Columnist opening in Orlando

See, that last part is one of the things that frustrates me with these threads. It is far too easy to dismiss a negative opinion as sour grapes. Maybe the person really thinks Hill isn't any good and they would prefer to see more talented people get ahead rather than somebody who has a gift for self promotion or some other asset that has nothing to do with writing ability.

Let me be clear that I am not saying that is the case with Jamele Hill. I haven't read much of her stuff and really don't have an opinion on her ability. The only thing I have a problem with is the blog incident, which I found to be a ridiculous mistake by a journalist. Our word is supposed to mean something. What we write, amazingly enough, matters to readers, even if it isn't in our professional writing. She forgot that and made herself, her paper and other journalists look bad. That should matter.

Then again, I really wonder sometimes if professionalism matters at all any more.

 

I agree. Now, if Michelle Kaufman and Jemele Hill were both on a plane with snakes, which one would cry first? Could Jemele craft a persuasive column to convince the snakes to let her be? And would that spell doom for Kaufman? Find out next week on Mother F'in' Snakes On A Plane II: Revenge of the bumpy-chested columnists.

 

I think she'd write an impressive column on the snake's tongue...

 

I hated seeing that thread go, especially my line about one of Mizz's "fucking studs" fucking him.

 

Problem with the Jemele Hill thread (all the Jemele Hill threads) is that the criticism always seems to go beyond what she writes.

Hey, some people like her, some hate her some are ambivalent.

You could say the same about the writing of William Faulkner, Toni Morrison and Dr. Seuss.

 

So? True, you can't start a thread called "Jemele Hill Is a Bad Person." And that's not what has been done. Threads have been started about her work and her career path. And yes, whether she has earned her stripes is a valid question on a journalism board. And yes, whether her extracurricular writing hurt journalism is a valid topic. OK, commenting third hand about whether people like her was a bit out there, but those posts could have been deleted.

And these haven't been bashings, they've been debates, with the viewpoints evenly split. I don't understand the favored-nation status here.

 

Agreed.. we "discuss" other members of journalism and it gets personal and sometimes nasty (Whitlock, Albom, Lupica, LeBetard, Mariotti)...

 

Well, I don't get personal, and the comments bouncing around about this particular columnist are pretty unfortunate. One of the first posts I ever made - under the old Chinatown storefront - addressed the hyperrealism with which we men regard women in sports and women sportswriters, and these threads are remarkable examples of it.

If you believe this columnist shoots too much from the hip of her identity, consider, for a just a half-second, what role her male counterparts have probably played in erecting that box, in writing that definition, and what role you're playing now with these insipid posts. If you wish a columnist to "bury the I" and channel voice through syntax, word choice and English convention - ha! like most men do! - than stop assailing her character and her identity and stop using the addendum of personal stuff deep in the past to frame current work. Show a little grace.

Cuz what I'm reading from a lot of posters are written equivalents of TO and Ocho Cinco's touchdown dances. Do as they should: Act like you've been there.

 

I'm stunned this post has been up here so long and no one has yet taken Ace to task for comparing Jemele Hill's writing to that of Faulkner (or even Dr. Suess).

 

no one took ace to task for it because ace didn't compare her writing to faulkner's, morrison's or seuss'.