Calling when ad says "no calls please"

gandhi,

You lose credibility every time you compare someone to Hitler because they don't want calls about a job. The most ridiculous thing I've read on an open forum in a long time. Just because you don't agree with someone does not make him a genocidal maniac.

It's a tough market right now. No one wants to sit back and say "We're still deciding" 200 times a day.

 

Well Chad, you may be right about the comparison of a "genocidal maniac." But reaching for loss of credibility is a bit of a stretch.

I'm referring to the policies of fascism, communism, etc. I even had an editor proclaim that the newsroom was not a democracy. I think you could debate the hell out of that statement, but in my experience I had a cat who turned on me overnight. I had always seen him unload on others, but when I got in his crosshairs it didn't go so well for either of us. I likened the guy to an SS soldier, because that's exactly the type of policy he used, his way or he forces you to the highway. For me I was shoved to the highway and out of the business. The fella above reminded me of that type of dictatorship.

Your analysis that it's a tough market is valid and the fact that no one wants to continue saying "We're still deciding" is a valid point. But suck it up for god sakes.

 

and there you go again earning the distinction of the name fucktard. you don't know me nor have you ever worked for or with me. but simply from my view on taking bullshit calls at work you compare me to hitler even though you've never seen me interact with the folks i work with. you must be a helluva reporter.

and yes, keeping with perspective, you either A. didn't read the post of what you just replied or B. i didn't write my previous post in fucktardese. what i do and how long i do it away from my place of work is my business. (to repeat) i don't give two shits what you do on your time, why do you care what i do with mine ... that's a fucked up angle to shoot from.

i ask few things from people who apply for a job. i ask for a cover letter, a resume, clips, references, to at least spell my name correctly and to not call me concerning the interview process. if you can take center stage by sending me your resume, when you really try hard not to screw it up but still screw up on one of the six things i ask, i don't want you working in the department, period. if you can fuck up your end of the hiring process, what the hell are you going to do when i ask you to cover your fourth prep basketball game of the week?

the bottom line for me is that my paper's employees in the sports department get it right or at least go into a story with the perspective that come hell or high water they will get the it right. it's what their parents instilled in them, not me. because the people i've hired have that perspective, when they miss something and don't actually nail it or fuck it up, i couldn't really give two shits because at least i know they tried. the folks that work in my paper's sports department hardly ever fuck it up and i think just a bit of that has to do with the way i go about the hiring process.

btw - what's your process of hiring sports writers?

 

thirty years in the biz, eh? and you still have no clue how to take simple instructions? do you just appear to be the stupidest person on earth or are you really that person?

 

no dye, you are completely wrong. part of being an editor is hiring applicants. being a buddy to 100 people you don't know is not a requirement.

an applicant probably is on the largest stage they'll ever take while at your newspaper when going through the hiring process. if they can't get it right then, well, when can they?

 

duuuuuhhhh!!!! ??? ??? ???

 

Thomas:

That logic looks like Boris Karloff.

I'm assuming you're talking about newspapers that make the hiring effort into an all-day effort, bringing in everyone including the janitor to talk to the candidate.

Using a violation of the "don't call; don't talk to us; don't make us do our jobs" as a reason not to hire makes little to no sense.

 

I've gotta say: I really don't want my editor spending time babysitting the non-candidates. He's spread thin enough as it is. The longer I'm in the business, the more I understand the importance of being low-maintenance. Bosses don't really want (or need) to be spending a lot time babysitting the people they have on hand, let alone prospective employees. Guess what, applicants? If you've sent your stuff and it creates any spark, they'll let you know they're interested. If you simply want to confirm they've received your stuff, a simple e-mail will suffice.

 

Yeah, I guess it's time better spent having to retally game stats and listen in on the interview calls of the people who are already on staff.

 

Yes, Dye, because EVERY editor is a do-nothing, shit-for-brains cretin. :

Look, I've worked for some of the worst editors imaginable -- guys I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on if they were on fire. But I've also worked for some who roll up their sleeves and work just as hard as -- if not harder than -- everybody on the staff.

 

Did they say "no calls" in their ads? Because that's the point here, not the testament to people rolling the rock up the hill both ways and not being appreciated.

 

Because, of course, sports editors can't possibly have more important things to do. :