Minority sports reporters

outofplace, I knew what you meant. it's all good.

 

And I know there are hiring SEs on this discussion. I can't believe how you guys don't see that diversity IS good for the bottom line. Or maybe you simply refuse to because that's not how the industry has been for 50 years.

I'm not saying hire the underqualified minority. I'm saying give the qualified minority at least a fighting chance.

On the other board, someone said it doesn't bode well for whiteys that the study said 90% of SEs were white male. That's like getting 90% of the pie and still not being happy. I look at that and say it bodes great for whiteys, but bodes poorly for minorities and the industry as a whole.

Give me a break.

 

then don't attempt to color me as someone who doesn't view people as people instead of a color or race.

 

Tom, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But considering how fast our industry is changing, the nazi-like approach may be necessary to stay with the times.

 

My only point is if anyone hires "the best qualified employee" every time without considering that a mix of different strengths, backgrounds, experience levels, etc., you might wind up with a staff that looks and thinks alike. that's not a good thing, methinks.

 

PE - you are passionate about this topic, which is a good thing, people deserve a fair shake.

i stopped and laughed a bit before i hit return when i looked at the end of my last sentence ... people deserve a fair shake.

with that emphasized, i think the problem with the percentages is based on the old school attitude. is our country still racist? hell yeah. is it as racist as 20 or 30 years ago? hell no. but, people in power tend to be older folks who are mired in their belief systems and tend to be more closed minded.

it was either on this thread or another discussing this topic when a person who also was passionate about hiring minorities said something to the effect of: "when's the last time you had a black person or a hispanic to your house for dinner? you can't answer that because we don't do it." it was something along those lines, which just made me shake my head a bit.

in the world we live today, how can you help but not have someone of a different skin color to your house unless you're a freakin' full-blown biggot? the idea of first looking at a person's color before asking him or her out to crack open a tall frosty after work seems unfathomable to me. the same has to be said for spending time away from the office and having people over to your house. don't most people we know just invite joe over for dinner and a game or do we invite joe the white guy over? fuck, it's 2006 ... and i think some of the extremists arguing this point go a little overboard.

getting back to the point, yes, i'm on the young side, but so is everyone else taking hiring editor positions. by that, i'm not saying newsroom percentages are fair, but things are changing. and suggesting we shit on a subsection of today's journalists to make up for minorities being shit on in the past, seems not only cold but unfathomable. it would also be the equivalent of acting with all the morals you so intensely hate.

tell me, would your hiring editor hire someone of color?

people deserve a fair shake.

 

This thread makes the baby Jesus cry.

 

ace - that was my point when addressing pirates, who said "science looks at the bigger picture."

well jesus, anybody who's filled several positions, and cares about the section's product, looks at exactly those things you listed above -- or the bigger picture and applies it along with the knowledge of what s/he wants from the final product. if you don't, yes, you end up with a staff that looks and thinks alike and probably sucks while doing so, too. but what science can't tell me is exactly what i want from the section.

 

Tom, I was the one who mentioned about having someone of color visiting your home. I have many friends of color and I consider them friends. The problem, as I see it, is that the younger set is feeding off what the older set is doing. And what is troubling is that the older set ISN'T that old.

 

boots - it was the point of having people of another color in your home ... who in the hell, at least on this board, hasn't?

secondly, i don't see the younger set in this profession as you do ... do you talk to them away from work?

third, maybe it's just me, but before i respond, what do you consider as being old? maybe that's the telling point.

 

Point by point
1,There are a many on this board who haven't had people of different color in their home.
2, I talk to the younger set. Hell, I consider myself young.
3, When I say old, I'm looking at guys in the 60-65 year range, getting ready to move on to other things than the bump and grind of this profession.

 

point by point
1. i think that's all-out bullshit. most of us don't live in whiteyland or are biggots.
2, then if you talk to the younger set, you'd realize conversing with the 'older set' doesn't change a person's life-long set of morals. it might give you a different perspective on what makes for good copy, layout or management, but change morals, i think not.
3. in your first post you said "And what is troubling is that the older set ISN'T that old." then in your last post you said "When I say old, I'm looking at guys in the 60-65 year range, getting ready to move on to other things than the bump and grind of this profession." which, is my point to begin with. the older set are ready to retire or leave the profession.