You don’t have to like Rachel or The Jump to notice that public incentives have trended “antihuman” for a while now. We are making demands on people that just aren’t tenable.
This may have been said before, but I didn’t go through every comment. First off, FWIW, I’m black and do NOT believe Rachel should’ve been fired. I also don’t believe she was fired for holding “anti diversity” notions so much as she pissed off her bosses by saying they’re a bunch of racist pricks who caused the underlying issue to begin with.
However, one thing Ethan glosses over, actually he doesn’t even mention) is how sick and tired we (black people) get when we have a position of any kind of authority or prominence.
For some reason, we are always fighting the notion of us being a “diversity hire” or “affirmative action student” or whatever innocuous term you want to give to someone who was awarded a race-based preference. Never mind that some of us actually kick ass at work and actually are qualified regardless of skin color. You’d think in a profession as incestuous as TV, people would recognize that some folks (like Nichols if you delve into her bio) benefit tremendously from nepotism both of the literal and figurative type. Most get this, but they also ignore the fact that POC are MUCH less likely to be beneficiaries of this “non-meritocracy” which is part of the reason, diversity hiring became a thing to begin with.
Leaving this alone, until you’ve been the only black student in an Ivy classroom, or the only attorney at a “white shoe” law firm, etc, I don’t expect you to get the isolation that many feel.
And while you might SUSPECT that people are constantly whispering about how underserving you must be, it’s quite a different reality when you hear tape on it.
Again, I don’t believe Rachel should’ve been fired. But that seems more a product of Espn being a bunch of jerks than some “woke mob” mobilizing against them. Where were all the calls from the “mob” for Rachel to be fired? Where were players incensed? They weren’t, and espn fired her anyway almost THREE MONTHS after the story broke. Doesn’t sound like she was canned because of wokeness, she was canned because of the butt hurt suits she offended.
I mean, we pretty much agree on cause and effect here when it comes to RN's ouster. As for some of the other points raised...I'm interested in how you feel about ESPN loudly touting its efforts to change its demography in the context of the "whispering" and doubts qualified people end up bearing the brunt of. I'm not asking in an attempt to pin you down on whatever position. I'm legitimately curious.
This all makes sense if Nichols was Taylor's superior and actively trying to thwart and undermine Taylor's position.
But Nichols was the one losing (part of) her role to Taylor. Part that was in her contract. She is not supposed to feel bitter, in private?
Given the contract language and timing (Jul '20), Nichols is making a small/reasonable logical leap as to why ESPN violated her contract terms.
Without the contract details, I agree with your premise that Ethan should look at the situation in a very different light. Especially if Rachel were one of Taylor's bosses. In this case, Ethan is basically asking people to have empathy for Rachel because she thinks she is basically the victim of some very hardcore (direct) affirmative action.
Now, if that's not true and ESPN execs just suddenly had an epiphany in Jul '20 that Taylor would be a big upgrade on Rachel, enough to railroad through Taylor's promotion and break Rachel's contract - then Rachel's logical leap was wrong and was more of an (uncouth) way to protect her self-image and her image in the eyes of her friends.
Reasonable minds can differ about whether Rachel's logical leap is correct, but there's seemingly a very harsh expectation that whites be OK with ceding contractually agreed-upon roles and not even complaining about it to their FRIENDS on the phone that they think the decision by higher-ups was influenced by affirmative action.
This is different from Maria and Rachel competing for the Finals designation - in that case, a lens of empathy for Rachel makes a little less sense, and Rachel's affirmative-action-centric logical leap gets bigger. ESPN was foolish enough to stipulate the Finals host beforehand in a freaking written contract!
One elephant in the room is that Nichols was 45 then, Taylor I think was 34 so there was probably a legitimate fear (and it could have been expressed in that 40 minute call but it won’t have helped the NYT SJW narrative so they’d ignore it) that she it was the first step from espn to squeeze her out of her high profile role and cut her role even more (think ive read quite a lot of them have had to take huge cuts in their salary), as she’s about the age where women on tv get pushed down the pecking order and replaced by someone younger, so she’s well within her rights to fight it
So, race discrimination would have been ok, but sex discrimination was not?
There is, btw, no indication that Nichols fought anything. She just whined about something being done to her that she generally advocated being done to others.
"... Ethan glosses over, actually he doesn’t even mention) is how sick and tired we (black people) get when we have a position of any kind of authority or prominence. For some reason, we are always fighting the notion of us being a “diversity hire”... or whatever innocuous term you want to give to someone who was awarded a race-based preference. Never mind that some of us actually kick ass at work and actually are qualified regardless of skin color."
But some of you don't. And some are hired for skin color over better qualified and better performing individuals. That MUST be the consequence of awarding race-based preference preference or there's be no point in race-based preference. Yes, Nichols no doubt benefitted from the connections of her parents (Mike Nichols and Diane Sawyer, iirc) but there's no reason to think that its *only* the nepotistically connected whom Taylor's promotion denied the job she got (Nichols says, but there is every reason to believe it). If you don't like the stigma of people assuming you were not the best choice then you need to argue against race-based discrimination, which I'm not seeing from you.
Well said. I feel for you re: the “diversity hire” thing. It sucks, and people like Skipper do more harm than good. And I could be wrong, but my guess is Nichols is gone because she was never going to get ESPN’s NBA studio to the level of TNT’s.
Don’t think anyone in any sport anywhere touches NBA on TNT, but Nichols did tweet that only first take and PTI regularly beat the jump for espn KPIs which is pretty impressive (and ratings for the free agency show was way up year on year), so from that it doesn’t look like this hurt the shows ratings
I totally get you. I think though given the way ESPN was doing stuff last summer, I think it was a reasonable thought for her to have—the thought being that ESPN was making a panic hire and screwed her in the process. Maria is awesome and she could easily have done this job, but Rachel has more experience and was apparently promised the role. It just doesn't seem coincidental that she would lose her job at the same time all those killings, protests and other happenings were happening. Her saying that might be the case in a private convo is fine with me. It doesn't sound good, but I think it's a case of things being true concurrently. (Also, I'm Black).
I absolutely love the comment section from the NYT because it perfectly encapsulates the utter insanity of this time. The C-Suite is in constant fear of this mythical beast that is the loud 1% of online voices that are completely unrepresentative of the rest of the audience. I cannot fathom putting performative nutcases like that in charge of your company's decision making process.
It’s because far too many of them think Twitter is some sort of reflection of real peoples opinions (as that’s a load of bullshit peddled by social media marketing types), bet if most of them checked to see how many of those throwing their toys out of the pram on Twitter actually are customers of theirs they’d realise it’d have next to no impact on their bottom line
But it’s also in the workplace, like those Spotify staff who kicked off at the joe rogan podcast episode with Abigail Shrier on her book on some of the crazy trans stuff with kids, most normal people would listen to it and not find anything particularly off with it but a lot of them threw a strop over that, yet they have no issue with the fact that Spotify massively underpay the artists (not all of whom have Taylor swift type money), so their compass is quite a bit off
That's the claim. But why would the suits do more than roll their eyes at being described as "white Trump supporters"? It's not like they were employing her for her IQ, or that anyone would take her seriously.
If it didn’t have the Twitter ‘outrage’ the C suite wouldn’t be able to get away with it, the Twitter loser mob gave management a nice out to get rid of her (as I wouldn’t be shocked if they wanted to move on a woman who’s pushing 50 for a younger face)
1. Rachel is illegally taped saying something that that offends some people who work at ESPN.
2. Draper covers it for NYT.
3. There is outrage at Rachel on Twitter.
4. The comment section of the NYT, which parses for liberals, doesn't match Twitter.
5. Adam Silver, public liberal, doesn't match Twitter.
6. ESPN doesn't capitulate to Twitter users and fire her during the playoffs, draft, or free agency.
7. Twitter moves on.
8. ESPN waits until dead of summer and then fires her bc she shit on her bosses.
If ESPN were motivated by Twitter outrage they would have fired Rachel much earlier. If her job were less essential, like one of the writers Ethan mentions back channeling earlier, then they might have fired her to make the story go away faster. But that's not what happened, and so this isn't a great example of what you guys are complaining about.
Twitter outrage was not successful in getting Rachel fired, but it was used by Draper/NYT to maximize engagement. I'm not sure if they are responding to economic incentives, or legitimately think Twitter users reflect real life, but either way they come off as total assholes IMO.
You don't seem to be answering the person you are purportedly "responding" to. He never suggested ESPN was "motivated by Twitter outrage". Quite the opposite. Are you spamming this post all over the internet?
Sorry, but Rachel’s bosses knew about her shitting on them last summer when the recording was shared at ESPN. If your theory was right, they would have fired her then. In reality, Rachel’s contract was extended this year well before the NYT’s piece and the Twitter outrage. The online/wokeism reaction had significant influence over subsequent decisions ESPN made around the NBA’s programming. The immediate was pulling Nichols from the Finals, the bizarrely effusive praise of Malika Andrews as sideline reporter by nearly every ESPN personality. A hostage situation of Richard Jefferson and Kendrick Perkins of half defending her and half admonishing for her comments.
Two things can be true - they fired her for having a go at management but the woke outrage gave them the cover to get rid, and doing it during the finals would have pissed off the nba bigtime
They wouldn’t have fired her when it broke during the finals (nba for starters would have kicked off for that), had there not been the Twitter outrage then they couldn’t get away with it in the manner they have here as people would focus on their piss poor management of the situation
Interesting piece (I guess) although an all too brief mention of how actual black people feel about the subject. You spent more time discussing how upset white NYTs subscribers are and then more time on white writers at ESPN feeling discriminated against (hilarious.)
I’d argue most black respondents took issue with the assumption that Maria Taylor could have only been a “diversity hire” and that being white somehow stifling ambition is at the least very hot take to most of us.
In all sincerity to me this is another in a long line of “anti woke” (CRT, Diversity etc) rants in written form. They’re always around and always seem to believe they’re the first of their kind. Ben Shapiro has a segment on it every day, and it’s ALWAYS the first.
Except that quite a lot of black people who’ve worked there, like Stephen Jackson, Jemele Hill, Amin ElHassan etc don’t see Nichols as the problem here it’s weak espn management who’ve royally screwed this up (and apparently after this came out internally they gave her a contract extension according to Jim miller on bill simmons podcast), even the media writer pieces on this have said even the people at espn who didn’t like Nichols think she shouldn’t have been fired
Besides this wasn’t a ‘diversity hire’ it was taking away what was in someone’s contract so management look like they give a shit about black people, how so many miss this point still is either baffling or they just saw black woman vs white woman and just have the ‘racism is here guys’ blinkers on, doubt any on here would happily lose a high value gig that they’re contracted to in their job to a more ‘deserving’ minority group (as i hypothesised earlier black woman losing her contracted job to a trans woman would fall under this, not just white person loses out to a black person) so the company looks better
Don't swallow the probable nonsense about what's in her contract. I'm betting it's like the "theatrical release" of Black Widow promised Scarlett Johansson -- ESPN's lawyers probably insisted on wiggle room. Her negotiating position wasn't so strong that anyone would agree to tie the exec's hands, IMHO.
Don't project. I don't much watch Shapiro for reasons that have nothing to do with yours, but I've never seen him pretend that his is the first take ever on ongoing nonsense. And Nichols is of course almost certainly correct that her replacement was racial virtue signaling. Me, I view that as karma, but your pose is absurd.
A lot of Black people have supported her. And you can laugh at the notion of them being discriminated against—I don't think that's the word I'd use—but it's the fact that Rachel was *promised* this role via her contract and suddenly, amid a bunch of race-related uprisings across the country, they change their mind and take away the job from maybe the second most famous NBA reporter who's been there on and off for a decade, and give it to a reporter who's like 10 years younger with less experience? Like, is it wrong to wonder whether that's a coincidence or...something else, like what Rachel suggested? That's my thing. I'm not anti-Woke at all, but a lot of the discourse surrounding that stuff is always polarized and spoken of in abstract terms rather than episodically. It seems totally natural to think what Rachel thought, and the fact that it's most likely White male management making her the sacrifice is even worse.
All that said, for sure, it's worth having more Black people speak. A lot of Black people I know understand Rachel's point. But you know, it doesn't sound pretty. I just think it's a case of things happening concurrently. She's questioning the merits based on a specific situation. it's like the idea of a White person robbing a Black person. Did the White person rob the Black person because they're Black, or did they just want their money? These days, people will project the meaning and come with the former as the answer in every case. That's my problem w. the whole "woke" stuff. It's willfully obtuse.
The probability stuff doesn't matter. Let's make it a hispanic man robbing a woman. Is it because she's a woman? He's putting a woman in a bad spot. Is it sexism? Sexism is about women being exploited, taken advantage of and mistreated, on a systemic and micro level. The point is we don't know the motivation behind it per se. But we would know that stealing money from anyone is a self-evident motive.
The hate crime stuff, all that, isn't what I'm focused on. I'm just saying that people will project motives at every moment even when there's a more clearcut one.
It is a claim, but it hasn't been disputed at all really. Usually stuff like that will have people speak against it. If they did promise her the job or even strongly suggest it, that's a big problem ESPN has. All in all though, it seems very improbable that them making that decision amid uprisings across the country at that moment is a coincidence lol.
If Rachel was promised or anything likee that, I'd say her complaint was definitely a fair one, especially in public.
The "probability stuff", specifically the weird improbability of your example, and the "hate crime" question, is what I chose to comment on and it is not up to you to declare "it doesn't matter".
No, strongly suggesting that Nichols would get a certain job is not remotely as problematic as putting it in her contract that she would get it. Your implicit contention that that distinction "doesn't matter" either is lunacy.
I, btw, assume she's absolutely right that she got trampled in her boss' attempt to appear woke. But it looks like deserved karma to me.
I feel like we're somehow on different pages. All I'm saying is that her story doesn't seem unlikely, and if that is the case, then her privately complaining about it doesn't seem all that bad, and I'd venture to say it's only natural, and that it doesn't make her a racist the way it's been reported. That's really all I'm saying lol.
We are on very different pages if you think that her saying publicly what she said privately would be "bad" at all, except that her bosses wouldn't like it. The truth is its own defense.
I'm not talking here about her implication that it would be perfectly ok to screw over some white guy instead of her.
Response from whom ? Surely with solid sources you’d have a strong logical backing for such a response from such people (black people or “the woke”, or both ?) Did you not make a career from speaking for NBA players who tend to be black ?
Considering the potential backlash from reporting white people at ESPN feeling discrimination for being white (I’d argue it’s taboo because some claim just have less merit than others) you felt that was worth the brunt but not giving a proper representation of how some black people feel ?
For what it’s worth I absolutely disagree with Rachel Nichols show cancellation but as I said in my previous post I must confess this seems to fall into more anti “woke” rhetoric that nobody talks about but are always talking about.
“We must stifle our ambitions AND not complain in private all for being white ? Why that’s anti human”, come on man.
This hits on something that has been concept-creeping its way into elite and/or media spaces, while everyone tries to convince themselves that it's just the way the Right Side of History turns: a kind of grassroots surveillance state, a social norm whereby any private conversation is fair game for public exposure. It's not necessarily unsustainable, but it is miserable, and I honestly wish that we'd stop focusing on whether it's "our Stasi or their Stasi," and start recognizing that low-rent O'Briens are not the peers we want. (Orwell reference, not Hibernophobia.)
Do we think Rachel Nichols would not have had the same outraged reaction as the so-called mob if it had happened to anyone else? Let’s not forget when she publicly shamed the first Latino POBO in NBA history for not doing enough to promote diversity. I don’t think Rachel should be fired or taken off the air but it’s hard to not have a little schaudenfreude over her public persona digging her private self a “grave” (one that she will certainly emerge from unscathed)
I disagree with the article but appreciate reading a different point of view than what we hear from the typical outlet
Difference between this and the Minnesota situation is that that was an open position after the previous coach was rightly fired, her case was an incumbent being removed for non work performance related reasons so her bosses looked better
Ethan, you had me at”subscribe”. Glad I did. I’ve been wanting to know more about this and your in-depth analysis was clarifying. Seems cowardly to record a private conversation and then hide behind anonymity. Show your face.
The irony behind that is if that person was exposed the people who are fine with Nichols privacy being violated would all of a sudden have a massive issue with privacy violations
- Taylor’s camp used this as a Hail Mary to get what she wanted
- Taylor’s camp knew that they weren’t getting what they wanted so decided to torch the building on the way out
- ESPN wanted to refresh the lineup (think there’s new people on the nba side but not sure how long they’ve been there) and wanted to get rid of Nichols so leaked this in an attempt to make her position at the company untenable - see Richard keys and Andy gray on sky sports around 2011
Brilliant writing. You brought new information and perspective to a topic whose discourse rarely strayed the media hive mind. I am shocked and disappointed how such an intelligent and informed piece can evoke an negative emotional reaction from so many. I hope their angst against you fails to blunt your original thoughts in favour of angling for more collective narratives.
Tbh, I don’t know how you do it. Since your intellect is unquestioned and political affiliation ambiguous, you will be relentlessly shamed by the progressives (unfairly) for having independent thoughts, in hopes they draw you back to their figured rightful place — as intellectual leftist of Cal Berkley. Given the vitriol, it would be temping to let up and write through a lens that would appease these people just to avoid it. Please don’t.
Agreed with everything you're saying here, Ethan is definitely intelligent and thoughtful, but might not be as objective as you seem to think? If you look at this piece another way it reads a little bit like "but what about the whites???" Personally I'm hoping for something a bit more diplomatic. Yes the internet outrage often goes too far but I hope you can empathize with folks who were deeply hurt by the sound of that Nichols laugh.
Fair observation, but I personally wouldn’t question Ethan’s objectivity here as I didn’t come away with that message you did. I read it as a tactful dissection of how the predominant narrative of the Nichols/Taylor story failed to deliver the broad context the story deserved. His exclamation point was how even the Times’ paying readers were frustrated with the way the article was disingenuously framed.
I can emphasize with the offended — it is certainly rotten for Taylor to hear. However, it wasn’t directed at her or to devalue her reputation. I would add that the boundaries of a private conversation should not be held to a standard of public statement. The laugh was in poor taste but it seemed like more of a awkward end to a conversation that was going nowhere.
The piece definitely brings broader context than what was previously there in the coverage, that I agree with. My criticism: it's still not as broad as it may seem: it doesn't address what we're getting into regarding the laugh, it declares that social justice has diminishing returns (that line stings pretty bad) without admitting that the juice is still worth the squeeze (or that diminishing returns are a product of getting closer to where we need to be), doesn't talk at all about how a person of color may feel about the entire matter, and in general does very little to reinforce the idea that equity and representation are still important things to pursue in the face of the systemic shit society still needs to shovel. He's probably just giving the reader credit and assuming they already know this but I'm really not sure the readers deserve that credit. I find myself wanting to share this with my friends but stopping just short because of that lack of diplomacy.
He's way too "diplomatic" and still has a head half-full of complete nonsense. If her were more based he would have whooped like I did at the very nepotistically-benefitted Nichols' claim that she's suffered from (gender?) discrimination at at the hands of her "white, Trump-supporting" bosses, but it didn't even register on him how absurd and laughable that was.
This is a genuinely great piece of writing. Actively taking steps to record a private conversation that shouldn't have is far far worse than any perceived transgression by Nichols yet that person remains anon and employed.
I'd love to see the private whatsapp group of everyone who called on social media for her to be fired. I guarantee you each of them would be fired if every word they say in private was made public.
The economic left (which is a vital force if America is going or rescue itself from decline of public infrastructure and civil cohesion) is being eaten by the cultural warriors who are typically white, wealthy and have the luxury of wasting time on outrage.
And quite a few of the nba Twitter lot who did the whole moral outrage are people who either are trying to build their brand/podcast so someone will hire them as they’re irrelevant or they did work in the industry and got bombed out and are trying to regain some irrelevancy by tweeting how bad Nichols is
Broadly, I see your claims as plausible. Can't really ascertain how "true" since they are ultimately speculation, but I think you spotlight some overlooked factors. Also, the NYT subscriber comments bit had me cackling, great stuff. I'm going to try and address something a few of the commenters and you hint at but don't delve into: "hypocrisy... excuse not to sympathize." I would, more bluntly, characterize it as a broader propensity toward schadenfreude directed at public figures, and the figures haven't done themselves much favors to tamp it down.
You've invoked notions like virtue signalling and Kuran's preference falsification and their impact on the mismatch between mass and elite opinions. As someone who has spent considerable time in both WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) and non WEIRD cultures [borrowing from Joe Henrich, highly recommended author given the subjects you explore], these notions are perfectly normal in non-WEIRD cultures, where there is an almost tongue-in-cheek understanding of the baseline inauthenticity a public figure must engage in, almost as a mark of legitimacy in some cases. Such inauthenticity has been a feature, not a bug -- even in WEIRD societies -- but the resigned expectation of it has not been collectively internalized as yet in the West. Everyone is playing the game, it's just that in the West not everyone seems to want to acknowledge it (this is why I called you the child in the emperor's new clothes). The failure to acknowledge the game could have multiple causes -- protestant ethic sincerity, fantastical self-image? We're at a unique juncture now, where the public has begun to see through it, because we all exist in the digital universe and essentially are all forced to project, perform and play this game at some level, but many public figures fail to grasp this development and still operate like they live in the era of centralized information before the information cascade that is the internet.
Which brings me to schadenfreude at Nichols' demise. Even before this episode, her authenticity was suspect to many viewers. Her sanctimonious sermons to open her show and ingratiate herself with superstars may have been "locally right" ie in a narrow sense but in the selective cherry picked nature of the targets of her ire (China, wya?), seemed "globally off" morally (see Kwame Brown's opinion of her, I only have a limited attention span for his content so maybe he has positive words too. Or, those of Bogues.). You characterize her as an "extrovert," capable of sidling up to celebrities and scribes alike. Again, "locally" at the level of the second person interacting with her, this may seem perfectly genuine but the shape-shifting required for such feats can to the third person observer be exactly what I term to be inauthentic (this has actually been a basis for some studies on notions of what constitutes as authentic in WEIRD vs non WEIRD cultures. Changing one's behavior for different audiences is normal and valued in non WEIRD cultures and penalized in WEIRD ones). Our public figures need to understand that virtue signalling works only if you limit how much of your signal you broadcast -- too much of it and the public will see through your act. I would venture to say that this more than anything else also accounts for Lebron hate, his manufactured inauthenticity.
There is a more general, quite obvious political point to be made that would make these underdeveloped thoughts even wordier and likely more controversial. I'll leave it to the discerning reader to connect the dots.
She calls herself a journalist, more than likely is in denial of the numerous conflicts of interest and her perceived status. Or chooses to casually push the cognitive dissonance to the recesses of her mind to clear her conscience and reap the benefits of both statuses (you know, like most public facing members of the PMC).
Ethan, maybe this should be considered a topic for an article: the absurdity of the NBA's (or any sport in the Western Hemisphere) "journalistic" coverage being dominated by their largest broadcast partners, or desperate content factories.
Even the UK, with football (the one where kicking the ball is actually a respected skill), Sky dominates a lot of the coverage but legacy media of the Times/Guardian variety still dedicate serious journalists to it. The NYT here, if we still consider it a serious paper, couldn't hold on to Marc Stein, doesn't engage in serious match reports or news breaking and views NBA to be the remit of "culture" desk. How can fans take any of this seriously or cite their reports? It's all manufactured attention grab.
The key tell in this essay is the extreme rejection of "Forcing people to refrain from success on the basis of their demography." That's basically what we've been assuming non-white people must do since, dare I say, 1619? But now that it hits insanely narcissistic, ambitious and greedy white folks? Intolerable! Kind of like when opioid addiction went from being a moral failure in need of incarceration to being a medical problem deserving compassion, as soon as whites became the dominant demographic among junkies. Hypocrisy? Racism? You decide.
People spent decades working tirelessly to move the conversation away from demonization and incarceration between the 1970s opioid epidemic and moral panic and the 2000s opioid epidemics.
The other thing that was weirdly missed from most of the coverage of this was the simple fact that she was demoted! Most coverage framed it as "she was passed over for a promotion" but that's strictly false. She had a job that she wanted and was told "you are not going to have this job anymore". I think reasonable people can say that diversity hires are totally and 100% understandable and worth it, but I strain to see how ANYONE can see unilateral demotion without cause (which is what happened and how this entire situation should be discussed) to be anything but really really concerning.
I think it’s the ‘racism is everywhere’ brigade who ignore that she had a contract to do it so was justifiably pissed off, thing is had it been an open position which they both went for and they gave it to Taylor then I doubt Nichols would have had much of an issue (outside of thinking she’d do a better job, which is reasonable for a competitive person to think), but it wasn’t and if diversity hires are done by taking away existing positions as opposed to either creating new positions/filling vacancies then it will cause a huge number of issues in workplaces in the real worls
It wasn't "without cause". It was (allegedly) to gain one of these "diversity hires" that you allege is "reasonable... and 100% understandable and worth it". The difference in justice between the most recognizably worthy person not getting an earned job and someone worthy not keeping her job eludes me.
Surprised you didn’t mention Stephen A not getting fired for offending both Nigerians and Asian Americans in a hour on first take (and I don’t think he should get fired for that idiocy), because if Nichols did then what Stephen A did is more worthy of getting fired (but he’s the big star so they won’t)
As for Nichols giving up the job for Taylor, does anyone think Taylor would give up one of her gigs willingly if management wanted to put a trans woman in there to ‘improve diversity’ - doubt it, and I wouldn’t blame her in the slightest for being mad
"The system is such that you can’t just do a little bit of TV either. You’re either available all the time, or you’re off the list. Starve or explode." Well, that explains why Mina Kimes is on ESPN 22 hours a day.
This may have been said before, but I didn’t go through every comment. First off, FWIW, I’m black and do NOT believe Rachel should’ve been fired. I also don’t believe she was fired for holding “anti diversity” notions so much as she pissed off her bosses by saying they’re a bunch of racist pricks who caused the underlying issue to begin with.
However, one thing Ethan glosses over, actually he doesn’t even mention) is how sick and tired we (black people) get when we have a position of any kind of authority or prominence.
For some reason, we are always fighting the notion of us being a “diversity hire” or “affirmative action student” or whatever innocuous term you want to give to someone who was awarded a race-based preference. Never mind that some of us actually kick ass at work and actually are qualified regardless of skin color. You’d think in a profession as incestuous as TV, people would recognize that some folks (like Nichols if you delve into her bio) benefit tremendously from nepotism both of the literal and figurative type. Most get this, but they also ignore the fact that POC are MUCH less likely to be beneficiaries of this “non-meritocracy” which is part of the reason, diversity hiring became a thing to begin with.
Leaving this alone, until you’ve been the only black student in an Ivy classroom, or the only attorney at a “white shoe” law firm, etc, I don’t expect you to get the isolation that many feel.
And while you might SUSPECT that people are constantly whispering about how underserving you must be, it’s quite a different reality when you hear tape on it.
Again, I don’t believe Rachel should’ve been fired. But that seems more a product of Espn being a bunch of jerks than some “woke mob” mobilizing against them. Where were all the calls from the “mob” for Rachel to be fired? Where were players incensed? They weren’t, and espn fired her anyway almost THREE MONTHS after the story broke. Doesn’t sound like she was canned because of wokeness, she was canned because of the butt hurt suits she offended.
I mean, we pretty much agree on cause and effect here when it comes to RN's ouster. As for some of the other points raised...I'm interested in how you feel about ESPN loudly touting its efforts to change its demography in the context of the "whispering" and doubts qualified people end up bearing the brunt of. I'm not asking in an attempt to pin you down on whatever position. I'm legitimately curious.
This all makes sense if Nichols was Taylor's superior and actively trying to thwart and undermine Taylor's position.
But Nichols was the one losing (part of) her role to Taylor. Part that was in her contract. She is not supposed to feel bitter, in private?
Given the contract language and timing (Jul '20), Nichols is making a small/reasonable logical leap as to why ESPN violated her contract terms.
Without the contract details, I agree with your premise that Ethan should look at the situation in a very different light. Especially if Rachel were one of Taylor's bosses. In this case, Ethan is basically asking people to have empathy for Rachel because she thinks she is basically the victim of some very hardcore (direct) affirmative action.
Now, if that's not true and ESPN execs just suddenly had an epiphany in Jul '20 that Taylor would be a big upgrade on Rachel, enough to railroad through Taylor's promotion and break Rachel's contract - then Rachel's logical leap was wrong and was more of an (uncouth) way to protect her self-image and her image in the eyes of her friends.
Reasonable minds can differ about whether Rachel's logical leap is correct, but there's seemingly a very harsh expectation that whites be OK with ceding contractually agreed-upon roles and not even complaining about it to their FRIENDS on the phone that they think the decision by higher-ups was influenced by affirmative action.
This is different from Maria and Rachel competing for the Finals designation - in that case, a lens of empathy for Rachel makes a little less sense, and Rachel's affirmative-action-centric logical leap gets bigger. ESPN was foolish enough to stipulate the Finals host beforehand in a freaking written contract!
One elephant in the room is that Nichols was 45 then, Taylor I think was 34 so there was probably a legitimate fear (and it could have been expressed in that 40 minute call but it won’t have helped the NYT SJW narrative so they’d ignore it) that she it was the first step from espn to squeeze her out of her high profile role and cut her role even more (think ive read quite a lot of them have had to take huge cuts in their salary), as she’s about the age where women on tv get pushed down the pecking order and replaced by someone younger, so she’s well within her rights to fight it
So, race discrimination would have been ok, but sex discrimination was not?
There is, btw, no indication that Nichols fought anything. She just whined about something being done to her that she generally advocated being done to others.
You several times mischaracterize logic as "logical leap".
No "leap" was involved in noticing an obvious explanation.
"... Ethan glosses over, actually he doesn’t even mention) is how sick and tired we (black people) get when we have a position of any kind of authority or prominence. For some reason, we are always fighting the notion of us being a “diversity hire”... or whatever innocuous term you want to give to someone who was awarded a race-based preference. Never mind that some of us actually kick ass at work and actually are qualified regardless of skin color."
But some of you don't. And some are hired for skin color over better qualified and better performing individuals. That MUST be the consequence of awarding race-based preference preference or there's be no point in race-based preference. Yes, Nichols no doubt benefitted from the connections of her parents (Mike Nichols and Diane Sawyer, iirc) but there's no reason to think that its *only* the nepotistically connected whom Taylor's promotion denied the job she got (Nichols says, but there is every reason to believe it). If you don't like the stigma of people assuming you were not the best choice then you need to argue against race-based discrimination, which I'm not seeing from you.
Well said. I feel for you re: the “diversity hire” thing. It sucks, and people like Skipper do more harm than good. And I could be wrong, but my guess is Nichols is gone because she was never going to get ESPN’s NBA studio to the level of TNT’s.
Don’t think anyone in any sport anywhere touches NBA on TNT, but Nichols did tweet that only first take and PTI regularly beat the jump for espn KPIs which is pretty impressive (and ratings for the free agency show was way up year on year), so from that it doesn’t look like this hurt the shows ratings
I totally get you. I think though given the way ESPN was doing stuff last summer, I think it was a reasonable thought for her to have—the thought being that ESPN was making a panic hire and screwed her in the process. Maria is awesome and she could easily have done this job, but Rachel has more experience and was apparently promised the role. It just doesn't seem coincidental that she would lose her job at the same time all those killings, protests and other happenings were happening. Her saying that might be the case in a private convo is fine with me. It doesn't sound good, but I think it's a case of things being true concurrently. (Also, I'm Black).
I absolutely love the comment section from the NYT because it perfectly encapsulates the utter insanity of this time. The C-Suite is in constant fear of this mythical beast that is the loud 1% of online voices that are completely unrepresentative of the rest of the audience. I cannot fathom putting performative nutcases like that in charge of your company's decision making process.
It’s because far too many of them think Twitter is some sort of reflection of real peoples opinions (as that’s a load of bullshit peddled by social media marketing types), bet if most of them checked to see how many of those throwing their toys out of the pram on Twitter actually are customers of theirs they’d realise it’d have next to no impact on their bottom line
But it’s also in the workplace, like those Spotify staff who kicked off at the joe rogan podcast episode with Abigail Shrier on her book on some of the crazy trans stuff with kids, most normal people would listen to it and not find anything particularly off with it but a lot of them threw a strop over that, yet they have no issue with the fact that Spotify massively underpay the artists (not all of whom have Taylor swift type money), so their compass is quite a bit off
Agreed that corporations overreact to online mobs but aren't you and Ethan misrepresenting that comment section in much the same way
In WHAT way? We're not mind readers.
Isn't the point of the article that Rachel got fired for getting caught shitting on the C-Suite and not bc people were mad at her on Twitter?
That's the claim. But why would the suits do more than roll their eyes at being described as "white Trump supporters"? It's not like they were employing her for her IQ, or that anyone would take her seriously.
If it didn’t have the Twitter ‘outrage’ the C suite wouldn’t be able to get away with it, the Twitter loser mob gave management a nice out to get rid of her (as I wouldn’t be shocked if they wanted to move on a woman who’s pushing 50 for a younger face)
You're writing fan fiction.
Here's a summary:
1. Rachel is illegally taped saying something that that offends some people who work at ESPN.
2. Draper covers it for NYT.
3. There is outrage at Rachel on Twitter.
4. The comment section of the NYT, which parses for liberals, doesn't match Twitter.
5. Adam Silver, public liberal, doesn't match Twitter.
6. ESPN doesn't capitulate to Twitter users and fire her during the playoffs, draft, or free agency.
7. Twitter moves on.
8. ESPN waits until dead of summer and then fires her bc she shit on her bosses.
If ESPN were motivated by Twitter outrage they would have fired Rachel much earlier. If her job were less essential, like one of the writers Ethan mentions back channeling earlier, then they might have fired her to make the story go away faster. But that's not what happened, and so this isn't a great example of what you guys are complaining about.
Twitter outrage was not successful in getting Rachel fired, but it was used by Draper/NYT to maximize engagement. I'm not sure if they are responding to economic incentives, or legitimately think Twitter users reflect real life, but either way they come off as total assholes IMO.
You don't seem to be answering the person you are purportedly "responding" to. He never suggested ESPN was "motivated by Twitter outrage". Quite the opposite. Are you spamming this post all over the internet?
Sorry, but Rachel’s bosses knew about her shitting on them last summer when the recording was shared at ESPN. If your theory was right, they would have fired her then. In reality, Rachel’s contract was extended this year well before the NYT’s piece and the Twitter outrage. The online/wokeism reaction had significant influence over subsequent decisions ESPN made around the NBA’s programming. The immediate was pulling Nichols from the Finals, the bizarrely effusive praise of Malika Andrews as sideline reporter by nearly every ESPN personality. A hostage situation of Richard Jefferson and Kendrick Perkins of half defending her and half admonishing for her comments.
Two things can be true - they fired her for having a go at management but the woke outrage gave them the cover to get rid, and doing it during the finals would have pissed off the nba bigtime
They wouldn’t have fired her when it broke during the finals (nba for starters would have kicked off for that), had there not been the Twitter outrage then they couldn’t get away with it in the manner they have here as people would focus on their piss poor management of the situation
"can we admit that something rather odd and unprecedented has happened with ESPN and CAA? But I digress."
No! Don't digress! Dig deep and lay it all out there!
I'll be getting into this!
YESSIR!!!!!
Interesting piece (I guess) although an all too brief mention of how actual black people feel about the subject. You spent more time discussing how upset white NYTs subscribers are and then more time on white writers at ESPN feeling discriminated against (hilarious.)
I’d argue most black respondents took issue with the assumption that Maria Taylor could have only been a “diversity hire” and that being white somehow stifling ambition is at the least very hot take to most of us.
In all sincerity to me this is another in a long line of “anti woke” (CRT, Diversity etc) rants in written form. They’re always around and always seem to believe they’re the first of their kind. Ben Shapiro has a segment on it every day, and it’s ALWAYS the first.
Except that quite a lot of black people who’ve worked there, like Stephen Jackson, Jemele Hill, Amin ElHassan etc don’t see Nichols as the problem here it’s weak espn management who’ve royally screwed this up (and apparently after this came out internally they gave her a contract extension according to Jim miller on bill simmons podcast), even the media writer pieces on this have said even the people at espn who didn’t like Nichols think she shouldn’t have been fired
Besides this wasn’t a ‘diversity hire’ it was taking away what was in someone’s contract so management look like they give a shit about black people, how so many miss this point still is either baffling or they just saw black woman vs white woman and just have the ‘racism is here guys’ blinkers on, doubt any on here would happily lose a high value gig that they’re contracted to in their job to a more ‘deserving’ minority group (as i hypothesised earlier black woman losing her contracted job to a trans woman would fall under this, not just white person loses out to a black person) so the company looks better
Don't swallow the probable nonsense about what's in her contract. I'm betting it's like the "theatrical release" of Black Widow promised Scarlett Johansson -- ESPN's lawyers probably insisted on wiggle room. Her negotiating position wasn't so strong that anyone would agree to tie the exec's hands, IMHO.
Don't project. I don't much watch Shapiro for reasons that have nothing to do with yours, but I've never seen him pretend that his is the first take ever on ongoing nonsense. And Nichols is of course almost certainly correct that her replacement was racial virtue signaling. Me, I view that as karma, but your pose is absurd.
A lot of Black people have supported her. And you can laugh at the notion of them being discriminated against—I don't think that's the word I'd use—but it's the fact that Rachel was *promised* this role via her contract and suddenly, amid a bunch of race-related uprisings across the country, they change their mind and take away the job from maybe the second most famous NBA reporter who's been there on and off for a decade, and give it to a reporter who's like 10 years younger with less experience? Like, is it wrong to wonder whether that's a coincidence or...something else, like what Rachel suggested? That's my thing. I'm not anti-Woke at all, but a lot of the discourse surrounding that stuff is always polarized and spoken of in abstract terms rather than episodically. It seems totally natural to think what Rachel thought, and the fact that it's most likely White male management making her the sacrifice is even worse.
All that said, for sure, it's worth having more Black people speak. A lot of Black people I know understand Rachel's point. But you know, it doesn't sound pretty. I just think it's a case of things happening concurrently. She's questioning the merits based on a specific situation. it's like the idea of a White person robbing a Black person. Did the White person rob the Black person because they're Black, or did they just want their money? These days, people will project the meaning and come with the former as the answer in every case. That's my problem w. the whole "woke" stuff. It's willfully obtuse.
"Did the White person rob the Black person because they're Black, or did they just want their money?"
Are we allowed to notice the relative improbability of this scenario?
And what are the statistics on such robberies, or the reverse, being charged as "hate crimes", btw?
The probability stuff doesn't matter. Let's make it a hispanic man robbing a woman. Is it because she's a woman? He's putting a woman in a bad spot. Is it sexism? Sexism is about women being exploited, taken advantage of and mistreated, on a systemic and micro level. The point is we don't know the motivation behind it per se. But we would know that stealing money from anyone is a self-evident motive.
The hate crime stuff, all that, isn't what I'm focused on. I'm just saying that people will project motives at every moment even when there's a more clearcut one.
It is a claim, but it hasn't been disputed at all really. Usually stuff like that will have people speak against it. If they did promise her the job or even strongly suggest it, that's a big problem ESPN has. All in all though, it seems very improbable that them making that decision amid uprisings across the country at that moment is a coincidence lol.
If Rachel was promised or anything likee that, I'd say her complaint was definitely a fair one, especially in public.
The "probability stuff", specifically the weird improbability of your example, and the "hate crime" question, is what I chose to comment on and it is not up to you to declare "it doesn't matter".
No, strongly suggesting that Nichols would get a certain job is not remotely as problematic as putting it in her contract that she would get it. Your implicit contention that that distinction "doesn't matter" either is lunacy.
I, btw, assume she's absolutely right that she got trampled in her boss' attempt to appear woke. But it looks like deserved karma to me.
I feel like we're somehow on different pages. All I'm saying is that her story doesn't seem unlikely, and if that is the case, then her privately complaining about it doesn't seem all that bad, and I'd venture to say it's only natural, and that it doesn't make her a racist the way it's been reported. That's really all I'm saying lol.
We are on very different pages if you think that her saying publicly what she said privately would be "bad" at all, except that her bosses wouldn't like it. The truth is its own defense.
I'm not talking here about her implication that it would be perfectly ok to screw over some white guy instead of her.
It's not a "fact that Rachel was *promised* this role via her contract", it's a claim.
Response from whom ? Surely with solid sources you’d have a strong logical backing for such a response from such people (black people or “the woke”, or both ?) Did you not make a career from speaking for NBA players who tend to be black ?
Considering the potential backlash from reporting white people at ESPN feeling discrimination for being white (I’d argue it’s taboo because some claim just have less merit than others) you felt that was worth the brunt but not giving a proper representation of how some black people feel ?
For what it’s worth I absolutely disagree with Rachel Nichols show cancellation but as I said in my previous post I must confess this seems to fall into more anti “woke” rhetoric that nobody talks about but are always talking about.
“We must stifle our ambitions AND not complain in private all for being white ? Why that’s anti human”, come on man.
This is so well-written that I felt both smarter and stupider after reading it…
This hits on something that has been concept-creeping its way into elite and/or media spaces, while everyone tries to convince themselves that it's just the way the Right Side of History turns: a kind of grassroots surveillance state, a social norm whereby any private conversation is fair game for public exposure. It's not necessarily unsustainable, but it is miserable, and I honestly wish that we'd stop focusing on whether it's "our Stasi or their Stasi," and start recognizing that low-rent O'Briens are not the peers we want. (Orwell reference, not Hibernophobia.)
Do we think Rachel Nichols would not have had the same outraged reaction as the so-called mob if it had happened to anyone else? Let’s not forget when she publicly shamed the first Latino POBO in NBA history for not doing enough to promote diversity. I don’t think Rachel should be fired or taken off the air but it’s hard to not have a little schaudenfreude over her public persona digging her private self a “grave” (one that she will certainly emerge from unscathed)
I disagree with the article but appreciate reading a different point of view than what we hear from the typical outlet
Eschew private acronyms. https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/POBO
Difference between this and the Minnesota situation is that that was an open position after the previous coach was rightly fired, her case was an incumbent being removed for non work performance related reasons so her bosses looked better
Well said
Ethan, you had me at”subscribe”. Glad I did. I’ve been wanting to know more about this and your in-depth analysis was clarifying. Seems cowardly to record a private conversation and then hide behind anonymity. Show your face.
The irony behind that is if that person was exposed the people who are fine with Nichols privacy being violated would all of a sudden have a massive issue with privacy violations
Nichols is old enough to have been around for the surreptitious taping of Donald Sterling. I'm betting she didn't object.
You’re right. Why did this come out almost a year later? Interesting.
Either
- Taylor’s camp used this as a Hail Mary to get what she wanted
- Taylor’s camp knew that they weren’t getting what they wanted so decided to torch the building on the way out
- ESPN wanted to refresh the lineup (think there’s new people on the nba side but not sure how long they’ve been there) and wanted to get rid of Nichols so leaked this in an attempt to make her position at the company untenable - see Richard keys and Andy gray on sky sports around 2011
I will. Thanks:)
Brilliant writing. You brought new information and perspective to a topic whose discourse rarely strayed the media hive mind. I am shocked and disappointed how such an intelligent and informed piece can evoke an negative emotional reaction from so many. I hope their angst against you fails to blunt your original thoughts in favour of angling for more collective narratives.
Tbh, I don’t know how you do it. Since your intellect is unquestioned and political affiliation ambiguous, you will be relentlessly shamed by the progressives (unfairly) for having independent thoughts, in hopes they draw you back to their figured rightful place — as intellectual leftist of Cal Berkley. Given the vitriol, it would be temping to let up and write through a lens that would appease these people just to avoid it. Please don’t.
Agreed with everything you're saying here, Ethan is definitely intelligent and thoughtful, but might not be as objective as you seem to think? If you look at this piece another way it reads a little bit like "but what about the whites???" Personally I'm hoping for something a bit more diplomatic. Yes the internet outrage often goes too far but I hope you can empathize with folks who were deeply hurt by the sound of that Nichols laugh.
Fair observation, but I personally wouldn’t question Ethan’s objectivity here as I didn’t come away with that message you did. I read it as a tactful dissection of how the predominant narrative of the Nichols/Taylor story failed to deliver the broad context the story deserved. His exclamation point was how even the Times’ paying readers were frustrated with the way the article was disingenuously framed.
I can emphasize with the offended — it is certainly rotten for Taylor to hear. However, it wasn’t directed at her or to devalue her reputation. I would add that the boundaries of a private conversation should not be held to a standard of public statement. The laugh was in poor taste but it seemed like more of a awkward end to a conversation that was going nowhere.
Mainly to see if markup works: <s>emphasize</s> <b>empathize</b>
Nah, it doesn't.
The piece definitely brings broader context than what was previously there in the coverage, that I agree with. My criticism: it's still not as broad as it may seem: it doesn't address what we're getting into regarding the laugh, it declares that social justice has diminishing returns (that line stings pretty bad) without admitting that the juice is still worth the squeeze (or that diminishing returns are a product of getting closer to where we need to be), doesn't talk at all about how a person of color may feel about the entire matter, and in general does very little to reinforce the idea that equity and representation are still important things to pursue in the face of the systemic shit society still needs to shovel. He's probably just giving the reader credit and assuming they already know this but I'm really not sure the readers deserve that credit. I find myself wanting to share this with my friends but stopping just short because of that lack of diplomacy.
He's way too "diplomatic" and still has a head half-full of complete nonsense. If her were more based he would have whooped like I did at the very nepotistically-benefitted Nichols' claim that she's suffered from (gender?) discrimination at at the hands of her "white, Trump-supporting" bosses, but it didn't even register on him how absurd and laughable that was.
No, I can't. The "joke" was formless, but being "hurt" by the undeserved laugh is pathetic, and not in a good way.
And racial discrimination against whites is to be ignored, why?
(Nepotistically-benefitted whites like Nichols are of course not very sympathetic cases. But we're not all that.)
This is a genuinely great piece of writing. Actively taking steps to record a private conversation that shouldn't have is far far worse than any perceived transgression by Nichols yet that person remains anon and employed.
I'd love to see the private whatsapp group of everyone who called on social media for her to be fired. I guarantee you each of them would be fired if every word they say in private was made public.
The economic left (which is a vital force if America is going or rescue itself from decline of public infrastructure and civil cohesion) is being eaten by the cultural warriors who are typically white, wealthy and have the luxury of wasting time on outrage.
Not just writing, but original reporting!!!
>When you’re an insecure fraud of an aspiring famous person, there’s nothing better than feeling morally superior to the actual pros.
Savage levels of self-awareness
Are you referring to Strauss?
Describes woke Twitter in a nutshell that, except that a lot of them don’t have great morals when you dig a bit deeper
And quite a few of the nba Twitter lot who did the whole moral outrage are people who either are trying to build their brand/podcast so someone will hire them as they’re irrelevant or they did work in the industry and got bombed out and are trying to regain some irrelevancy by tweeting how bad Nichols is
Broadly, I see your claims as plausible. Can't really ascertain how "true" since they are ultimately speculation, but I think you spotlight some overlooked factors. Also, the NYT subscriber comments bit had me cackling, great stuff. I'm going to try and address something a few of the commenters and you hint at but don't delve into: "hypocrisy... excuse not to sympathize." I would, more bluntly, characterize it as a broader propensity toward schadenfreude directed at public figures, and the figures haven't done themselves much favors to tamp it down.
You've invoked notions like virtue signalling and Kuran's preference falsification and their impact on the mismatch between mass and elite opinions. As someone who has spent considerable time in both WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) and non WEIRD cultures [borrowing from Joe Henrich, highly recommended author given the subjects you explore], these notions are perfectly normal in non-WEIRD cultures, where there is an almost tongue-in-cheek understanding of the baseline inauthenticity a public figure must engage in, almost as a mark of legitimacy in some cases. Such inauthenticity has been a feature, not a bug -- even in WEIRD societies -- but the resigned expectation of it has not been collectively internalized as yet in the West. Everyone is playing the game, it's just that in the West not everyone seems to want to acknowledge it (this is why I called you the child in the emperor's new clothes). The failure to acknowledge the game could have multiple causes -- protestant ethic sincerity, fantastical self-image? We're at a unique juncture now, where the public has begun to see through it, because we all exist in the digital universe and essentially are all forced to project, perform and play this game at some level, but many public figures fail to grasp this development and still operate like they live in the era of centralized information before the information cascade that is the internet.
Which brings me to schadenfreude at Nichols' demise. Even before this episode, her authenticity was suspect to many viewers. Her sanctimonious sermons to open her show and ingratiate herself with superstars may have been "locally right" ie in a narrow sense but in the selective cherry picked nature of the targets of her ire (China, wya?), seemed "globally off" morally (see Kwame Brown's opinion of her, I only have a limited attention span for his content so maybe he has positive words too. Or, those of Bogues.). You characterize her as an "extrovert," capable of sidling up to celebrities and scribes alike. Again, "locally" at the level of the second person interacting with her, this may seem perfectly genuine but the shape-shifting required for such feats can to the third person observer be exactly what I term to be inauthentic (this has actually been a basis for some studies on notions of what constitutes as authentic in WEIRD vs non WEIRD cultures. Changing one's behavior for different audiences is normal and valued in non WEIRD cultures and penalized in WEIRD ones). Our public figures need to understand that virtue signalling works only if you limit how much of your signal you broadcast -- too much of it and the public will see through your act. I would venture to say that this more than anything else also accounts for Lebron hate, his manufactured inauthenticity.
There is a more general, quite obvious political point to be made that would make these underdeveloped thoughts even wordier and likely more controversial. I'll leave it to the discerning reader to connect the dots.
She’s in the entertainment industry and lives and works in LA, pretty decent chance you’d be a bit fake if you tick those boxes!
She calls herself a journalist, more than likely is in denial of the numerous conflicts of interest and her perceived status. Or chooses to casually push the cognitive dissonance to the recesses of her mind to clear her conscience and reap the benefits of both statuses (you know, like most public facing members of the PMC).
Ethan, maybe this should be considered a topic for an article: the absurdity of the NBA's (or any sport in the Western Hemisphere) "journalistic" coverage being dominated by their largest broadcast partners, or desperate content factories.
Even the UK, with football (the one where kicking the ball is actually a respected skill), Sky dominates a lot of the coverage but legacy media of the Times/Guardian variety still dedicate serious journalists to it. The NYT here, if we still consider it a serious paper, couldn't hold on to Marc Stein, doesn't engage in serious match reports or news breaking and views NBA to be the remit of "culture" desk. How can fans take any of this seriously or cite their reports? It's all manufactured attention grab.
That and that they are afraid to dig deep as they are shit scared of losing their precious press passes
Eschew weird acronyms.
MEGO, and I only skimmed so far, btw. Did you have a point at the end of all that?
Can you express it concisely?
The key tell in this essay is the extreme rejection of "Forcing people to refrain from success on the basis of their demography." That's basically what we've been assuming non-white people must do since, dare I say, 1619? But now that it hits insanely narcissistic, ambitious and greedy white folks? Intolerable! Kind of like when opioid addiction went from being a moral failure in need of incarceration to being a medical problem deserving compassion, as soon as whites became the dominant demographic among junkies. Hypocrisy? Racism? You decide.
If you're still pretending that "1619" isn't a fraud there's little chance that you are caopable of asking a question deserving of an answer.
And what happened to Nichols was karma that I don't find the slightest bit intolerable.
People spent decades working tirelessly to move the conversation away from demonization and incarceration between the 1970s opioid epidemic and moral panic and the 2000s opioid epidemics.
The other thing that was weirdly missed from most of the coverage of this was the simple fact that she was demoted! Most coverage framed it as "she was passed over for a promotion" but that's strictly false. She had a job that she wanted and was told "you are not going to have this job anymore". I think reasonable people can say that diversity hires are totally and 100% understandable and worth it, but I strain to see how ANYONE can see unilateral demotion without cause (which is what happened and how this entire situation should be discussed) to be anything but really really concerning.
I think it’s the ‘racism is everywhere’ brigade who ignore that she had a contract to do it so was justifiably pissed off, thing is had it been an open position which they both went for and they gave it to Taylor then I doubt Nichols would have had much of an issue (outside of thinking she’d do a better job, which is reasonable for a competitive person to think), but it wasn’t and if diversity hires are done by taking away existing positions as opposed to either creating new positions/filling vacancies then it will cause a huge number of issues in workplaces in the real worls
Again the claim that her contract called for her to have that job is highly dubious.
*world
It wasn't "without cause". It was (allegedly) to gain one of these "diversity hires" that you allege is "reasonable... and 100% understandable and worth it". The difference in justice between the most recognizably worthy person not getting an earned job and someone worthy not keeping her job eludes me.
Surprised you didn’t mention Stephen A not getting fired for offending both Nigerians and Asian Americans in a hour on first take (and I don’t think he should get fired for that idiocy), because if Nichols did then what Stephen A did is more worthy of getting fired (but he’s the big star so they won’t)
As for Nichols giving up the job for Taylor, does anyone think Taylor would give up one of her gigs willingly if management wanted to put a trans woman in there to ‘improve diversity’ - doubt it, and I wouldn’t blame her in the slightest for being mad
"The system is such that you can’t just do a little bit of TV either. You’re either available all the time, or you’re off the list. Starve or explode." Well, that explains why Mina Kimes is on ESPN 22 hours a day.