The same yawn of obviousness surrounds newsroom treatment of affirmative action. One New York Times reporter told McGowan, "Nobody wants to do a story on affirmative action because they just don't see anything wrong with it." In the papers I read, coverage is slack, and articles favorable to race and gender preferences are much more common than not-so-favorable ones. The newsroom air is so thick with orthodoxy that it is very hard for readers and viewers to figure out what is really going on.
McGowan argues, in case-by-case detail, that diversity ideology has corrupted the newsroom. Hiring more women, gays and minorities was fair, but it pushed the newsroom further to the left, since those groups are more liberal than white males. These groups acquired the ability to monitor coverage of their own activities, often with the clear ability to airbrush out anything they considered negative or hurtful to the cause. Militant gays took over AIDS beats, often with little or no protest about a conflict of interest. Office commissars began to appear -- "senior vice president, diversity" or "diversity director" -- who sometimes sat in on daily news meetings and contributed to coverage decisions. (Just like a teacher or someone from the principal's office used to sit in and contribute to coverage of your high school paper.)
Managers were brought in line by linking their promotions and bonuses to the number of minority journalists they hire, retain and promote. A clever move. For quelling resistance to a dubious new order, there is nothing like offering a financial stake to managers and mentioning the possibility of their careers being ended. "Diversity was the new religion," McGowan writes, and the faithful fell in line.