“Guild members who believed their contributions weren’t fairly rated in the review process have said they feel demoralized and alienated - a pernicious outcome as The Times attempts to recruit and retain a diverse workforce.” In 2020, zero Black employees received the highest rating, while white employees accounted for more than 90 percent of the roughly 50 people who received the top score.”
Asians were also less likely than white employees to get high scores. The Guild “found that in 2021, being Hispanic reduced the odds of receiving a high score by about 60 percent, and being Black cut the chances of high scores by nearly 50 percent. Those ratings directly impact employees’ paychecks and career opportunities. Its new report concluded that the Times “has for years given significantly lower ratings to employees of color.” The Guild, which includes vocal supporters of both sides of the “both-sides” debate, is currently negotiating a new contract with Times executives. The new evidence is from an analysis by Times journalists in the NewsGuild of New York, the union that represents the Times newsroom. Maybe a little more surprising was learning that management’s response to persistent concerns about racial disparities in performance ratings was to hire a consultant who covered up those disparities with bad statistical methods. So new evidence out today that New York Times management doesn’t just underappreciate diversity in its newsroom, but actively devalues it, didn’t surprise me at all. On the other side: Younger and more diverse staffers, along with some older and whiter supporters, whose lived experiences tell them that dramatic societal change is necessary, and who believe their calling is to the truth even if the truth is one-sided. On one side: Top management and the old guard, who continue to enforce a dominant but senescent white culture of both-sidesism and comfort with the status quo. My take on the New York Times newsroom is that it is increasingly riven.
0 kommentar(er)
