1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Minority Solutions

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by dcdream, Jun 27, 2006.

  1. daemon

    daemon Well-Known Member

    Don't know if this has been raised, but one of the big reasons there aren't as many minorities at the smaller papers is that the bigger papers pretty much monopolize the minority talent.

    If you are a minority, or a woman, and you have a little bit of talent, and you are young, then you've got yourself a job at a respectable paper. That's just how it is.

    I don't think its necesarily fair to the minorities or women, beacuse, like JM said, everyone ends up assuming that they are strictly a minority hire.

    But by the time the big papers attract all of the talent, there isn't much left for the smaller papers.

    The issue, it seems, is at a much more fundamental level: getting more minorities and women interested in journalism as a career.
  2. bdh02

    bdh02 Member

    Best person for the job should get it, period. Agreed with Grizz wholeheartedly. Black, white, orange or purple. Male or female.
  3. What is the definition of best? Is it strictly writing ability? Or are other factors, such as personality, in play? Do you want someone who might not be the strongest writer but is pleasant, easy to deal with and respectful? Or do you want someone who wins awards but is a pain in the ass - not just to sources but to his/her colleagues and superiors?
  4. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    I've stayed out of this fray until now, but I just have to address the "best person for the job" comments.

    I'm in MBA school, and one of the things we study in Organizational Behavior, obviously, is diversity. I think that most people, and I probably did to some degree before recently, believe that diversity is some sort of rule to be complied with, and that you do so at the risk of losing quality among your employees. But what has been proven time and time again by scientific research is that diversity has an inherent value for an organization. It allows a company or work group or newspaper to solve problems better and in more innovative ways. It fosters creativity. It leads to greater job satisfaction for everybody. This is science talking, not liberal feel-good doctrine.

    So it follows that sometimes the "best person for the job" can't simply be chosen based on a narrow set of qualifications for the particular job in question. Sometimes you have to take into account the big picture, or the long view, and have faith in your managers to get their employees to crank out good work. Yes, this does mean taking into account race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, you name it.

    The problem that arises is that organizations have to value diversity, not just in their words, but in their deeds. These values have to come from the top, and people have to buy into them and believe in them at every level. Clearly some of the posters on these "minority reporters" threads do not value diversity, which is unfortunate. If everybody did, we would all be better off.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page