Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

What else are you supposed to say when you're trying to make time with a dame with terrific gams?

 

Honestly, at least read the posts and try to understand them before turning into Captain Righteous. You might learn something.

There are a number of reasons why you won't find many minorities on the air in Quincy, Illinois. They are not what you desperately want to believe they are.

 

You’re such a card!

 

I'm gonna disagree. To me, delightful and dazzling are too formal and thus signals. Empty calories. If a woman wrote them to me, and she was under, I dunno, 60, I'd read them as "meh, not interested."

Which is how I read it.

But to each their own.

 

@exmediahack didn't create the system.

ESPN doesn't train talent from birth for their on air positions. They hire from a talent pool of people who have an interest in these jobs, and who have done the work to attain the skill set ESPN requires for the job.

To compare the talent's racial and gender diversity to that of the general public doesn't make sense. You need to compare it to the makeup of the pool of qualified applicants.

 

Man you are way off base here. Lazy misogyny? Because he was giving his opinion on how his business works? The only one being lazy in this instance is you.

 

What he's saying - and shit, it's right - is that women, in high-end sports TV, are not particularly respected, or valued, because their role isn't valued and they're not that good at it (because who at 25 is at the peak of their reporting skills?), and, as a result, they're consistently young, consistently replaced and consistently surrounded by more entrenched people - such as the 45-year-old white male anchor - who knows those facts and act accordingly.

To cast ESPN as unusually backwards on the matter of gender equality - or racial equality for that matter - is frankly nuts. ESPN felt comfortable enough asking for - and getting - Sarah Spain to speak for the company in that Boston Globe story, and she's no mouthpiece for the white male establishment. ESPN, if nothing else, is deliberately, actively progressive.

You're showing your ass.

 

If we're going to play the experience card, I'm pretty well-qualified to opine on Quincy, Illinois.

I listened. I heard the same tired misogynistic "it's a handicap to be a white male if ESPN only hires us 33% more often than our share of the country's demographics and not 200% more" spiel. We weren't talking about minorities in Quincy, Illinois, anyway. We were talking about women at ESPN.

 

Folks have been waiting for someone in this position to face accusations:

 

I didn't criticize ESPN's hiring practices. Quite the opposite. If there's one thing ESPN gets right, it's drawing from a wide pool of talent. But when that pool of talent results in merely 40% of jobs being held by white men, white men talk about what a burden it is to be them when trying to get hired by ESPN. It's the tech industry argument all over again.

 

Here's a 2015 story and diagram about Roger Goodell's inner circle, i.e. the most powerful owners in the NFL.

Roger Goodell is very powerful. Here's which NFL team owners have his ear.

We have noted racist Bob McNair, -ist of all trades Jerry Jones, and now alleged butt-grabber/whateverer Jerry Richardson. All are in the first or second tier of that diagram.

But yes totally these men would not do something like blackball Colin Kaepernick.

 

You were the one who brought up concerns that 75% of the anchors in Quincy are white males. You may know Quincy, but you don't know shit about how TV hiring works.

And it's impressive that you "heard" that spiel, because no one said it.