Minority sports reporters

The efficiency (uh, "knowing the ropes" . . . ) the competent among such people bring to the table should not be undervalued . . . because it's of considerable worth . . . .

 

More or less getting back to the original post, I've noticed when working with a photographer that they always seem to have excellent rapport with the subject. It's part of the job for them to engage in small talk and get a bit of character and emotion on the guy's face in a really short amount of time. The good ones seem to have an instant connection, regardless of race or other factors.

 

Shoot me if I'm wrong ... but isn't it part of a reporter's job to engage in a little small talk and get some character and emotion out of the interview subject? I admit sometimes there may not always be time but shouldn't you warmup and stretch a bit before you run five miles?

 

Many a truth is spoken in jest.

 

Having done both reporting and shooting, I will say that sometimes, it's just easier to get kids to open up when I'm just doing the photographer thing. There's a cool factor, and it helps.

 

Obviously, you'd be able to make a distinction on minority candidates who you bring in for an interview.

But how else exactly would you know whether you have a minority candidate aside from the obvious column mug?

How do editors handle this when they're looking for a minority candidate? After all, I thought Sidney Ponson was a black fella for his first few years in the league. (Admittedly, my wife doesn't allow much Sportscenter.)

 

I think we'll find more that the number of minority department heads increases as the old-school white boys step out of the room and into retirement. And that's a good thing.

Furthermore, I think this will lead to more diverse coverage.

Having said that, I occasionally see newspaper stories involving racial issues that are written by minority reporters. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but I wonder sometimes if the assigning editor really believes that a minority reporter will do a better job on the story than another person. After all, I can't imagine any case where an editor would assign a story to a white guy because he'd have a better perspective. Then again, there aren't many racial issues that come up in stories about the rich white kid on the soccer team.

One last thought, might it be a more interesting read to cross a reporter with a subject who is the exact opposite? I mean, wouldn't a story on Dennis Rodman written by George Will have potential for brilliancy? And couldn't you say the same about a story by Rodman about Will?

 

I'd be surprised if this hasn't already been stated, but I'm kind of in a hurry, so here goes: I've long felt that the reason small newsrooms are lily white (and in the case of their sports departments, almost exclusively male) is in part because minorities with any sense at all know they can skip some or all of the "working your way up" process. They know this because most if not all large newspapers have well-organized minority hiring intitiatives, which means if they can write a complete sentence, they've got a leg up. Small papers have occasionally organized warm-body hiring initiatives, which often means they're hiring the first person through the door, sometimes qualifications be damned.

 

Novelist,

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but what you said is again perpetuating a myth -- the myth that minorities can just call their own shots without having to pay dues. I know tons of minority reporters who have had to start small and work their way up, just like the many people in our industry do. Maybe in these financial times we're a little more sensitive to who is getting what jobs. I do not advocate anyone being hired who doesn't deserve it, but I always find it interesting that the lesser-qualified radar is always on someone of color, but never on others.

There is no difference between Michael Smith and Chris Snow, but a few times -- not always on this board -- I've overheard people comment as if Michael didn't earn his spot. Right time, right place, right talent. I know some of you point to certain young writers/journalists and think you can do better. Maybe you can. But this is no different than sports. It only takes one person to like you to get a good deal.

One other point about minorities at bigger newspapers: When the Wash Post or NYT goes recruiting for minorities it's the equivalent of Duke going to look for hoops players. They are able to get the best and the brightest -- Jayson Blair notwithstanding -- because of who they are. Big papers have their pick, so that's why I think it's atrocious when you see some bigger newspapers with lily white newsrooms. I expect lily whiteness in Idaho, but not in Houston, Detroit, etc.

Also, someone brought up that experience was undervalued. I don't entirely buy that. The reason staffs are getting younger is partly because of money. Young people are cheaper. But also, in many cases, they're hungrier. The older you get in this business, the less you feel like staking out people's homes and working the phone until 2 a.m. on a coaching search. At 23, you had to do it to make it. At, 33, you're a whole lot grumpier about it and have less enthusiasm for it.

 

a bigger problem for small newsrooms can be the small communities they serve. these communities can be isolated places if you're a reasonably intelligent minority looking for counterparts to complement your limited social and cultural options.

 

"I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but what you said is again perpetuating a myth -- the myth that minorities can just call their own shots without having to pay dues. "

It's probably is an over-perpetuated myth, but once you've seen one-or more-clear cases of it, it's hard to put the blinders on. A couple of years ago, I applied to a top-15 paper for an open position. While sitting beside one of the paper's staffers at a state championship bball game about a month later, I learned they hired a black women - with no previous photography experience - to fill the position. Now maybe this women had some killer self-assigned portfolio that blew the socks off of what had to be 200+ other applicants, but I find that hard to believe.

 

"We wanted the best person for the job. I think that's the mentality most places."

If only it were the mentality everywhere. Call me ignorant, tell me I don't get it and furthermore tell me WHY, but I just do not understand why the racial breakdown of our industry is of such premium importance (full disclosure: I'm 28, male and as pale-white as they come and I've seen the Gannett practices referred to earlier ... absolutely true). The TALENT breakdown is far more critical, me thinks. I really don't care what color my co-worker is. If he or she is competent, bring it on.
Obviously I'm not the only one here who feels that way, and I hope we're not the minority.