Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:
A report into the British Broadcasting Corporation handling of the Jimmy Savile child-sex abuse scandal was released Wednesday, and the upper management of the BBC got off lightly, though the management culture of the BBC came in for criticism. One prominent member of that management: Mark Thompson, who served as director-general of the BBC for eight years until earlier this year, when he became chief executive of the New York Times Co.
—Clay Waters, NewsBusters, December 20, 2012.
The nation’s tough anti-pedophilia laws are unfair to pedophiles, according to an op-ed published by The New York Times’ editors.
“One can live with pedophilia and not act on it,” says Margo Kaplan, an entrepreneurial assistant law professor at Rutgers University, and a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Tragically, the roughly 1 percent of “people who are sexually attracted to children] must hide their disorder from everyone they know — or risk losing educational and job opportunities, and face the prospect of harassment and even violence,” she wrote.
—“Pedophilia Deserves Civil Rights, Says New York Times’ Op-Ed,” Neil Munro, the Daily Caller, today.
Related: As Mark Steyn writes, the Times decided that it would be play the self-appointed role of being “A Teacher for the Apple” this weekend, hectoring Silicon Valley for its perceived lack of diversity — an astonishing statement for thus us who happen to lives in Silicon Valley:
No doubt “many” “studies” can be found that show such things. In which case, as John Hinderaker points out, why doesn’t the New York Times editorial board give “diversity” a try?
The Times says it is a “problem” that “Most [Silicon Valley] employees are white and Asian men.” So let’s count! Sure enough, 11 of the editorial board’s 19 members are white or Asian men. Worse, only one out of 19 is African-American. That’s a little under one-half the proportion of African-Americans in the population. How about a Rooney Rule for the New York Times?
You know those white lesbian parents who are suing the sperm bank for selling them African-American sperm rather than the Caucasian sperm they requested, and thus forcing them to raise a black child in their overwhelmingly white neighborhood? There are surely days when the Grey Lady’s lone black guy feels like the mis-inseminated lesbian’s daughter of the Times editorial board.
But, beyond the usual cheap laughs at the diversity poseurs’ expense, how ridiculous is it that The New York Times is offering advice on how to be “more creative” and “more profitable” to Google, Apple and Facebook? This is the company that so mismanaged its affairs its old-money patriarch had to call in a Mexican sugar daddy to bail them out. These are the “creative” geniuses who in the 1990s paid $1.4 billion for The Boston Globe and The Worcester Telegram, only to unload them for a combined $70 million, while retaining $100 million in pension liabilities. (In other words, they gave the papers away.)
Last year, Amazon (which presumably is as non-diverse as Google et al) bought The Washington Post for less than the Times paid for The Worcester Telegram in 1999. Why would anyone take business advice from The New York Times?
Invest $100 in Apple in 2004, you’d have $1800. Invest $100 in NYT in 2004, you’d have $32. Who has the diversity problem again? #corrected
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) October 6, 2014