Plain Dealer lawsuit

So you think he was using that line on purpose??

And I knew what he was referring to. That's why I started that thread.

BTW, I should tell you that I worked at the Lorain paper for part of the time when you worked for the News-Herald, so I was familiar with your work. Never had any problem with it, and never met you personally. But maybe that, coupled with being familiar with the Cleveland media and bein on here made it stand out to me.

 

Few thoughts

1. Marty and Slappy, once again, where are all these women and minority sports writers? I don't see many of them.

2. Marty, just because you say you're good enough to work for the PD doesn't mean you are. And just because you are good enough doesn't mean they should hire you. Maybe they don't think you're good enough to work of them. Or maybe they do think you're good enough, but think the person they passed over you is even better. Bare minimum doesn't mean you're in.

3. For those ragging on the guy who posted Marty's work, why should he show his work? He's not the one screaming at the world that he's good enough to work for a major metro. And, frankly, I read the article. Marty says it's not his best work. Fine. But someone good enough to be writing for the Plain Dealer should be able to do a better job just mailing it in. That work certainly didn't scream "I'm good enough for the Plain Dealer" as loud as the person who wrote it.

4. People seem to forget that writing isn't the only skill needed to be a sports writer. There's hustle. Investigative skill. Personality traits. People skills. Ability to make something happen. Deadline writing. Enthusiasm.

5. Marty, I've read your lawsuit cost the Plain Dealer $46,000 and caused you to bankrupt. I hardly see that as a "victory" for you. The money they spent on your lawsuit is almost enough to hire an extra entry level reporter. Technically, including the money they spent on your lawsuit, they spent over $100,000 on the reporter they hired you. The fact that they spent that much money to bring in someone else over you tells me: A. They really though that much more of the other person's qualifications compared to yours, and B. They think enough of the important of a preps position to put in the extra money.

6. I know I'm ripping on Marty a lot in this post, but I'm sick and tired of the notion that any woman or minority hired over a white male has to be because of their plumbing or skin color, and Marty's beliefs epitomized that. Get it, folks! Newspaper WANT to hire the best qualified candidate. If a woman or minority is hired, that probably means the editors thought THEY WERE THE BEST CANDIDATE.

 

Look, I am a champion for female and minority journalists. I was in Marty's shoes in my early days and got over it.

Your last item, however, is simply not true. In some cases, managers are told or strongly encouraged by their bosses to hire a minority. Hopefully, it's the best person for the job. Somtimes it's not. It's a shame because it casts doubt on how all the wonderfully talented non-white-males got their jobs.

Beyond that, Marty came on here to give an update on his case. He was within his rights to pursue it and it cost him a lot, so we should have some respect for the guy and not trash him.

If it cost the Plain-Dealer $46,000 and it was a PD editor who told him they had to hire a woman, then that's $46,000 that should come out of his Christmas bonus, if you ask me.

 

Over the years, I have lost three jobs -- that I interviewed for -- because I had white-male syndrome. The first came coming out of college when the conference I worked for took my part-time job to full-time and needed to add a female to the staff (the women they hired was outstanding) but my boss/ex-boss was honest with me and I handled it well.

Had a chance to work at a big school covering women's basketball and even though I asked if I could "pass the physical" since the SID staff had no women on it, the guy doing the hiring elected to lie to me. They interviewed three people (two females & me) and then went back and interviewed three more females before finally hiring somebody with a considerably less experienced resume. It would have been easier to handle if they'd been honest.

The third job called for an interview and I flat out asked them if they had to hire a woman, to which I received the response, "most likely". I told them that if they were serious about hiring me that I'd come for the interview but if I was just a fallback, i'd prefer to turn down the interview until they were serious. They ended up hiring one of the other people and everybody was happy (honesty works with me).

 

I'd like to see more females and minorities in all of the nation's newsrooms.

But no one with any intellectual honesty can sit here and say that certain jobs aren't given to one of the best minorities who applied, not the best candidate.

I remember in college, major metro had two internship programs. One in DC bureau, unpaid, cost you a fortune to do but worth it for the experience. Other was in Metro office, paid, cushy hours, etc.
DC bureau chief did hiring for that internship. HR people ran it for the other one.

Amazingly, every single semester, fierce competition went down for the DC gig, with some very talented people never quite making it. Quite a few female reporters got it, as did a couple minorities.

Meanwhile, the city side gig went to a minority every time. My last semester they took a girl who had written something like three articles and then gotten fired from the college paper. No white person every got this internship.

Coincidence?

 

See, Not a Junky, here's the issue. It's not whether or not Marty is good enough for the PD. It's that it never gets that far. As I related a page or so ago, I've been told more than once that I shouldn't even bother applying for jobs because I'm a white male. I could be the second coming of Red freakin' Smith and it wouldn't matter, because the hiring editor didn't look at my resume or read my stuff and didn't care to. I had already failed the most important test, and it wasn't talent, experience or attitude. None of that mattered. I was unqualified because of color and gender.

That's the issue at hand. Not how well Marty can write and report.

 

So it's not possible that the woman was better qualified for the job than Marty, is it?

 

See above post, Junky. You're missing the point.

 

Quite intentionally, I think.

 

sw not a junky,

There is a big difference between deciding to hire a talented female and "having" to hire a woman.

If Marty was told that, I don't blame him for suing. I wouldn't do it myself, but it's his right.

Hey, people get screwed. If it's the white guy's turn now, I'll deal with it.

 

Mr. King, I sympathize with you completely. I am not ragging on you, and if you were told not to apply, that's awful.

However, in Marty Gitlin's particular case, it doesn't look like he was wronged. His writing, though solid, isn't spectular, and though he may be "good enough" to write for the PD, he'd be closer to the back of the line than the front if the editors lined up available "good enough" candidates from best to worst. And he still insists on playing that race and gender card.

 

Yes, but if in fact a PD editor told him they had to hire a woman (perhaps out of some sense of letting Marty down easy) it's a stupid thing for that editor to do and the paper deserves to get sued for it.