy" (like professional football) or "All candidates being equal, I will promote the black person" (like affirmative action)
3) Race has nothing to do with the decision. This is obiously non-racist. An example could be hiring the person you think would do the best job (Detroit Lions and Notre Dame perhaps as examples)
It seems strange to me that proponents of stance #3 are deemed racist, while proponents of stand #2 are deemed non-racist