Newspapers faulted for sports hirings

We're all fucked! I figured there would be more unity surrounding that small fact.

 

So we should sweep talks of "race" under the rug when blacks of the same educational background as their white counterparts are twice less likely to find employment?

Sweep talks of "race" under the rug when African American homebuyers and renters have their communities redlined and other things?

Not talking about something isn't going to make things disappear. When has it ever?

There's nothing moronic about saying your point is utter garbage.

 

"I will now attempt to drown myself."

 

The truth is increased diversity, among the dozens of other worthy initiatives newspapers have taken in the past 20 years have had little effect in changing the fortunes of the industry.
I think if the organizations that chart this type of info hope to stay in business, they would be wise to expand beyond newspapers and begin looking at other industries or they too might meet the same fate as the subjects they report on.

 

Again, can only speak for my little corner of the world (nearly 25 yers in the biz), but...

I've seen, off the top of my head, 10-12 full-time females brought in over the years.

I can think of eight who eventually chose to leave the business. They went back to school; got jobs in PR, teaching and civil service; and/or chose to be moms.

That is about 75%, just in my little corner of the word.

That is a huge number, a number which doesn't show in Richard's "enlightening" report.

Kind of tough to have a groundswell if those numbers, or numbers anywhere close, are being replicated in other shops.

 

Big Chee and I have since PM'd on this subject and I'll leave it at that, but I thought I should just take this opportunity to say that I didn't need to be as snarky in my comment to him and I apologize for that.

 

But do you denounce what you said? [/cartoon crossthread]

 

Choose to believe it or not, but it does happen.

Long story short — two of my good friends applied for the same job, which would have been a "promotion" for both of them. Friend X has a college degree, 10+ years experience as a beat writer for a major D-I college, professional sports team and prep editor. Friend Y went to school for a couple of semesters (three, I think), had been in the biz for four years (three as a part-time agate guy) and his only experience was in preps.

Friend Y got the job over Friend X. Friend X is white, Friend Y is not.

Friend Z, who is also one of those "rare minorities" in the newsrooom, was also baffled by the hiring of Friend Y over Friend X. To paraphrase him, "There's no way Friend Y is more qualified than Friend X for that position."

Friend Y lasted just a little more than four months in the position before leaving the business altogether for a better-paying job with fewer hours.

 

But there are so many factors that go into making a hire. And one of the main factors is money.
More years of experience means dishing out more cash, a lot more cash if it's a union shop. And when you're told this is how much loot you have to work with, why waste your time with someone you know is out of your price range.
That's just one example of why certain hires are made. I'm sure there are other reasons.

 

And just to toss this out there, I know I was more qualified for certain jobs than other younger, darker, candidates. But I also know I would have required more money. Just the nature of the beast.

 

There's a difference between saying it does happen and saying there's a consistent pattern of something happening.

That 88% number has been pretty much unchanged going on 30 years now, and I'm seeing nothing but anecdotal issues being brought to the table as an across the board problem.

It simply isn't an across the board problem. I'm still wondering who are these mythical group of people benefiting from this, virtually changing the sportswriter landscape. Who are they?