Before Jayson Blair: Race, Corruption, and the New York Times

A Different Drummer ^ | 4 July 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[nopardons]

Over here...You both need to read this one !

[DraftAshcroft2004]

It's hardly just the New York Times. Go back to the mid-80s, and you'll find that the very-liberal New Republic ran a huge story on reverse racism at the Washington Post. The situation there was then so bad that reporters (usually white and with no chance of promotion) had to edit their editors (often nonwhite) work.

[DPB101]

Monitoring the Times is becoming an industry.

[nopardons]

Isn't it though ? LOL

[mrustow]

Sure thing.

[mrustow]

Sure thing. You're right; the story won't go away. In his arrogance, Frank Rich reminds me of so many leftwing academics. But critics like Bill McGowan and Annie Coulter have gotten to the Times, just as the likes of David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes have gotten to academia.

[mrustow]

It's hardly just the New York Times. Go back to the mid-80s, and you'll find that the very-liberal New Republic ran a huge story on reverse racism at the Washington Post. The situation there was then so bad that reporters (usually white and with no chance of promotion) had to edit their editors (often nonwhite) work.

Are you sure that was the mid-80s? The story I recall was by Ruth Shalit from the early '90s. Shalit was later caught engaging in plagiarism in a story totally unrelated to the Post plagiarism story, and so AA defgenders have used it against her ever since, as if there were some sor tof transference principle, wheereby you could use a bad story to penalize a writer for a good story. Of course, by that standard, an awful lot of good writers (and even more bad, socialist writers) would bite the dust. It's also irrelevant, since even in the plagiarism case, there was no evidence that Shalit published lies.