TV history was made yesterday

[imhomerjay]

Political correctness rears it's head.

Re-read my post. In the real world, it doesn't matter if she's good.
What matters is meeting a quota.
What matters is a lot of PDs think with ----- well, ya' know.

And what really matters, is all the women I've met in this business who cared about their craft, who loved the work, who worked hard and went the extra mile for the job, women I personally respected as talents, as colleagues and co-workers, who got passed over because they didn't play the game, didn't flirt, didn't play the sex card or the EEOC/victim card. Women who just wanted to do their job as well as they could, and maybe get some appreciate for their efforts.
Here again, the politically correct crowd seems only to care about the Barbies and Bimbos with a history of getting things handed to them - for political reasons or personal reasons. And not the women (or men) who just want to make it the old fashioned way. But often you don't hear about them. They don't usually don't make "TV history." If they do make it to large markets, networks or cable channels, they are producers and writers and you never see them or hear about them.

Tell me who was the first female network sports producer?
Don't know that one, do you? I didn't think so.

Do I have a problem with women doing sports broadcasting? Sure, if it's someone like Phyllis George, the first woman to do NFL TV coverage. She got the job by being Miss America, which is a great qualification for covering football on TV.

By the way, it's 2007.


PS: You are correct: I re-checked. The Golf Channel is on the back side of the Comcast channel card with the basic tier analog channels. It is not listed among the top cable networks, however.

"The women [you've] met in the business" isn't proof of anything beyond anecdotal experience. How many of us could point to women or men who got ahead because they traded on sex appeal, wealth, family heritage (President Bush anyone?) or some other non-job related qualification? And on the flip side, of course some talented, hardworking, qualified people get passed over.

You seem to assume anyone who makes it on the air is, in your words, a bimbo, a Barbie or a Ken. Being telegenic is not mutually exclusive with being talented or qualified. Maybe you've met no one in your career who possessed both traits--so be it. It doesn't mean your experience speaks for the world at large.

Absent any evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to assume she didn't get this job based on gender-blind qualifications.

 

[fred flintstone]

"The women [you've] met in the business" isn't proof of anything beyond anecdotal experience. How many of us could point to women or men who got ahead because they traded on sex appeal, wealth, family heritage (President Bush anyone?) or some other non-job related qualification? And on the flip side, of course some talented, hardworking, qualified people get passed over.

You seem to assume anyone who makes it on the air is, in your words, a bimbo, a Barbie or a Ken. Being telegenic is not mutually exclusive with being talented or qualified. Maybe you've met no one in your career who possessed both traits--so be it. It doesn't mean your experience speaks for the world at large.

Absent any evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to assume she didn't get this job based on gender-blind qualifications.

Maybe! Were I the only one with such "anecdotes." You put anecdotes together, they become data. You review the data, you see patterns.

Through the random chance of genetics, some telegenic people may be "talented and qualified." But that's not why they are hired. The kind of telegenic people who go into broadcasting - like those who go into modeling - know telegenic is all they've got. Talented and qualified people with a bent toward performing or the creative arts become actors, singers, dancers, musicians - not mannequins with microphones.

I checked out the golf broadcast last night: Telegenic (if she is telegenic) does not matter because she is unseen. This woman should not be announcing in a top 200 market. Nasal delivery. Poor pronunciation. An accent. Flat inflection. All she did was repeat statistics whispered in her ear-plug. Not an impressive talent or qualification.

 

[imhomerjay]

Through the random chance of genetics, some telegenic people may be "talented and qualified." But that's not why they are hired. The kind of telegenic people who go into broadcasting - like those who go into modeling - know telegenic is all they've got. Talented and qualified people with a bent toward performing or the creative arts become actors, singers, dancers, musicians - not mannequins with microphones.

The great thing about such sweeping generalizations is that they can't be held up to any scrutiny. You've seen it, ergo it must be the law of the universe. While stereotypes exist for a reason--because there are people who have those traits--the real world is far more complex than pithy dismissals of whole categories of people.

I happen to be a talented, qualified, obscenely hard-working individual in my field. I also happen to be remarkably unattractive in a business in which beauty sells. Of course there are 'prettier' people who will advance beyond me without the same level of work. Likewise, there are prettier people who will advance because they also are talented, qualified and hard-working and who happen to be attractive. Had I hit the genetic jackpot, I too might be one of that later group.

My anecodtal experience and that of people I know is equivalent to yours--in neither case is it valid, statistical, scientific data. They are merely individual cases judged by subjective standards.

 

[radiofriend1]

Political correctness rears it's head.

has (and never should have) anything 2 do w/p.c.----it should ALWAYS be about best qualified, most dedicated, hardest working.............period.

 

[fred flintstone]

The great thing about such sweeping generalizations is that they can't be held up to any scrutiny. You've seen it, ergo it must be the law of the universe. While stereotypes exist for a reason--because there are people who have those traits--the real world is far more complex than pithy dismissals of whole categories of people.

I happen to be a talented, qualified, obscenely hard-working individual in my field. I also happen to be remarkably unattractive in a business in which beauty sells. Of course there are 'prettier' people who will advance beyond me without the same level of work. Likewise, there are prettier people who will advance because they also are talented, qualified and hard-working and who happen to be attractive. Had I hit the genetic jackpot, I too might be one of that later group.

My anecodtal experience and that of people I know is equivalent to yours--in neither case is it valid, statistical, scientific data. They are merely individual cases judged by subjective standards.

Homer, I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. Maybe both at the same time.
In any case, you have way too much confidence in statistics and possibly apply it far too broadly.
In any case, anecdotes are data. Maybe more accurately, it's data when it supports your conclusion and anecdotal when it does not. (Pardon me for using "data" incorrectly as a singular noun.)

 

[imhomerjay]

The great thing about such sweeping generalizations is that they can't be held up to any scrutiny. You've seen it, ergo it must be the law of the universe. While stereotypes exist for a reason--because there are people who have those traits--the real world is far more complex than pithy dismissals of whole categories of people.

I happen to be a talented, qualified, obscenely hard-working individual in my field. I also happen to be remarkably unattractive in a business in which beauty sells. Of course there are 'prettier' people who will advance beyond me without the same level of work. Likewise, there are prettier people who will advance because they also are talented, qualified and hard-working and who happen to be attractive. Had I hit the genetic jackpot, I too might be one of that later group.

My anecodtal experience and that of people I know is equivalent to yours--in neither case is it valid, statistical, scientific data. They are merely individual cases judged by subjective standards.

Homer, I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. Maybe both at the same time.
In any case, you have way too much confidence in statistics and possibly apply it far too broadly.
In any case, anecdotes are data. Maybe more accurately, it's data when it supports your conclusion and anecdotal when it does not. (Pardon me for using "data" incorrectly as a singular noun.)

I'm disagreeing with your broad statements. I'm saying applying your--or my, or anyone's--anecodatal experience broadly is not valid.

I don't have faith in statistics as a general rule--without seeing a full accounting of where data came from, how large a study/sample was in use, etc. True, anecdotes are data, but they're not scientifically valid.

 

[fred flintstone]

I don't have faith in statistics as a general rule--without seeing a full accounting of where data came from, how large a study/sample was in use, etc. True, anecdotes are data, but they're not scientifically valid.

I think you confuse "random" with "scientific." Random samples are only one aspect of research methodology.

You have just "invalidated" ....

All of anthropology.
Almost all of history.
Most of sociology.
Much of psychology.
And a good chunk of political science.

It sounds like you make no room for any qualitative methods or for research using non-parametric samples.