Columnist opening in Orlando

Outing alert: Oz is Michelle Kaufmann

 

If only, because at least then I would live above the poverty line.

 

So Michelle is one of the nicest people you ever met, but you just slashed her ability, her work ethic, her career...Do Jemele Hill and Michelle Kaufman have anything in common, other than tits? Oh yeah, women in Florida who get jobs they don't deserve.

What a prick.

 

I think that was exactly his point, 21: If Hill is ripe for such criticism, why aren't others? Or, if Kaufman is so revered, what is so different about her that she is above all this Jemele-bashing?

Many on here never have met Jemele Hill, yet she carries the biggest target among any writer south of Albom. If WrIIter's post was ridiculous, then so have been the majority of those on this 13-page thread. God forbid anybody add something different to a discussion that has, up until now, been totally one-sided.

 

I ask again: what do they have in common, other than being females who write from Florida?

People talk about Hill because she gives them something to talk about. If you're going to be edgy and outspoken and interview yourself in a column, and yes, if you go public with details of your sex life or lack thereof, people will talk. No doubt that was her goal, and it has served her well. Good for her.

No clue what any of this has to do with Michelle Kaufman, who as far as I can tell writes about sports, not herself.

 

I'm with 21 here. The two are different animals other than their sex and location, and I happen to enjoy reading both of them. They each bring a different perspective to the issue of the day that they'e pontificating on.

Perhaps we should start listing all the white, male columnists we don't care for. I'm willing to bet we'll get far beyond two or three.

And I think most of the bitching directed at various reporters, columnists, etc. is mostly full of sour grapes. Somebody didn't get hired or somebody got scooped and dissing the other journalist is some measure of revenge.

 

Maybe there's some emotion because a medicore writer whose talents probably place her somewhere between Macon and Cincinnati for columnist gigs has skyrocketed within a few short years for reasons that pass understanding, racing past a bunch of more qualfiied people, male or female, white or black, in the process.

 

I don't understand. . .good people should be immune from professional criticism?

A few of the nicest people I've met in the business don't do much for me ability-wise.

Here's the fact of the matter: if we started a thread for every columnist -- white, black, hispanic, male, female, transgender -- who was a pedestrian waste of space, we'd have to change the name of this site to PedestrianSportsColumnists.com

Seventy-five percent of the columnists in this country are interchangeable.

But most of those pedestrian columnists didn't have their jobs handed to them at such a young age.

The thing that disappoints me most is that writers like Hill, Whitlock and Simers are constantly talked about here, while some of the best columnists in the country, guys who write consistently thoughtful, insightful, entertaining columns without turning the spotlight on themselves, are ignored.

EDIT: And, here's the ironic thing: Hill probably owes at least part of her job at ESPN.com to the constant spotlight on her that has always existed on this web site. It's no secret that SportsJournalists.com is bookmarked on many computers up in Bristol, and I'm sure they are always interested in a writer who can generate the controversey that Hill generates here. Which is a shame, because the writers who worry simply about writing, and not about making a name for themselves, are ignored here, and thus by some of the bigger jobs out there.

 

No one should be immune from professional criticism. I'm still asking what Jemele hill has to do with Michelle Kaufman. If you don't like Michelle Kaufman, start a thread and post her work. To throw it in with a post that says, basically, 'all these women who can't write' is just cheap.

As for threads: It's really unfortunate that the earlier thread about Hill's ESPN debut was deleted. The nastiness could have been deleted without destroying the discussion, which was about an actual column that appeared on a major website, and obviously was of interest to many people in and around the business. No doubt countless journos come here to get endless information about Snakes on a Plane, but there must be at least a few who come to talk about what we write and how well or poorly we write it.

 

I agree on that one, 21. As is the case on all these Hill threads that get whacked, there is plenty of fair comment and criticism that should be allowed.

 

Well played...

 

Often, I think we'd all be better off/happier if we stuck with topics such as "Snakes on a Plane."