Columnist opening in Orlando

That is Post of the Year material right there.

 

I appreciate your perspective, Michelle.

I am curious to know if you feel some of Jemele's approaches - blogging about sex, the "baby momma" questions, etc. - have set a bad standard or demeaned other women working in the business. Are we still at a stage where we all get lumped together?

 

I think there are three camps here. . .

I think the bashing of Hill for the "baby mama" question and the blog post are unfair. The blog post was a mis-step in judgment, but surely not one that should be held against her. She realized public figures need to watch what they say. End of story. Maybe the "baby mama" question isn't your cup of tea, but there is no sense in dwelling on it.

All that said, I do not find her writing to be particularly entertaining or thought provoking, so in that sense I agree with others on the board. No doubt she is likely hard working, and ambitious, and energetic, and a pleasure to work with. But for me -- and this is just me speaking -- I judge a columnist by one thing: his or her writing.

All THAT said, take the money a run like you stole it. I'd write for the Weekly Reader if they were payin' me that kind of coin.

 

DO NOT DELETE THIS GODDAMN THREAD!

This could be the greatest thing in SportsJournalists.com history by the end of its run. This thread is truly made of win. I almost feel like I have to show a press credential to be allowed to post.

 

I don't know if I agree with that. In fact, I'm sure I don't. I think this thread, and others like it, is a sad, sad reflection of the people in our industry. We looooove to rip people. And we don't discriminate between the athletes we cover and each other. It's very sad.

I'm not suggesting everyone should root, root, root for the home team, but some of the stuff you hear in press boxes is just down right mean spirited. I cringe when a front office person overhears our press box chatter on my beat.

I guess I got off topic a little, but man, people here need to lighten up. I thought Jemele got a good job, but reading this board, you would think the woman stole something.

 

I take offense at that. I am a wonderful gonad.

 

I just finished reading some of her most recent columns. They were not spectacular. But spectacular is not what Page 2 needs now. They need someone who does not have a man crush on Nomar Garciapara (Simmons), is not a untalented racist hack (Scoop) and not a complete moron (like Bayless). ESPN has always been short on strong female writers, and it looks to me like they have landed someone who might actually provide them with some decent Page 2 content. More power to Hill landing the gig, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

 

Not answering for Michelle, but answering anyway:

People who 'lump' talent (or lack thereof) based on gender or race or age or whatever are beyond our ability to convince them otherwise.

You get ahead in business by being unique--whatever that means to each of us. There are many top female writers who get absolutely no mention around here. Why? They blend in with the rest of the writers....which is not a bad thing. That's their style. Jemele has a different style. Also not a bad thing.

TV and the web are about celebrity, and she's raised hers to the level that got her noticed. But celebrity has a price, and she's paying it--if you blog about needing oral sex or whatever else, you get the attention you asked for.

And if her actions imply a standard for women in the sports business, let it show that it's possible to break out of the pack and shake things up....which is nothing new for the big-name guys in the business. It's still a man's game, and she's playing it perfectly.

 

Mr. Jackson (if that's really you, and I have my doubts), Mr. Hoppes, Ms. Kaufman and Mr. Whitlock:

I've been reading the Orlando Sentinel since it was 2 papers --- the morning Sentinel and the evening Star --- and at a point long before the Trib came to own the Orlando newspaper (when it was really, really bad).

Allow me to be blunt: Ms. Hill is the most mundane columnist in that entire three-decade-plus time --- period --- and I cannot think of one good, solid reason that justifies The Worldwide Leader choosing her to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Wiley, Dr. Thompson and Mr. Whitlock. Maybe the notoriety of that infamous blog entry raised her profile to the point where TWL would consider her, but her published work does not merit this move on TWL's part.

 

That's an interesting point. For a long time I think I was kind of naive to that part of the business, assuming that I could simply work hard and do good stuff, and eventually that big break would come. But it doesn't necessarily work that way. You kind of have to sell yourself these days, and like 21 said, being unique is sometimes just as important, if not more so, than being the best writer. I don't fault her at all for creating a little buzz about herself (intentional or not) and getting her big chance. I'd like to see her do well.

It's interesting in this discussion to think about someone like Rachel Nichols, who I always thought was a brilliant writer when she was at the Post, and who I personally believe could write circles around Hill (and that's not a knock on Jemele). Four years ago, people almost never talked about Nichols on here (certainly not with the frequency the bring up Hill) because as 21 said, she wasn't really a celebrity at the Post. She just blended in with the other good writers and did great stuff. Now, she's on TV, hair dyed red, doing something different, and on her way to becoming this generation's Lesley Visser. Esquire picked her as one of the "Women We Love" in 2005.

Food for thought, I guess.

 

For the record, this is not Scoop Jackson. Scoop was my user name long before we knew of Mr. Jackson.

 

Unique isn't exactly the word I think fits, 21, but you're on to something. For whatever reason, and since I haven't read Hill's work I can't say, ESPN feels she fits the sensibility they're cultivating on page 2. I'd say most writers don't and couldn't. I'm looking for work as a sportswriter, but I'm more cut out to be an astronaut than to be part of Page 2. I find its sensibility repulsive, banal, sophomoric, and many other nasty adjectives. They're doing without my clicks, so who cares?
What I don't understand is getting pissed off about someone's work you don't like. The criticisms of Hill are very harsh, but they're not about professional malpractice as they are with Albom, Lupica, etc. People just attack her work on qualitative grounds.
That's a matter of taste, and fighting over taste is useless. Don't like Hill? Read someone else. The shots taken at her here crossed into obvious jealousy territory about two threads ago.