Absolutely gorgeous about the New York Times

So, they’re being sued for being racists:

Mark Thompson, the chief executive of the New York Times and former director-general of the BBC, is facing a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit alleging that he introduced a culture of “deplorable discrimination” based on age, race and gender at the newspaper.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two black female employees in their sixties in New York on Thursday, claims that under Thompson’s leadership the US paper of record has “become an environment rife with discrimination”.

Tee hee, biter bit and all that. But here’s what’s really great about it:

Thompson is said to have hired Meredith Levien, the company’s chief revenue office and a co-defendant, to “carry out his vision of the ideal workforce”. The lawsuit claims that under Thompson, who was paid $8.7m (£6m) last year, and Levien, who was paid $1.8m (£1.2m), “age, sex and race discrimination became the modus operandi at the Times”.

In speeches to staff, Levien is said to have made it clear that she wanted a workforce with “fresh faces” populated by “people who look like the people we are selling to”. She is alleged to have told staff that “this isn’t what our sales team should look like”. The advertising staff, many of whom are older, black and female, said Levien’s comments were “shockingly rife with racially charged innuendos”.

And the reason that’s great is that you’ve only got to think for a moment about what the SJWs are saying about the tech industry. And well reported in The NYT of course. That that industry should look more like the customer base. There should be more women and blacks employed in it. Because, you know look like the customer base. It’s actually been specifically said about Twitter that as it has a greater penetration among blacks than whites therefore the workforce should have a higher black percentage than the general population.

Yet when someone actually tries to have a workforce that mirrors the customer base that’s wacist.

And to cap it all, here’s Mona Chalabi getting entirely the wrong end of the stick:

Racism in the media is often linked to a lack of diversity within the industry. And accusations that the workforce in US media doesn’t represent the population are nothing new. In 1968, analyzing protests about the treatment of racial minorities, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders claimed that “the media report and write from the standpoint of a white man’s world”, adding “fewer than 5% of the people employed by the news business in editorial jobs in the United States today are Negroes.”

But that’s the actual claim here: that the NYT is trying to make the staff reflect the population more closely.

14 thoughts on “Absolutely gorgeous about the New York Times”

  1. “a workforce with “fresh faces” populated by “people who look like the people we are selling to””

    Pasty-faced white liberals with bushy beards?

  2. Chaps comes in, hires a lady to sort his underlings out and then finds himself being sued for sexism. Welcome to America!

    Sound like he and Levien made an attempt to shake some dead wood out and thanks to the increasingly-deranged climate in the USA, said dead wood saw an opportunity to sue.

  3. This is the standard problem of

    “Cuts will hurt women more” argument – because “Women given more state support”. The latter is not discriminatory, but the former is.

  4. “…aid dead wood saw an opportunity to sue.”

    Even a “go away” settlement would be a nice sweetener moving into retirement, no?

    Or am I just being excessively cynical?

  5. So an organisation is selling well with some particular demographic, therefore it should change its staff and likely it’s product.
    Don’t see it myself.

  6. The new CEO of the company I work for has announced his intention to do exactly the same. It’s an interesting motivational technique telling your workforce they shouldn’t be your workforce.

    Worlds gone mad I tell you.

  7. A classic example of the weapons Progressives forged to use against others being used against them, because they genuinely believe the rules they impose on others shouldn’t also apply to them.

  8. Women are 77% of the NHS staff.

    I am today launching a SJW campaign to have at least 25% of female NHS workers sacked and replaced by men.

    We must have a workforce that reflects the customer base.

    Once that is achieved we’ll have to start sacking anyone under 75.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian Reid – “The new CEO of the company I work for has announced his intention to do exactly the same. It’s an interesting motivational technique telling your workforce they shouldn’t be your workforce.”

    Once upon a time I had a line manager announce to us all that they wanted to change their hiring practices in order to improve the quality of the staff because the existing staff were not good enough.

    Oddly enough this did not involve a pay rise.

    The fact he was such a c*nt made it all the more funny actually.

    But people need to remember how affirmative action and racial norms are supposed to work. The two options are 1. White lose their jobs and 2. Non-White gain jobs. There is no third option.

  10. If the US is anything like the UK you cannot simple get rid of people and replace them with others in the same role. You make roles redundant.

    So over here firing the black women and hiring white bearded hipsters in their place would be illegal on about seventeen different counts, one of which could plausibly be racial discrimination.

  11. “So on this numpty’s theory only children should be making toys?”

    Yes, it isn’t long before SJW logic shits the bed.

  12. Rob, there are ways.

    The first time my company tried to lay me off, they got around the pending age discrimination complaint by lining up several people to take over my responsibilities, such that they didn’t “replace the old guy with a young guy.”

    Note that age is a proxy for salary level. They targeted me because I made the most. Levien’s goal may be to cut payroll by creating a younger work force. I.e., reflecting their readership is cheesy cover for reducing staff expense. Virtue signaling discrimination.

  13. The NYT is basically fucked then.

    I’d much rather hire the older black woman. Knows the job, knows how to deal with people and has basically settled.

    You get some pasty faced PBR-drinking Williamsburg wanker in your ad department, he’s doing that job while hoping that his plan for a popup organic granola bar happens. You’ll be looking for a replacement in 3 months that you’ll have to train up.

    Seriously, anyone who hires people “because like us” is a moron. It’s a cancer in an organisation. They aren’t people making you money, they’re people who are just creating a personal club to hang out in for themselves.

    Then again, I think organisations like the NYT and the Guardian are now at the point of no return and everyone knows it. Why work hard to keep alive something that isn’t going to last when you can just have a good time instead?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *