Columnist opening in Orlando

To most people, good writing is something that's written that they agree with, or can relate to, or makes them laugh, or cry. It has very little to do with style, or substance, or even grammar.

Since each individual is different, it stands to reason that they'll all like different things.

Since the newspaper business is still overwhelmingly white and male, it rebels against this very concept.

The New York Times is a well-written, substantive paper overall. But if you don't agree with its politics, if you don't like being preached too a little too often, if you don't like people slyly inferring that they're just a little more intelligent than you, or more clever than you, basically making the average person feel he or she isn't smart enough to deserve to read it, you won't think it's good writing.

And plenty of people feel that way. So they'll read something else. That's why there is "something else."

Newspapers are filled with too many people (including city columnists) who rarely leave their office or desk. How could they possibly know what people are digging? They're typically of a certain age; attempts to reach the "young reader" are laughably bad more often than not. Ditto with attempts to reach the immigrant reader, or the black reader. Too often (and this happens less often in sports), we write for other newspaper people. The people we know.

The percentage of newspaper people who listen to NPR (or the CBC here in Canada) has to be head over heels higher than the national average. An overwhelming number of people (myself included), think it's pretentious shit that holds absolutely no interest for me. Am I supposed to like it because it's "highbrow"? Because I should like it? Because it's good for me?

That didn't work with lima beans when I was a kid. It ain't gonna work now.

Hill's work is interesting to me because it expresses a viewpoint of someone whose life has been lived in a completely different prism than mine. For that, it's worth reading. Does she write well? Not especially. This hardly makes her unique, as someone already pointed out. I don't think Albom writes worth a damn. I could name dozens of others with big jobs I feel the same way about.

But there are people out there who will read her viewpoint and say, "See, that's what I'm saying." Just because those people are overwhelmingly not us, doesn't mean her words don't have value.

As for the blog ... It had the desired effect. Given the extreme jealousy on this board about how much coin she allegedly will be raking in, I suspect that most of the haters would secretly blog worse, or do something else, if they thought it would put them on track for that paycheque.

Since that hasn't happened yet, people get on their moral high horse.

We'll all whores. It's just a matter of establishing what our going rate is.

 

So, you have to have a certain number of IQ points or be of a certain race to dig Shakespeare? Some 18-year-old blogger dropping ESPN-speak in every other line should be as much of a candidate to be hired by a paper as Bill Plaschke, because they represent different demimondes, thus making them equal? The willinging of normally reasonable people to throw standards out the window is galling.

 

21, you have a good, level head and wisdom, too. This post and the post on the "anti - Whitlock" thread are really good stuff. Here, here.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

If it weren't for this board, I would have no idea who Jemele Hill is, nor would I care.
So now we've gone through nine pages of stupidity without considering the real facts here:
When Jemele Hill's first column appears on Page 2, at least 95% of Page 2 readers will be reading something she wrote for the first time. A good guess is half of them will like it and half of them won't like it.
And that column probably will be linked here so all we newspaper insiders can critique it, rip it, praise it and continue debating Jemele Hill forever.
And in the end, none of what Jemele Hill accomplishes or doesn't accomplish will mean very much to anybody except Jemele Hill and her bank account.
It simply isn't worth all the debate and especially not worth all the vitriol that spills out whenever someone "we" don't like gets a better job.

 

In all fairness, spnited, it has become more of a philosophical discussion and hardly a vitriolfest anymore.

 

for a couple of you tonight, dools.
for the most part this has been a "let's rip Jemele" fest.

 

I have family who live in the O-Sent readership area and they were extremely happy when they happened upon the story on Deadspin about Jemele leaving.

My mother: she refuses to read the section if Jemele's face is on it (she loves Jerry Green and Mike Bianchi, by the way. She likes that they're funny.)
My father: thinks it's great that she's going to the internet because "she didn't know shit about sports and certainly didn't know shit about blow jobs, according to her blog".

So to say a reader never knew about her blog is bullshit. I was suprised to hear my dad checks Deadspin before he reads ESPN.com every day.

 

The next time I read Jemele Hill or Page 2, it'll be the first time.

 

It would be absolutely unfair to say that she draws negative comments only because she is a black woman. But if that's a response to what I said, take that and a token and catch the A train.

I didn't even come close to saying such a thing. I asked why she seems to receive an inordinate amount of criticism from this group of writers. Interestingly, no one's answered that one, and this strikes me as the type of room where pretty much everyone has an answer about pretty much everything.

I'm certainly not saying all of Jemele's critics are racist because, quite honestly, I don't know all of you. I may know more, but Whitlock's the only friend I've got here who was kind enough to use a handle from which I could glean his identity. 'Preciate that, Jason.

Anyway, I have trouble believing all of this is really about a blog, nor does it have to do with what I'm told was a tasteless comment about mental illness (I didn't read the Sexton column, so feel free to correct me if the problems with it are deeper than just a foul remark). This is just too much for that.

After reading this thread and others, it seems to me that a lot of the bashing she takes just doesn't make any sense. Interestingly, the absence of logic is one of the key characteristics of racism. It's an irrational thought process, much like the criticism she seems to field on this board is irrational. Maybe that's just a neat coincidence, but that gives me reason to suspect that some people here dislike that a black woman has achieved the level of success that she has. Not <i>all</i> of you, but definitely some, and I don't think anyone would dare try to dispute that.

Feel free to express displeasure with Jemele's work, but at least try to be sorta fair about it. The crazy thing is that I really don't know what about her work is so bothersome to the critics here. I can't glean that from here. I would expect that those that find her to be uninteresting would say, "yanno, I just can't get into her." Instead, I just see "she's fuckin terrible," and it smells kinda fishy.

But here's something I haven't seen mentioned here--shouldn't those that find her writing to be pedestrian welcome her opportunity to write on a larger stage? If you think Jemele isn't very talented, wouldn't a platform as widely read as ESPN.com give her the chance to prove you right in front of the whole world, not just Central Florida? Anyone so confident that she's no good should sit back and wait for the chance to say "I told you so."

That sound fair to you? Sounds fair to me.

 

But the haters will just say, "Jemele is writing next to clowns like Scoop at ESPN, they got no talent since Whitlock chose to leave, blah, blah, blah. And Bill Simmons sucks, the guy still can't figure out why he never got the position he wanted at The Globe. Dude sucks, blah, blah, blah. Jemele, Scoop and Bill Simmons deserve each other there, blah, blah, blah."

Bottom line, someone will always have something to say. She could leave ESPN for Podunk and someone would post some column about Podunk's football team and blast it. Sadly, that's just how it is.

 

Nailed it, Lug. Simmons knows, and knew, how to position himself extremely well. Guy has business sense. Marketing yourself is the key. Same with Jemele Hill - she garnered attention, even if it was non - traditional attention. An entertainment example is Paris Hilton. Profile goes down, sex tape comes out. Keep yourself in their heads. I abhor Hilton, but she knows how to play the game. It's the same thing Tiki Barber is doing now. It's a fine line to walk, however.

No question about that. Gotta think it was a selling point. That's the truth, whatever your feelings are about her blog.

Sad but true.

Put those three quotes together and here's what you get:

Jemele Hill got and gets attention ('markets herself'), whether she is seeking it or not. I personally think she has been seeking attention (with the blog, etc.), but not only do I not think that's bad, I commend her for it.

Her blog, intentionally or not, raised her profile. ESPN was well aware of the blog, and figured, hey, more buzz for our new hire.

As relates to the competitiveness of capitalism quote, a lot of what you're seeing in this thread is people reacting - favorably or unfavorably - to the 'moving of the goalposts' of what's marketable in journalism, specifically, and media, generally. The demographics that ESPN feels Jemele will interest (young, female, hip - hop, African - American) are 'hot,' whether anyone likes it or not. So Jemele goes to the front of the line, possibly bypassing some longer - tenured or 'objectively' more - talented writers.

Right place, right time. Fair? Depends on how you define fair. Fair in terms of 'objective' standards and tenure? Nope. Fair in terms of the free market? Yep. Hey, is it fair that Mark Cuban was in the right place at the right time to be a billionaire? Nope, and he'll tell you that.

One larger philosophical question posed by this situation is: "Is ESPN rewarding a supposed 'lesser' journalistic product by making this hire?" I don't know, although I understand that argument. Remember, though, Shakespeare wrote to satisfy both the groundlings as well as the supposed highbrow crowd. They both bought tickets, so why lose out on either groups' money. That's where ESPN is coming from. The only 'right' hire for them is one that makes cash.

As the kids say, "I ain't mad at" Jemele. This is her Mark Cuban moment. I hope she kicks butt.

I understand, however, the frustration others might have at feeling passed over because the cultural goalposts shifted on them - they might never get that Mark Cuban moment. That's genuine frustration, similar to how your neighbor might be frustrated because his job's been outsourced and he's left holding his hands. Things change, and capitalism isn't stopping for any one person. That's reality, fair or not.