Starman said:
OK, I get it: I should have gone to Hollywood and become a movie star.
Nothing like merit-based advancement. LOL.
I hate to go back to this, but I can't let it go...
Is there a more merit based industry than the film industry?
The box office rules. If people are willing to pay to see you, you get more roles. If they don't you're out on your ass. And, it's all about, "what have you done for me lately."
Nepotism might get you in the door, but it won't give you staying power.
But, not only did Reagan not benefit from nepotism, he eventually fell victim to lackluster box office returns. And, so he re-invented himself as a television host, and then a spokesperson for GE.
In comparison, how does the newspaper industry rate when it comes to rewarding merit? Until the advent of the internet, and the ability to track "hits" was there any way to properly value someone's worth?
A film star could lose his studio contract -- and Reagan did -- if they didn't generate enough revenue. Is there a comparison in the newspaper industry?
Seems to me a hack could survive at a newspaper in the old days -- especially one who benefited from nepotism. Besides, once you got in, the union was there to protect you.
So, Starman, you may have worked in newspapers for 32 year, but have you ever provided value? Have you succeeded due to merit? Have you succeeded at all?
Can you give us any evidence of your smarts, that your smarter than Reagan, or that you earned your paycheck for 32 years?
Where's the evidence Starman?
Knock Reagan all you want. But, he succeeded in film, television, and politics. The public decides who succeeds in each of those industries.
What's been the secret of your success?