Minority sports reporters

I'm not sure I understand what this means, but I haven't seen it. I don't think women in sports departments or coverage of women's sports is anywhere where it needs to be. The number of women in most sports departments I've seen are few, and don't represent the number of women, not only in a community, but who are interested in sports. Women may not be reading the sports pages as often as men obviously, but I think a lot more women are interested in sports than the number who read sports in the paper. Maybe the problem is they aren't getting content or writing that resonates with them and a lack of women in sports departments may be to blame. I have worked in a sports department where an exciting basketball game between two high-ranked women's teams was given a blurb while a mediocre men's basketball game got played up huge. Why? Because men don't want to read about women's sports?

 

Because, with the exception of a few programs, both men and women don't want to read about women's basketball.

 

Ok, when talking about the number of women who could be potential candidates for sports writing jobs, can we please at least insist that they read the sports section of a newspaper before we count them?

I really hate these threads, and yet I cannot stay away. This thread didn't even really start as another minority hiring thread. The fact that there are still far too few women and minorities in sports departments, particularly in high-profile positions like columnist and editor, shows that the current method doesn't work. The quotas don't work.

It never ceases to amaze me how controversial this simple statement is. Hire the best damn candidate, whatever their color, gender or other characteristics may be. Period.

 

As Ace said, WOMEN don't support women's athletics. They don't go out to women's games. They think the men's games are where the action is and where they want to be.
More women should go out and raise sand at women's athletic events.
They never will, I'm afraid.
And this business about 4 SE's and 13 columnists of color? For one, I don't believe those stats.
Two, lets talk strictly about writers and staffers. In sports departments and newsrooms across the country, at least where I've worked, there are lots of different ethnic groups represented.

 

That's not so simple. If your staff is mostly older white males, you may think it's a plus to get a younger white male or female or minority to broaden the experience.

So you want to best damn candidate to fit your needs. Period.

Oh and on ballscribe's experience. ... I've said this before. I have worked with many female sports writers in my career. On the average they were much better sports writers than the males at the same papers. Not even close. They were driven, determined, thoughtful, smart and didn't take anything for granted.

Then again, maybe we just made good hires.

 

14 women eds.
Sorry.

But how many qualified, sports-knowledgable applicants are we seeing for SE jobs?

 

I'm questioning the situations where they hire the best fit rather than the person with the best overall skills. I understand those choices and agree with them.

When I say best candidate I mean the best fit for the job. But if the people doing the hiring are eliminating the white males first, then picking from what's left, then I have a problem with it. And that does happen.

 

Agreed.

 

Maybe they don't support women's sports because there's no media attention on them. I think it would be possible to drum up support for women's sports if a sports section wanted to by writing compelling stories and giving interesting coverage of the event. If you put a medicre men's basketball game ahead of an outstanding women;s ball game, then the message being sent is that this is more important. They think men's games are where the action is because that's what they're being told. I'm just saying provide an alternative every once in awhile.

 

Peyton,

Don't you think we hear that all the time in newspapers? I assume that the women's game wasn't local (or at least wasn't staffed). So do you think editors should make judgements throughout the night based on how outstanding the game was?

If Boise State beats Air Force in an OT college football thriller, should that lede a Texas sports section over a ho-hum Texas-Texas A&M football game?

 

More importantly, when did it become the job of the sports section to promote ANY sport? That is not part of the job.

Check out the stands at those mediocre men's games and great women's games. Unless you are at a select few places like Connecticut or Tennessee, those men's games are still drawing a significantly larger crowd.

I say this as someone who has covered women's college basketball and a genuine fan of the game.The interest level just isn't the same.

 

Of course I understand local coverage gets precedent, but one of the men's team was a college we usually cover and one of the women's team was a college we usually cover (though not the same one) but equal distances from us. And although we didn't know the women's game would be outstanding, we did know ahead of time that both women's teams were ranked and that the men's team was ho-hum. That's why it bothered me, because there was an attitude that still more people would care about the men's game. Maybe more did, but I think a case could be made that the women deserved the top spot and that if we push women's sports a little harder in coverage, maybe more readers (of both genders) will take notice. It may not be our job to "promote" a sport, but we shouldn't ignore it either (particularly if it's a valid sports like women's hoops). There was a time when the Lady Vols weren't the draw they are now (even during Summitt's tenure). Perhaps that draw could be cultivated for other women's programs.