News-Record.com

Allen,
You're responding online to something that online readers aren't allowed to see. Shouldn't the offending "screed" be posted so the viewpoint isn't one-sided?

Our nation will never have equality for all races until we become racially blind.

Jerry, you're right. The "screed" will be online soon. Thanks for pointing that out.

Jasper, I agree 100 percent. But there's also something exciting about being among diverse types of people who at once appreciate what they share in common but also repsect and learn from one another's differences.
Look at what that's done for music in this country.

What's most troubling to me are the assumptions throughout the piece. First -- and I guess this is a mistake, not an assumption -- he states that the newspaper has enacted a policy to require one-third of new hires to be minorities. The newspaper did no such thing. The news department of the newspaper set a clear target that 33 percent of new hires be minorities. (There are another 400 or so employees who work at the paper.)

Second, he states the policy assumes that the percentage of blacks interested in journalism is precisely the same percentage as among whites. The "policy" does not such thing, although it's unclear what this assumption has to do with anything.

Last, he states as fact that there's no evidence of poor coverage of minorities in the paper or that increasing staff diversity will improve it.

It's interesting to me that he didn't bother to ask about any of these assumptions. As the author of the "policy," I'd have been happy to discuss them with him, although Allen has done it more articulately than I could have.

Excuse me, but I think we may be seeing a journalism first here: the editors of a newspaper publicly attacking their own columnist. Shouldn't these questions have been hashed out before the column saw print? Do the editors not even look at the local material they are publishing? I've never read a Davenport column, but I can't wait for this one.
The wonders of this blogging world are truly spectacular.

Dear Mr. Bledsoe,

I did not perceive Allen Johnson's or John Robinson's comments as attacks against local columnist Charles Davenport Jr.

Instead, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Robinson gave opinions in response to Mr. Davenport's column and defended the News & Record's current policy on minority hiring.

Not having read one of Mr. Davenport's columns before, you may be in for a shock when you are finally able to do so.

I don't think a lot of newspapers would choose to print Mr. Davenport's column (at least not ones that lean politically the same way that most people perceive the News & Record does).

While the News & Record may have many faults, one of its impressive qualities is its willingness to print Mr. Davenport's column.

Regularly, within his column, Mr. Davenport cites News & Record news stories and editorials and then explains why he thinks the stories or the editorials are wrong.

He may never influence the News & Record's decision-making nor the general views found within its pages, but he does give voice to those whose views differ significantly from the News & Record's. That's significant. And I would say impressive.

If he is not tough enough to withstand critical comments from Mr. Johnson and Mr. Robinson, Mr. Davenport should cease submitting a column for the News & Record to print.

Anyone who submits his or her writing for others to read should be prepared for any responses the writing inspires. Otherwise, a writer should only write in a diary or a journal.

I had earlier posted a comment in which I included a question for Mr. Johnson: does Mr. Davenport have a Blog himself?

I have not yet received a reply to that question, but I did appreciate your point, Mr. Bledsoe, that Mr. Davenport's column is not currently available to read on-line. Mr. Johnson indicated in his response to your question that Mr. Davenport's column will be posted soon.

If the News & Record is going to have a Blog for Letters to the Editor (which, of course, it now does), it would also make a lot of sense to have either separate Blogs or a collective Blog for the News & Record's op-ed columnists.

A Blog for the op-ed columnists might even be more popular than the Letters to the Editor Blog--I at least think they would be competitive with one another.

Going back to the relationship between Mr. Davenport and the News & Record for a second, the one thing I have sometimes wondered is, does the News & Record ever censor what he writes? He has very strongly and very directly criticized the News & Record on its very pages. I've wondered if he has ever crossed a line in his criticism that has led to him being asked to tone done or revise what he has written. That's one of those issues that may never be made public. But I personally admire the News & Record for printing Davenport's views (for the sake of philosophical diversity among other things), even when those views are very critical of the News & Record. He is obviously given considerable, if not complete, freedom to express what he wants to express, how he wants to express it.

And though I do not know this, I like to think that Mr. Davenport would not mind and would even welcome any staff member of the News & Record disagreeing with his views (even in a public forum), as long as he or she brought intelligence and civility to the table in doing so (regardless of the forum in which such views are expressed, be it by Blog, in person, by e-mail, etc.).

Sincerely,

Seymour Hardy Floyd

As I read Davenport's piece today, I noted that he gave approval to earlier civil rights leaders, as if to create some credibility for his criticism of the N&R's new hiring targets and other diversity issues.

I could not help but think that 40 years ago, he might have noted that it was a good thing that the slaves were freed, but this MLK guy is way out of line.

As Jerry well knows, I have nothing to do with the selection or editing of the Op-ed columnists. Aside from that, a newspaper should publish views its editors may not agree with. That doesn't prohibit anyone from disagreeing with the conclusions, which is what I was trying to do.

Still waiting for that new hire policy about age demographics, and also including all other races besides white and black (Chinese, Eskimo, Samoan, Filipino, etc.). You know, in order to property reflect the community.

Rusty: Where did JR say or imply that "minority" = "only black"?

Hmmm. Lots of talk about the need for a diverse newsroom and various potential measures. But, I notice, no talk of seeking to ensure diversity of ideas. According to most recent polling, about 45 percent of North Carolinians identify themselves as conservatives, vs. 37 percent moderates and 13 percent liberals.

Might it be a wise policy to set a goal that 45 percent of all new hires in the newsroom be political conservatives? Should at least one-third of all new hires be registered Republicans? If not, why not?

John, we do consider political ideology in our hiring practices and our selection of op-ed columnists in the News & Record (I'll leave it to John Robinson to address newsroom hiring).
We have, in fact, run several of your well-reasoned pieces on our Sunday Ideas front.
Indeed, the marketplace of ideas would be a hopelessly dull place if everybody was speaking with the same voice.

John, I agree on the need for diversity of ideas, but I don't see it defined through the prism of politics. A news department might do such a thing if it bought into the idea that political ideology is important in the way news is reported and presented. When you're trying to present a fair, balanced article, political ideology of the reporter shouldn't be considered.

I couldn't tell you the politics of many of our staff members. Whose scale do you use to determine what a liberal, moderate or conservative is? Well, I think I know whose scale you'd use. :)

Allen, it goes without saying that a good set of editorial pages offer diverse (and obviously diverse) points of view. My point was about the newsroom.

John, I'm sorry but I cannot accept the notion that political ideology has no influence on news judgment or news gathering but racial, ethnic, or other forms of diversity inform the same. You cannot simulatenously argue that what a reporter brings to the table -- experiences, ideas, cultures, etc. -- matters so much that diversity is a proper goal for newsroom hiring and then argue that a reporter's political views or experience don't or shouldn't matter. They do, regardless of whether (and naturally at a daily paper like the N&R they shouldn't) those political ideas explicitly to color the result.

Let me be clear: I don't favor quotas for conservatives or Republicans in newsrooms, though they are underrepresent according to data and my own experience. I do favor some kind of affirmative action, if you like, to increase the number of young conservatives who choose journalism as a profession. I guess my point is that I have the same view about pursuing other kinds of diversity.

Let me approach it in a more pragmatic way. First, let's not assume that our newsroom is filled with liberals because neither I or anyone else has seen evidence of that. But I know for sure that there aren't many minorities. Everything I've read and am told is that minorities have different experiences simply because they are minorities. Judgments are made about people simply by the way they look. (Not true for political preference.) Race, like gender, is a birthright. It's with you all your life. It can't change. (Not true for political preference.) And it's always with you. (Not true for political preference. I know many people who have no strong opinions about politics; half of the state doesn't even vote.) To me, those distinguish race (and gender and age) from political persuasion.

But all that said, would you buy this: I can only tackle one demographic group at a time. To me, achieving racial diversity is the greatest need.

The people who suffer the greatest bigotry and discrimination in life are those of low intelligence. People of low intelligence have different experiences just because they are dumb. Judgments are made about people of low intelligence simply because of that affliction. Low intelligence, like gender, is a birthright. It’s with you all your life.
It can’t change. And it’s always with you (didn’t I say that?) To me, this distinguishes low intelligence from everything. People of low intelligence would bring a different perspective to newsrooms. Half of all people have IQs below 100. Shouldn’t at least 50% of people in newsrooms have IQs below 100 so that they can bring new perspectives and lack of energy to reporting? Why should dumb people be represented only at the top of the editing ranks? By John Robinson’s logic shouldn’t there be an immediate hiring mandate for the dumb?

Well, you can take any argument to absurd extremes.
I guess as a left-hander I could argue for more left-handed Greensboro natives who pull for the Green Bay Packers on the staff.
Jerry, are we to assume that in the days when the Daily News and the Record (and most other papers) had none or one or two black members on their staffs that it covered the black community better?
I was born here and grew up here. And as warm a place as both newspapers hold in my heart, I know better.

Allen, you're right. Arguments can be taken to absurd extremes, and you just proved it. My comment was a parody of John's. Parody is by nature mean-spirited, but often effective. Even funny when apt. This one was apt, although I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate the humor.

Jerry -- For what it's worth, I recognized it as parody but found it neither funny nor apt.

And you also dodged Allen's question about whether the black community was covered better in the days when papers had little diversity.

Beau,
I can’t do anything about your sense of humor. Too bad there’s not a pill for it. Of course, finding humor in parody almost always depends on which side of the matter being parodied that you fall on. The parody, however, was apt.

Intelligence is a true divider in life, just as skin color has been. People of low intelligence are denied jobs because of it, not allowed to advance because of it, kept out of good schools because of it, often scorned and ridiculed. Ever tell a Little Moron joke? Discrimination because of skin color has changed dramatically. But there’s been no great movement to free people of low intelligence from discrimination.

If in the interest of “diversity” the newsroom has to reflect “minorities” in exact proportion to their numbers in the population “in order to present a true mirror of who the citizens are, how they feel, what they think and how they live,” as John maintains, then it follows that the newsroom also should represent people according to their intelligence in exact proportion. And not only in that, but in every other aspect of life that divides people: gender, age, religion, ethnicity, politics, weight, beauty and so on.

And, of course, all of these would have to be broken down further so that the newsroom would reflect exact numbers of Baptists, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Latinos, Native Americans (I don’t ever recall a Lumbee in the newsroom, or any special effort to get one, and they have been in Guilford County in big numbers for more than half a century) and on and on ad infinitum. And wouldn’t even these have to broken down further? Orthodox and reformed, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino….well, I’m sure you get the picture. Is this a path a newspaper really should be taking?
The challenge of a newspaper is not to divide us into black community, white community; red community, blue community; Christian community, non-Christian community; as the N&R ceaselessly works to do, but to unite as just as a community. Wouldn’t it be better if people simply were treated as individuals instead of being labeled, consigned to arbitrary groups and set against one another, the course that not just the N&R but the entire news media are now following.
Now to Allen’s question about “whether the black community was covered better in the days when papers had little diversity.” The truth is that the N&R has little real diversity now. And believe it or not, I wasn’t dodging the question. I was thinking about it. I even meant to add a comment yesterday that it deserved an answer and I would try to get to it, but I got overtaken by other activities.
I’m not so sure that what he believes is right. There certainly is more coverage now but whether it actually is better is debatable, because so much of it appears to be done in the interest of political correctness instead of truth. A case could be made that recent coverage, or in some cases lack of it, is even harmful to the black community. Making such a case would require examples, of which there are more than a few, and more time than I have to give to it right now. But I’ll try to get to it and perhaps post it at Greensboro 101.

By the way, ever read Coloring the News? I recommend it.

Jerry --

I agree with the point that "the challenge of a newspaper is not to divide us into (several communities), but to unite as just as a community." But the paper needs to show the complexity of that community, whether it's "PC" (talk about meaningless terms in an era in which criticism of foreign policy is considered treason) or not.

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that you were thinking about it and therefore weren't dodging the question. I hope you'll put more faith in my sense of humor and less in my psychic ability.

In any case, I don't plan to spend much more time hijacking the comment threads here to argue with you. I think I've made my points, and I'll gladly yield the podium.

Over to John Hood's point -- I agree that diverse **backgrounds** are important in newsroom hiring. But political party? I think many journalists have so far avoided the plague in the blogosphere in which people must label themselves Democrat, Republican or (the cop-out, frankly) Libertarian and let that identity take over their minds. If reporters and editors think of themselves as partisans first and journalists second, then the media will be even more of an echo chamber than they already are. We need independent thought, or thought will cease to exist.

Beau:

Please help me try to understand the distinction you (and others) are making here. Why would diversity of racial background be important to ensuring good-quality, fair journalism but diversity of political views or religious beliefs not be similarly important?

The argument, as I understand it, is not that non-white reporters will consciously go out and slant their news selection or gathering activities in some "non-white" manner, perhaps in order to counterbalance whites slanting the news in a "white" manner.

Rather, the argument is that what a reporter brings to the table inevitably influences what he or she sees as news, the sources he or she thinks to call, the context in which the story is reporter and written, and so on. This need not be a conscious process.

Similarly, why isn't it plausible to assume that a newsroom far more secular than the readers are is likely to end up with a different perception of what the news is, and how to cover it? And why isn't it plausible to assume that a newsroom disproportionately Left is likely to end up with a different perception of what the news is, and how to cover it, than the general population does?

I'm not baiting you. I truly don't get the distinction being offered here.

And no, I don't buy John Robinson's distinction about characteristics that are innate vs. those that are learned or changable. That appears to have nothing to do with the argument for diversity, which is not about fairness in hiring (that should be a given) but rather is about the nature of the journalism being delivered to readers. It doesn't matter that religious or political views are not innate. It only matters that they differ substantially -- and that, empirically, journalism attracts practitioners whose religious and political views significantly differ from those of a large share of the audience they seek to serve.

I'm an outlier. I went to the J-school. Few other conservatives or libertarians did, or do. That's a problem for the profession, it seems to me (not just for the Right and the GOP).

Allen,
Before this thread dies (am I getting the lingo right?), I want to thank you for posting the Davenport column. I finally got a chance to read it, and I’ll have to say that I wouldn’t have written what he did. Yet he made some valid points.

And while the column doesn’t meet the definition of a screed, I can understand why you might have an emotional reaction to it. Whether or not Davenport is a sound choice for local conservative opinion, I commend you for making his views regularly available, something that wouldn’t have happened before so many people began pointing out bias in the N&R.

John Robinson accuses Davenport of stating several things in the column as fact that aren’t so. But he didn’t tell us what they are. Are we just supposed to guess? Shouldn’t a newspaper immediately correct factual mistakes?

You, on the other hand, accuse Davenport of twisting “Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy into a half-informed screed against diversity.” But you haven’t said which parts are “half-informed” and I’ve read the column three times now and can’t find where Davenport opposes diversity.

You go on to state something that sounds disingenuous, if not dishonest. In regard to John Robinson’s clear mandate that one of every three newsroom hires must be a minority, you say that the N&R “endorses equal opportunity and rejects preferential treatment.” All of the new hires, you claim, will be qualified people “whatever their race or gender.”

“That’s a given,” you add.

That’s the kind of Orwellian double-speak that spews from you and John in ever greater quantities. What you claim is simply impossible when skin color has to be the primary consideration for one third of the people who are hired.

Davenport closed his column by alluding to King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech, which I heard on TV, and which affected me deeply. The civil rights movement was the great movement of my time, and I firmly committed myself to it and remain so. I was fortunate and honored to be intimately involved in it--in some cases more intimately than I wanted--through the last half of the ‘60s.

And you know what? I actually believed that King was leading us to a time when everybody would be guaranteed equal opportunity, as is now enshrined in law, when nobody ever again would have to worry about being treated differently because of skin color, when race no longer would divide us, as it seems to now as much as ever. It’s hard for me to grasp how thinking that could be twisting King’s legacy.

But something else is even harder for me. I was immensely proud to be part of the Greensboro Daily News during the period of the civil rights struggles. It stood stalwartly on the side of right on its editorial pages, and from the time I arrived at the end of 1965, placed no restrictions on reporters, such as myself, who were writing about it, which happened at some papers in the South.

That’s why it’s so hard for me to take what’s happened at the News & Record in recent years. If the civil rights movement had accomplished nothing else, I thought it had established that treating people differently because of skin color is morally wrong. But sadly the N&R no longer believes that. It has repeatedly embraced “affirmative action,” a euphemism for racial discrimination. One person cannot be favored because of skin color without another person being denied because of it. Such discrimination hurts no matter upon whom it falls, and it continues the old cycles of anger, resentment and bitterness.

Now John has publicly mandated racial discrimination in newsroom hiring. Frankly it just seems stupid that he would take so bold a stand.

But maybe it shouldn’t be so surprising, considering that for years the N&R has been holding an annual journalism workshop for Guilford County high school students from which one group has been excluded solely because of skin color. That’s racism by definition. Even more shamefully, in the past, the N&R has used the public schools to recruit these students, and it may still. I’ve often wondered why some bright student from the excluded group hasn’t applied and, after being denied admission, hired a lawyer to sue the newspaper and the school system for discrimination. He, or she, might get a nice settlement although likely never would be able to work in journalism.

Wouldn’t it be better for the community, and build more trust for the paper, if the N&R made the workshop available to all students with an interest in journalism? But I guess that might just create more budding journalists with the undesirable skin hues that will cause them to be turned away at the N&R.

Wow. This discussion has lived longer than I ever would have imagined.
I appreciate the views shared here, and the vigor of the debate.
I just got back into town from a week away, so I'll need to catch my breath before weighing in again.
But I will.
For the moment, here's more food for thought: I can't imagine Jerry believes a newsroom that overlooks or severely underrepresents certain segments of the population will cover the total community as effectively -- for example, that an all-male staff would cover women as well as it should, or with the depth of understanding that women staffers likely would add, directly or indirectly.
Or that a newsroom whose staff's ages skew older would have a clue about what young people are thinking.
This is not to suggest for a split-second that only young people should write about young people or that women should cover only women or that black people should only write about black folks.
But the depth and breadth of experience in the newsroom expands when these groups are a part of the newsgathering process.
And experience -- education, professional and real-life experiences -- makes a newsroom better.
In addition, it's essential that newspaper hire the best and brightest, especially now, in such an uncertain competitive environment.
If we are underrepresenting a large segment of the population, we are missing an important talent pool.
We can't afford to do that, especially now. We won't survive if we do.

Jerry has done an excellent job in pointing out why racial hiring is discrimination at it's worse, but John and Allen are in denial as all "elites" are accused of.

Where Jerry uses intelligence to make a distinction in readers I think that formal education is the better mark. Few if any of my family and friends that did not seek university education can grasp essential points in much of what is written on the editorial pages. A perfect example is George Wills' columns. Give grandpa one of these dissertations and see if he can talk about it.

It seems to me that most editorials and opinion columns are written for other editors and columnist to digest. The kind of diversity that would best meet the N&R goal of expanding readership and participation of the public at large is to keep in mind the reading levels of the rural sector. In another place Mr. Bledsoe was told that the Randolph County reporter was pulled back to give Greensboro more focus.

A greater consentration on the urban reader and racial diversity on the staff of the paper will fail to serve your audience.

The thing that no one seems to grasp is that everyone at the News & Record keeps saying they will hire "qualified" minorities.

Well, this would be a shock to me if it happens.

I personally know of at least TWO reporters who were hired by the News & Record OVER qualified white reporters who the N&R later had to "let go" because they were so inept.

I can name names of both the hired minorities AND the passed-over white reporters.

What concerns me -- and should concern EVEYONE -- is that the standards of who is "qualified" get lowered substantially for minorities (at least they have in the past at the N&R).

I have no reason to believe this will change.

I'd like to add that the passed-over white journalists were later hired for those same positions for which they were originally passed over. (Why they agreed to work in those positions after being treated so poorly, I will never know.)

The original passed-over white journalists excelled at those jobs (in which the "qualified" minorities had failed miserably) and were promoted in the organization.

Allen...John...you there? you there?

Or has reality suddenly silenced your double-speak?

Sorry, Jerry, I was thinking about Jim's comment. I would have answered yesterday but I got overtaken by other activities.

Jim, I'm not aware of any such scenarios as you describe -- and I would be if the people in question were hired since 1999 -- and I can't imagine how you would know anyway, unless you've worked in our human resources office.

I know I won't change your minds about what we're trying to do. I'm not trying to. My only request is to keep an open mind and see how it works.

Sorry about that. The above comment was made be me. (I'm still learning the technology.) :)

We must always strive for quality over quanity if we are to achieve anything.
We must forget the past and look to the future.

I've read the column three times now and I can't find where Devenport opposes diversity.

binteos psilos klipakia II mihanobios teleios II binteo parakseno poza II binteo psilos klima II prostituoitu 40 erotiknoveller II kylmempi yliluonnollisesti neitsyt II knulle bilder strip II vanlig binde rundt II mulliga brudar lesbisk II hynda frugan knullar II valtakirja malli penis II huora sa kauppa II kiihkea beibit humalainen II erinomainen amatoori toiminta II lesbisk obeskrivlig porr II genomtrangande flickfitta pressar II skit jungfru kon II varm cykelsadel hyndan II sensationnel secretaire double anal II etrange blondes fist II kjempeflott asiatisk fitte puling II bedarende asiatisk munnsex II sex fighetta fottilo II avventuroso intermedio II porno mpanana binteo II orimi asimantos II hemsk lesbisk samlag II modig tjejer gruppen II