Thursday, March 02, 2006
The New York Times wants to become more diverse
It's about time, right? After all, the Times has just about made a mockery of itself through the homogeneity of the economic and political outlook of its staff. Even the old Public Editor, Dan Okrent, acknowledged the need for the paper to reach out to include staffers with different assumptions - midwesterners, Southerners, rural citizens, military veterans, Christians - to break up the left wing echo chamber that the times has become.
So you would think that this is good news, right?
Not so fast.
Sigh.
I guess you wouldn't feel the need to account for them, if you were a semiconscious, unwitting, and self-congratulatory cog in an ideological echo chamber.
Riddle me this, New York Times: If diversity on the basis of sexual orientation is important, then why is it that religious diversity and political diversity is not?
The New York Times' understanding of what diversity - REAL diversity - is only skin-deep.
Splash, out
Jason
So you would think that this is good news, right?
Not so fast.
The council defined diversity in terms of employees' race, gender and sexual orientation. Religious and political differences were not accounted for.
Sigh.
I guess you wouldn't feel the need to account for them, if you were a semiconscious, unwitting, and self-congratulatory cog in an ideological echo chamber.
Riddle me this, New York Times: If diversity on the basis of sexual orientation is important, then why is it that religious diversity and political diversity is not?
The New York Times' understanding of what diversity - REAL diversity - is only skin-deep.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
