What strikes me about this story (and "reporting" in general) is how eager people writing stories are to stir up the worst kind of racial/gender-based implicati

What strikes me about this story (and "reporting" in general) is how eager people writing stories are to stir up the worst kind of racial/gender-based implications without any further responsibility for analyzing or self-doubting the top level findings they're throwing in front of the audience. You would think that anyone presenting statistics that call into question some kind of differential treatment by race, ethnicity, or gender would take a moment to point out the cautions in the data. Or even express some doubt about writing the story to begin with. But no, for some reason, we are fascinated by the "0th order analysis" of inequities by race, almost want to see it blown up into incorrect interpretations and incentivize reporters to produce such stories. I think there should be a code of ethics where reporters should be questioned about what they seek to accomplish with half-assed analyses like this, if they fail to accompany it with huge warnings about what it hasn't taken into account that could explain differences: -- age -- experience -- selection biases in employees tenure (both hiring and departures) etc. Without this kind of info, all these stories do is shout an alarmist call that "this isn't fair" and then fail to produce any backup for the claim, but rile everyone up.