I usually enjoy Leonard Pitts's columns, even when I disagree with him. However, his column comparing the crimes of disgraced reporters Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley misses important distinctions:

It's been nearly four months since the scandal broke. Four months since Jack Kelley, star foreign correspondent for USA Today, was found to have lied his way through his professional life for the last 13 years. He lied about where he had been, what he had seen, whom he had talked to, what they had said. He lied so much I'm only half convinced "Jack Kelley' is his real name.

Yet you, my colleagues, have not asked the most important question:

What does this mean for the future of white journalism?

Granted, you've pontificated about our damaged credibility. You've felled forests with your weighty ruminations about what this portends for the future of our profession. But, evidently cowed by political correctness, you've ignored the most vital issues.

Did USA Today advance a moderately capable journalist because he was white? Did some white editor mentor him out of racial solidarity even though Kelley was unqualified? In light of this fiasco, should we re- examine the de facto affirmative action that gives white men preferential treatment in our newsrooms?

Jayson Blair's race was not the sole issue that lead many to believe that race played a factor in his success. It was the fact that Blair was a 27 year old writing hefty pieces for the most respected newssource in the nation. How did a 27-year old get so ahead so quickly? He somehow managed to bypass the bush leagues that most reporters have to wade through. I didn't hear about any huge stories he broke with another paper to warrant being picked up by the NYT. From what I understand, his academic career was not remarkably impressive. So how did this happen? Just a lucky intern who happened to be black at a paper that was trying like the dickins to be more diverse. Coincidence, surely.

If a similar pattern can be drawn for Kelley, then Pitts's parallel is apt. USA Today is a fine paper. I actually prefer it to the NYT (I'm a sucker for pie charts), but it's stature is nowhere near that of the Times and as such it's not under the same scrutiny (nor, I imagine, would potential newhires be so screened). A better parallel with Blair would be Phillip Glass, a writer for The New Republic that similarly made stuff up and got away with it. Glass, like Blair, was a young phenom that rose to a prominant newspaper before he was ready. A defense for both Blair and Glass could be made that they were simply in over their heads. But even there lies a crucial difference: Glass was not part of an attempt at diversity the same way that Blair was, therefore Glass's race (white I believe) is not an issue.

I'm personally conflicted over the value of affirmative action and diversity programs, so I don't have an anti-affirmative action ax to grind here. That said, when someone underqualified gets a job for which he is not qualified in a paper that loudly seeks people just like him, it's not unreasonable to ask questions. No such circumstances existed for Kelley to my knowledge. Lex pondered a while back if he got away with it because he was known in the industry as being a pious Christian. That's a specific circumstance that could warrant some scrutiny. If Blair were white and the NYT were making an effort to hire more "young and edgy" writers, then Blair's age (and edginess) would be an issue. As it turns out, the Times wanted more minority writers and Blair was a minority. That's a story no matter how you cut it.