Diversity takes another hit in journalism

If a "large" and alarming number of minority journalists have been let go, then at least the diversity hiring was working well prior to the latest shit storm. Got to be in the door first before you can be let go.

Your "already dwindling pool" at the end of that sentence thus seems contradictory and, frankly, boilerplate from some leftover arguments way at the front end of this hiring agenda.

And you might want to separate the places that have laid off minority journalists into a list of those that are required by union contracts to follow a reverse-seniority policy for layoffs and those newsrooms that are not. If the most recent people to be hired into what has been a pretty stagnant industry for a while were ... I don't know, green! ... it wouldn't be a bias against green people that would cause them to be let go when the layoff rules kick in, if it's a last-in, first-gone place.

Those places only "pick on" newbies, regardless of race, age, gender or disability.

Re: Jambalaya's suggestion that people are literally getting fired because of their "color, gender or disability," I call bull shit. Show us your evidence. In this day and age, those folks would lawyer up so fast someone would get whiplash and TWO lawyers would be suing somebody. Funny, too, how you left "age" out of your little list. Doesn't that count? I see more veteran people getting dumped than I do other specific groups, because A) they tend to have bigger salaries, and B) some marketing fools think that kids will buy a paper put out by kids.

 

The point that I was trying to make is that no one is thinking about diversity at the present time.

 

Age has been the most consistent factor in these layoffs.

 

That's not true. I know a number of people who have been layed off and age wasn't a factor.

 

And nobody on the Titanic was thinking about what china would be used in the first class dining room that evening at 2 a.m. on April 15, 1912.

So what . . . and so what.

"Most consistent" factor does not mean "all."

Tell you what. I'll gather a list of 40+ white veterans laid off, and you gather a list of younger minorities laid off.

We'll see where the percentages tilt.

 

We are probably in the same place Simon but I'd say experience and paycheck size seem to be more consistent than anything else.

 

Nobody lays off "experience." They lay off age and paycheck size. Experience is just the collateral damage.

 

Yes, I know what you are saying.

I just meant -- experience usually signals "older and makes too much money" and those people are the ones usually sent packing first, particularly in non-union shops where seniority is not protected.

 

This morning, I had a stop at an airport in the city where I used to work at the paper. Today's sports section had five staff bylines (this paper now shares content with the paper on the airport's western side). Perhaps you'll applaud the diversity: Of the five staff bylines, four were white males aged 50-54. The other guy was a white male in his 40s. So, no one can say that section isn't diverse. It's not like they're all the same age, or something.

 

Five white guys talking about black guys....hmmm.

 

Or as Harold Ramis told the platoon in Stripes, "Black guys, help the white guys."

 

Oh snap, I remember that line. Right after that I think there was a brief scuffle.