Columnist opening in Orlando

[outofplace]

I think that was exactly his point, 21: If Hill is ripe for such criticism, why aren't others? Or, if Kaufman is so revered, what is so different about her that she is above all this Jemele-bashing?

Many on here never have met Jemele Hill, yet she carries the biggest target among any writer south of Albom. If WrIIter's post was ridiculous, then so have been the majority of those on this 13-page thread. God forbid anybody add something different to a discussion that has, up until now, been totally one-sided.

I ask again: what do they have in common, other than being females who write from Florida?

People talk about Hill because she gives them something to talk about. If you're going to be edgy and outspoken and interview yourself in a column, and yes, if you go public with details of your sex life or lack thereof, people will talk. No doubt that was her goal, and it has served her well. Good for her.

No clue what any of this has to do with Michelle Kaufman, who as far as I can tell writes about sports, not herself.

I'm with 21 here. The two are different animals other than their sex and location, and I happen to enjoy reading both of them. They each bring a different perspective to the issue of the day that they'e pontificating on.

Perhaps we should start listing all the white, male columnists we don't care for. I'm willing to bet we'll get far beyond two or three.

And I think most of the bitching directed at various reporters, columnists, etc. is mostly full of sour grapes. Somebody didn't get hired or somebody got scooped and dissing the other journalist is some measure of revenge.

See, that last part is one of the things that frustrates me with these threads. It is far too easy to dismiss a negative opinion as sour grapes. Maybe the person really thinks Hill isn't any good and they would prefer to see more talented people get ahead rather than somebody who has a gift for self promotion or some other asset that has nothing to do with writing ability.

Let me be clear that I am not saying that is the case with Jamele Hill. I haven't read much of her stuff and really don't have an opinion on her ability. The only thing I have a problem with is the blog incident, which I found to be a ridiculous mistake by a journalist. Our word is supposed to mean something. What we write, amazingly enough, matters to readers, even if it isn't in our professional writing. She forgot that and made herself, her paper and other journalists look bad. That should matter.

Then again, I really wonder sometimes if professionalism matters at all any more.

 

[HeinekenMan]

Often, I think we'd all be better off/happier if we stuck with topics such as "Snakes on a Plane."

I agree. Now, if Michelle Kaufman and Jemele Hill were both on a plane with snakes, which one would cry first? Could Jemele craft a persuasive column to convince the snakes to let her be? And would that spell doom for Kaufman? Find out next week on Mother F'in' Snakes On A Plane II: Revenge of the bumpy-chested columnists.

 

[slappy4428]

I agree. Now, if Michelle Kaufman and Jemele Hill were both on a plane with snakes, which one would cry first? Could Jemele craft a persuasive column to convince the snakes to let her be?

I think she'd write an impressive column on the snake's tongue...

 

[Columbo]

People will hate me for saying this.

But if Jemele is such a target, why not go after Michelle Kauffman as well.

Talk about a pedestrian writer. Talk about a market that hires female reporters that have no business being in the position they're in...

Michelle is one of the nicest people I've ever met, I enjoy soccer and tennis and read her stuff.

But how many times can you pull a soccer column completely from AP copy, doing no reporting yourself, and continued to get paid...let's do the math (she said a little less than half Jemele...which means about 90K a year?)...She's been there, done that....but is she a good writer?

And why doesn't she get more flack?

As for Jemele...she can be nice, she is also blunt with her opinions..but so what?

I still just can't believe that the GA sports reporter for the school paper up at Michigan State ended up blowing up so big...so quick...seemingly not doing much to deserve all the crazy hatred/love.

So Michelle is one of the nicest people you ever met, but you just slashed her ability, her work ethic, her career...Do Jemele Hill and Michelle Kaufman have anything in common, other than tits? Oh yeah, women in Florida who get jobs they don't deserve.

What a brick.

No one should be immune from professional criticism. I'm still asking what Jemele hill has to do with Michelle Kaufman. If you don't like Michelle Kaufman, start a thread and post her work. To throw it in with a post that says, basically, 'all these women who can't write' is just cheap.

As for threads: It's really unfortunate that the earlier thread about Hill's ESPN debut was deleted. The nastiness could have been deleted without destroying the discussion, which was about an actual column that appeared on a major website, and obviously was of interest to many people in and around the business. No doubt countless journos come here to get endless information about Snakes on a Plane, but there must be at least a few who come to talk about what we write and how well or poorly we write it.

I hated seeing that thread go, especially my line about one of Mizz's "forking studs" forking him.

 

[Ace]

Problem with the Jemele Hill thread (all the Jemele Hill threads) is that the criticism always seems to go beyond what she writes.

Hey, some people like her, some hate her some are ambivalent.

You could say the same about the writing of William Faulkner, Toni Morrison and Dr. Seuss.

 

[dooley_womack1]

So? True, you can't start a thread called "Jemele Hill Is a Bad Person." And that's not what has been done. Threads have been started about her work and her career path. And yes, whether she has earned her stripes is a valid question on a journalism board. And yes, whether her extracurricular writing hurt journalism is a valid topic. OK, commenting third hand about whether people like her was a bit out there, but those posts could have been deleted.

And these haven't been bashings, they've been debates, with the viewpoints evenly split. I don't understand the favored-nation status here.

 

[slappy4428]

So? True, you can't start a thread called "Jemele Hill Is a Bad Person." And that's not what has been done. Threads have been started about her work and her career path. And yes, whether she has earned her stripes is a valid question on a journalism board. And yes, whether her extracurricular writing hurt journalism is a valid topic. OK, commenting third hand about whether people like her was a bit out there, but those posts could have been deleted.

And these haven't been bashings, they've been debates, with the viewpoints evenly split. I don't understand the favored-nation status here.

Agreed.. we "discuss" other members of journalism and it gets personal and sometimes nasty (Whitlock, Albom, Lupica, LeBetard, Mariotti)...

 

[Alma]

Well, I don't get personal, and the comments bouncing around about this particular columnist are pretty unfortunate. One of the first posts I ever made - under the old Chinatown storefront - addressed the hyperrealism with which we men regard women in sports and women sportswriters, and these threads are remarkable examples of it.

If you believe this columnist shoots too much from the hip of her identity, consider, for a just a half-second, what role her male counterparts have probably played in erecting that box, in writing that definition, and what role you're playing now with these insipid posts. If you wish a columnist to "bury the I" and channel voice through syntax, word choice and English convention - ha! like most men do! - than stop assailing her character and her identity and stop using the addendum of personal stuff deep in the past to frame current work. Show a little grace.

Cuz what I'm reading from a lot of posters are written equivalents of TO and Ocho Cinco's touchdown dances. Do as they should: Act like you've been there.

 

[joe king]

Problem with the Jemele Hill thread (all the Jemele Hill threads) is that the criticism always seems to go beyond what she writes.

Hey, some people like her, some hate her some are ambivalent.

You could say the same about the writing of William Faulkner, Toni Morrison and Dr. Seuss.

I'm stunned this post has been up here so long and no one has yet taken Ace to task for comparing Jemele Hill's writing to that of Faulkner (or even Dr. Suess).

 

[funky_mountain]

no one took ace to task for it because ace didn't compare her writing to faulkner's, morrison's or seuss'.