Minority sports reporters

boots:

I think you are missing the entire point. Not sure if that is my fault or yours.

Of course many minorities are better than some of the good ol boys--that's why I said newspapers carry dead weight, allow undeserving people to stay in positions, hire people based on politics, etc. My point is that it's easier (not more accurate, just easier) to argue minorities are undeserving in a system that is more subjective than sports teams. Hard to argue the cornerback who gets burned deserves his job more than the guy on the bench who hasn't gotten a shot. This is an objective evaluation that also is subject to public scrutiny and financial pressures, and so less influenced by factors other than performance. Easier (again, not more accurate, just easier) to say minorities aren't getting jobs because they just don't deserve them---or that they are getting jobs they don't deserve only because of some agenda. That is a subjective evaluation that is not subject to public scrutiny or financial pressures. So the sports/sportswriting analogy is a bad one.

 

You're trying to say that talented minority reporters aren't given chances to prove their abilities? What world do you live in?

 

Ok, I see what you were trying to do. No problem. But you have to understand something, this problem has been going on for years and isn't getting better. Anyone who is a regular in press box knows that I'm speaking the truth. Will it change today? No. Will it change tomorrow? No.
It bothers me that this system keeps on going. You can't kill a snake without hitting it on the head. All the APSE had to do was look around the room and see what the problem is. It's an old subject that is really worn out in my book until something truly happens. I don't care if a guys is black or white, if they can do the job, they can do the job. But I've seen so many people of color, and women, have to go through hoops just to get a shake that not not even fair.
It's not right.

 

Undeserving people get ahead in all professions. They get ahead because of connections, gender, race, college attended, etc., etc. That's the way the cookie crumbles, to coin a cliche. There's no rhyme or reason to it.

There is a lot of generalizing going on here, and the reason people get upset is because they only see the world through the prism of their own experience. So Whitlock may have seen black writers not given a fair shake, while someone else on here may have gotten passed over by a newsroom trying to diversify.

People are attempting to simplify complex issues.

 

There's nothing complicated about putting the best people in the best positions. This business is truly fucked up. We're quick to jump on Wal-Mart' ass about diverity yet are afraid to look at ourselves.

 

Well, there shouldn't be. But that's a naive thought.

There is, and there always will be. Too many variables at play`-- as someone said, it's not like the NFL or NBA where the fastest, best, sharpest athlete rises to the top. It's subjective. And politics and nepotism/favoritism will always be in play.

 

Thanks, 85, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make from the beginning. This subject is not anywhere near as clear as many people seem to think it is. Whitlock might say it's a myth that white male candidates get passed over for minorities, but it feels pretty damn real when the person doing the hiring, before ever seeing your work, tells you don't bother to apply for this job because you're the wrong color and/or gender (as has happened to me four times, and I'm guessing hasn't happened to Whitlock). Conversely, we can say that minorities aren't being passed over for jobs, it's just that the pool from which to draw is too small, but to a black ASE who wants to run a section, the ordained succession at the LA Times and Baltimore Sun sure smacks of the old boy network.

Frankly, I don't know what the answer is, and I'm not sure anyone here does, though many believe they do. I wish we all could be sure that the best candidate gets every job, but we can't. And that's frustrating.

 

No one said life was fair and tha's fucked up.

 

I have a question for those who say they were told they could not be hired because they were white.

Did you ever follow up to see if they really did hire a minority? And if they did hire a minority, was this person really qualified?

I've said before that many hiring editors lie when they say that. Sometimes, they don't want to tell you that they found someone better, or that they were really interested in someone else and didn't know how to tell you. Newspapers are notorious for stringing people along, so I'm just wondering if anyone ever followed up to see if they were told the truth.

 

Yes, and what's up with the string game? Why do newspapers seem to do it more than say McDonald's. I don't get it.

 

The only one I remember noticing was the first time, when the paper hired an Asian writer who turned out to be quite good.

Other than that, I was too disillusioned to care who they hired.

And if an SE is blunt enough to say don't bother sending in your resume if you're not a minority or a woman, what makes you think he or she wouldn't be blunt enough to say they already have a candidate in mind? For that matter, wouldn't that sound better than sorry, kid, you're too white? I'd say if they were stringing me along they'd be more likely to tell me they had somebody in mind already than to say no, it's a diversity hire and you don't qualify because of the color of your skin.

I bristle when people tell me that maybe they found somebody better. If they had at least looked at my resume and clips, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But how do they know they got someone better if they wouldn't even look?

I've received my share of rejections telling me they found somebody better or ``went in a different direction.'' That's OK. To disqualify potential candidates without even a glance because of their race or gender? That isn't.

 

true that.

true that too.