Jim Sleeper saw this coming. Heather Mac Donald describes the fundamental dilemma the Times found itself in:
Faced with the record of Blair’s monumental malpractice and its own persistent overlooking of that malpractice, the Times had a choice. It could admit that, at least in this case, the paper had indeed relaxed its ordinary standards of excellence to push a black reporter quickly up the ranks. Doing so would undercut its credo that an obsession with diversity never sacrifices quality. But the alternative response to the Blair affair would seem much worse: if race played no role in the Times’s tolerance for Blair’s errors, then presumably other reporters have received similar exemptions from journalistic canons. If management’s treatment of Blair was not preferential, but merely ordinary, we should expect similar devastating exposes of other reporters’ work in the future. In other words: If the Blair fiasco was the product of universally applied Times standards, then the paper has gone to the dogs.
Tell us something we didn’t know, Heather.
RACE OR SUCK-UP? However, I’m inclined to think that blaming all this on affirmative action doesn’t capture what was going on at the Times. It wasn’t hiring Blair that caused the disaster; nor even the way in which his editors supported and helped and monitored him. It was the favoritism and arbitrary management of the Raines regime that put Blair where he shouldn’t have been. Cynthia Cotts is persuasive about this:
One Times veteran suggests Blair received excess favor not so much because he was black, but because he was green. According to this source, Blair is typical of the latest crop of reporters anointed by the Raines administration. “They’re young, they’re energetic, they say the right things, they kiss ass-but they don’t have the skills to do the jobs they’re handed,” says the source. “This kind of favoritism is repulsive to people who have been there awhile.” Other insiders say the Blair case is symptomatic of a deeper issue: The Times newsroom does not operate as a meritocracy. Instead, sources say, Raines and Boyd pick their favorites for whatever reasons and become so invested in showcasing these reporters that they turn a blind eye to their flaws, which are said to range variously from inexperience and laziness to intellectual dishonesty and a high volume of factual errors.
Meanwhile, there are signs of a mutiny at the paper over the subtle but effective white-wash the paper published on Sunday:
“People felt that management had not been held accountable enough, and the story downplayed their culpability,” said the reporter, who singled out Raines’ high-handed management style as a key to why Blair survived at the paper for so long. “Howell didn’t listen … to anyone about anything.” Another staffer said “heads should roll … it happened on their watch and because of their watch.”
Amen.
The Dish 