DIVERSITY UBER ALLES: Ahh, spring. Time for the print media to bash itself for not being more "diverse." The American Society of Newspaper Editors has released the latest study on newsroom diversity. As you might expect, the utopia of proportional minority representation has not been met:

Last year, the industry had a net increase nationwide of four minority journalists. Only because payrolls shrank in the recession, with more white journalists taking buyouts, did the percentage of minorities in newsrooms increase to 12 percent, compared with 31 percent of the US population. Nearly half of the nation's newspapers employ no minority reporters, editors, artists, or photographers.

First of all, it's not entirely clear that the nation is 31 percent minority. The Census states that White Persons make up 75.1 percent of the U.S. population in 2000. But because of the multiple racial entries available on the latest form, it also reports that White Persons not of Hispanic/Latino origin were at 69.1 percent. There were also these two fudge categories: Reporting some other race, 5.5 percent; and Persons reporting two or more races, 2.4 percent. By choosing the higher minority percentage, the situation may appear to be artificially worse than it actually is. But never mind that. Check this slanted passage out:

Editors offer many reasons why they cannot achieve diversity, but not all of those reasons stand up to scrutiny. For one thing, they say, size matters. It's harder for smaller papers with fewer resources to attract good minority journalists. Other editors say the opposite, that larger, more respected newspapers have less staff turnover and need to hire more experienced journalists, so they have fewer opportunities to diversify.

We'll give those reasons a little "scrutiny" later. Let's just say that there's a huge disconnect between this passage and the things that I and many others have observed. In my experience, the truth is this: Small papers simply cannot attract good minority journalists because the minute they graduate from UNC or Indiana or Columbia, they are hired by larger, more respected papers such as the "Charlotte Observer" or the "Indianapolis Star" or "Newsday." If you're black and have a degree from a J-school, you can pretty much write your own ticket. Hell, even if you don't have a J-school degree, big newspapers will call you. I've seen it happen. About 10 years ago, a black co-worker of mine at a very small daily paper put in one year of work before a 350,000-circulation daily contacted him out of the blue. He got the kind of job that I was told I might be ready for in four or five years.

''I think that increasing diversity is within the control of the editor,'' said Tim J. McGuire, president of the editors association and the editor of McClatchy's Minneapolis paper, the Star Tribune, which is at 89 percent of parity. ''We did it by sheer will.'' It doesn't hurt, he said, that 5 to 10 percent of his annual bonus is based on diversity. That's enough, he said, for a weekend in Las Vegas.

So it is clearly in the financial best interest of editors to achieve diversity. How come they're not making it happen? In typical fashion, the Globe buries the reasons in the 26th graph:

Many editors cite two systemic problems that make it difficult to meet diversity goals: retention and a lack of qualified minority journalists. Most editors can cite good minority journalists who have been raided by a larger newspaper or TV network, or who fled journalism for higher pay, opportunity for advancement, or a climate where their views are heard. Editors also refer to what they call the ''pipeline'' problem, saying that there are not enough minority journalists coming out of smaller newspapers and journalism schools. Indeed, the nation's newspapers would need to double the number of minority journalists, and distribute them much more evenly, for every paper to reach parity with its community.

After reading the opening paragraphs of the story, which not so subtly conjure up the image of racist newsroom managers conspiring to force the next William Raspberry into a job at McDonald's, you find the truth way down in the story. But there's an attempt to refute even these simple and reasonable explanations:

But it's also true that there are plenty of minority college students studying journalism and mass communications: 27 percent of students in those majors are minorities, or enough to double the number of minority journalists in about five years, according to the latest US study by the Grady College of Journalism at the University of Georgia. And journalism has never been a job that requires a major in a particular field. But not enough minorities are choosing print journalism, and instead are choosing broadcasting or public relations.

I can't find the University of Georgia study cited. But the fact that 27 percent of the current journalism and mass communication majors are minorities means next to nothing, fantasies of a five-year pogrom of white journalists notwithstanding. First of all, far fewer minorities currently enrolled in college will graduate than their white counterparts. In fact, at a lot of colleges, as few as one-third of minorities currently enrolled will actually graduate. That's true no matter what the major. Second, no mention is made of how many of those who make it through school actually choose to go into journalism. It's a notoriously low-paying field, and selling insurance for $30,000 a year can look infinitely more appealing than covering American Legion baseball for $18,000 a year. And finally, the Globe's story itself provides an entirely reasonable explanation in the 29th graph of a 32-graph story: More minorities are choosing the more lucrative fields of broadcasting or public relations.

Despite this, you can bet that this report will lead to more sophisticated diversity mau-mauing of media companies. And, if you believe William McGowan, there will be a corresponding decline in skeptical reporting about important issues that affect Americans of all racial groups.