Andrew's Jayson Blair take

Jessica, do you mind sharing the pink jelly beans next time? Jeez, where are your manners? I didn't hear a peep from you. Haha...

Seriously, though, I enjoyed our discussion about the Jayson Blair situation. It's a case that has interested me from the start. I think it's unique that so many differing, yet intertwined, factors could lace together to create a 'controversial' situation that will leave an impression upon an industry's practices for a generation, and potentially, even longer. We have the obvious race issues that are at the forefront of Mr. Blair's rise. How fast is too fast when promoting underrepresented persons? How does a 'rocket rise' harm such a person, if at all? Why would management be willing to sacrifice product quality for a 'success story'? In the long run, does management's obsession with potential and talent harm the newsroom?

In my opinion, people, no matter their race, become sloppy when too much is given too fast. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I believe 'paying your dues', to some extent, has value that is paramount to the health of an industry's future. Young professionals can learn from their older colleagues, many of whom are more than willing to share their expertise. Remember, people want to share what they know as long as the receiving party has the right attitude about gaining new knowledge. Mr. Blair was betrayed by his superiors at The New York Times, because some on 43rd Street were too eager to see a young, ambitious black journalist succeed. In the process, everyone involved cut corners. These superiors betrayed Mr. Blair, a flawed and fake individual, because they neglected his capacity for growth. They betrayed him, because they let their egos get in the way of proper training. But most of all, they betrayed the entire industry, because journalists everywhere, minority and white, now and in the future, will now have to answer for the misguided actions of a few trigger-happy individuals. Everyone involved should feel ashamed.

Andrew's Diversity Opinion

Couldn't agree more with Jessica. I'm glad I decided to take cross-cultural journalism in this way. OK, the Sydney perk doesn't hurt, right? But, overall, this small-group experience will be much more beneficial to myself, and everyone in the group, because we can introduce and analyze each other's ideas in a way that would be impossible in a lecture-style setting. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this.

Anyway, like Amanda said, these topics can be difficult to discuss, because most of us have political correctness pounded into our heads at an early age. In some ways, this can be good. We're taught there's a 'right' and 'wrong' approach to dealing with so-called 'sensitive' issues. And believe me, this approach has its place. But often, in today's sensitive society, we're afraid to be branded with the 'bigot' tag. And while there's a level of civility to consider here, I think some may be afraid to present perfectly legitimate (and controversial) viewpoints, because today's culture doesn't necessarily embrace anything related to this topic that isn't pumped with sunshine.

Therefore, I'll be brutally honest: I don't like the idea of diversity as a means to an end. I don't like the way 'diversity' is tossed around as a catchprase to appease corporate agendas. I shudder to think that one day a person of equal or lesser ability than myself may beat me out for an internship or job because a PC-sensitive pencil pusher caved to special interests. I'm sure it will happen. (Some newspapers already sponsor 'prestigious' minority-only opportunities that I would love to experience but never will. For example, check out APSE's Sports Journalism Institute.) But this mindset is dangerous. This mindset is wrong.

The product is harmed because the best talent may not be hired because a profile isn't met. The workplace is harmed because colleagues may start to question the 'real reason' for a person being there. ("Oh, he's the minority hire.") Individuals are harmed because they may start to question their abilities, their talents, if the pressure to produce as the "minority hire" becomes too great.

But this problem isn't going away. Media outlets, in vain, will continue to try to match the society to which they strive. This is an impossible goal, if only because journalism is a white-collar industry whose audience, generally speaking, consists of the "haves" of society: a spot usually reserved for WASPy types who care enough to learn about the world around them so they, themselves, can shape it. In contrast, minorities, on average, hold much less powerful positions in today's socioeconomic structure. Therefore, newsgathering is a much less attractive option to the very demographic the journalism industry tries to appeal to.