Minority sports reporters

CW1975,

My advice to you is start reading. So many of these stories exist already. Gannett has a standing policy that reporters purposely seek out minority quotes for GA stories - smaller papers started running into trouble when they were quoting the same minorities on a wide range of issues.

And women? Oh, I think newspapers do okay these days by women.

 

BTW, I don't know if it's relevant to any of this discussion or if anyone else knows this or cares, but Hispanics have passed African-Americans as the largest minority group in the U.S. According to the most recent figures, from 2005, (and I know this because I just wrote a story on businesses targeting the Hispanic market -- Oh, my God, I'm a white guy! I can't do that story!) Hispanics now make up 14 percent of the population. They are also the fastest growing minority group. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2020, 18 percent of the population will be Hispanic, and by 2050 that will be up to almost 25 percent. Also, the Hispanic population is growing fastest in the Southeast -- North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas and Kentucky.

I know the previous paper I worked at very much made it a point to include more news relevant to the Hispanic population, including increased coverage of soccer and boxing in sports.

For what it's worth.

 

That's really an unfair question. I can ask same kind of question of anyone, regardless of age. If 20-something has to go to the hospital to be with an ailing parent or girlfriend -- or a child, since many 20-somethings have babies, too -- which would he or she choose? Is that among the criteria you're using in your hiring? Keeping track of who has the most emergencies? And tell me how you predict who's going to have an emergency? My kids have been to the emergency room exactly twice between them. Could you have predicted that? If this about people doing the job, you want the person who can do the job. If I have too much going on to cover a beat, I'm not going to seek a beat position, or if I'm already on a beat, I'll ask to get off it. Otherwise, if someone has a track record and wants to do the job, why shouldn't they? Other than the fact that they want more money than a recent college graduate?

 

The paper is the Vallejo (CA) Times-Herald. Went from about 19000 to 20500 in the last fives years

 

Another thought: If you're a 20-year-veteran with experience. How did you get it? Some SE, 20 years ago, gave you a chance because he/she thought you had the potential to be special. You got the chance over another longtime veteran who has experience but is on the downside. If you developed into that special writer, the young guys won't get a shot over you. I don't care how much upside Mark Prior has, he won't upstage Roger Clemens.

But if you haven't quite developed into what that SE 20 years ago thought you could be, some young stud with potential will get a chance, like you did 20 years ago. Example: Mark Prior upstaging Greg Maddux.

If you're a vet being upstaged by a young gun, give the young gun some credit. Don't say he's/she's getting the opportunity over you because of youth/enthusiasm/cheapness/whatever. You're not being fair.

And it's not a money issue. I have 25, 26, 27-year old friends at big papers making 40-50K a year. And there are longtime veterans at my little rag who I know would do the 25-year-old's job for $10K less a year. That the paper gave the young guy a chance is credit to the young guy.

 

Sorry, I'm talking about major beats at major metro papers. You get the experience through the old ``pay your dues'' method at smaller papers, then mid-sizes, then maybe lower-level beats at large papers.

OK, I've spouted off enough on this. I'm tired of the what-ifs and what-about-thats. Bottom line, again, is that experience is undervalued and the trend is that it is becomes moreso every day. Period.

 

My point is experience is overrated. Same theory in sports as journalism. Tim Brown was ousted in favor of the much less experienced, much more talented with much more potential Jerry Porter. Sure there are mistakes (giving JJ Stokes the spot belonging to Jerry Rice).

Experience is worthless if the other person is flat-out better. This is a cutthroat business. If you're not cutting it, no matter how experienced you are, it's time to bring in a young gun.

And the pay-your-dues thing, that's the norm. But not the rule. A team isn't going to make a kid with potential to be a star in the big leagues go through Rookie ball, A, AA and AAA before calling him up. They put him in the starting lineup in the show right away. (Example: Jonathan Pappelbon, Alfonso Soriano) Same in journalism.

 

<< chick said: I'm not suggesting we have all-black news. I'm just talking about a simple matter of inclusiveness. And I don't mean with just blacks, either. Women. Asians. Hispanics. >>

yes you are.

chick said: "Contrary to what the newspaper would have average readers believe, minorities don't spend their time just commiting crimes or picketing when an affirmative action bill comes up. I'd like to see newspaper do simple things like ... when do a story on kids leaving for college, include blacks, latinos, etc., in the copy and in the photos. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, just not enough."

alright, that's enough. what fucking world do you live in? there aren't only stories but entire sections aimed at including this without ever apologizing for having whitey being even an afterthought in the discussion. really chick, are you high?

chick said: "Newspapers must learn to broaden their coverage of minorities beyond just political bills. But that will only happen when there are more reporters and editors at the newspaper that reflect a diverse demographic."

jesus christ. i'm guessing you were only born in 1975 and not living in that time. maybe the paper you work at is a piece of shit and includes nobody but white soccer moms and their world cup wanna be 12-year-old dork sons, but if that is the fact, you don't get around much.

you and your call for affirmative action and quotas, yes i said quotas, are so 1980s it's sick. welcome to the year 2000 chick.

 

Great. So I just have to wait for some guy to blow out a knee covering the NFL? If you were on trial in a murder case, would you want an experienced attorney or someone who's only tried a few cases?

 

I knew when I saw this thread pop up a few days ago that it'd go 10 pages easy. We're almost there.
This topic always goes on and on when it makes its way onto this board.
And no clear-cut, rational commentary stands out as an end-all.
Fact is, the best person should always be given the jobs.
We need zero office politics and only honest hires.
And it's a fact that there are a lot more whites sending in the applications than there are non-whites.
Population and demographics in this country dictate that.
So it's likely that more whites will be working in newsrooms across the country, than non-whites.
I hate quotas and equal opportunity situations.
The best, most qualified person should get the job. Period.

 

But can't a person's background, including race or ethnicity, make them the most-qualified candidate for certain jobs? For example, if the editor is looking for someone with a diverse perspective, why can't he see a minority woman as the better candidate than the white guy from Yonkers? Isn't there a fair chance that she'll bring a fresh perspective to a staff that is all-male and all-white?

 

That's the simple solution. But if you have a 20-person staff and the "best" people are all white males whose favorite sports are football, basketball and baseball you may be missing out on story ideas in the community, expertise on other popular sports and past times, a breadth of knowledge on large communities of people in your area, etc, etc.