Rachel Nichols canceled

[JSD]

https://twitter.com/rachel__nichols/status/1430620960156266498?s=21

[Roy H.]

You can never be woke enough.  The lesson:  stay silent and move aside while less qualified people take your job, or it may be the last time you work in the industry.  Value is judged by your race and/or the concentration of melanin in your skin.

[BruceBanner18]

Especially when you're a woman sportscaster in your late 40's. She was about to expire regardless

[gouki88]

That image she posted in the Tweet is genuinely terrifying. Crazy eyes.

I can't say I'll really miss her. Never particularly liked her as a journalist, and seeing ESPN cannibalise itself is funny. I doubt ESPN actually care about what she said, but rather that she was willing to throw them under the bus.

A show that gave Kendrick Perkins that much airtime as an "analyst" is one I am happy to see go.

[CelticD]

You can never be woke enough.  The lesson:  stay silent and move aside while less qualified people take your job, or it may be the last time you work in the industry.  Value is judged by your race and/or the concentration of melanin in your skin.

This take seems a bit dramatic. It's not like Maria Taylor was going to be the new host of the Jump.

[Ogaju]

what happened to her this time?

[Kiorrik]

I'ma stand by my original take on this.

Rachel Nichols upset someone got a role because of her race?

Girl, that's literally how you got to where you are today. Because your race never got in the way.

You finally got Uno-Reversed.

Take the L.

She did a dumb thing.

Instead of arguing about why she was better for the job, she instantly went to "but she's black!"

It's stupid, because that's literally the one argument you'll lose. Yes. She's black. If both of you were equal, in all regards, and the only difference was the colour of the skin, THAT is the one, where she'd WIN right now. Because diversity is a good thing. So you're not winning a "black vs white" debate because, well, you lose.

Fight it on EVERY other reason though. You're BETTER at this, her CEILING isn't as high, not enough EXPERIENCE, etc etc etc. But seriously. Don't bring up that argument because, well, that's the ONE you'll lose.

Imagine being the other side in this scenario, and for once in your life, the colour of your skin is the reason you get hired, instead of the reason you don't get hired.

And I do mean that; try imagining it. From all sides. Because even on the flipside, there's definite pros and cons to this whole thing. Being hired "for diversity" sucks, because it implies you're somehow less worthy. Even when you are, or if you do a better job. And certain people will hate you for it.

Not a great start.

[gouki88]

I'ma stand by my original take on this.

Rachel Nichols upset someone got a role because of her race?

Girl, that's literally how you got to where you are today. Because your race never got in the way.

You finally got Uno-Reversed.

Take the L.

She did a dumb thing.

Instead of arguing about why she was better for the job, she instantly went to "but she's black!"

Imagine being the other side in this scenario, and for once in your life, the colour of your skin is the reason you get hired, instead of the reason you don't get hired.

And I do mean that; try imagining it. From all sides. Because even on the flipside, there's definite pros and cons to this whole thing. Being hired "for diversity" sucks, because it implies you're somehow less worthy. Even when you are, or if you do a better job. And certain people will hate you for it.

Not a great start.

I think that vastly oversimplifies things given she's a woman in sports journalism whose career began in the 90s. She was a true trail-blazer, and definitely did not get to where she is today because she's white.

[Kiorrik]

I'ma stand by my original take on this.

Rachel Nichols upset someone got a role because of her race?

Girl, that's literally how you got to where you are today. Because your race never got in the way.

You finally got Uno-Reversed.

Take the L.

She did a dumb thing.

Instead of arguing about why she was better for the job, she instantly went to "but she's black!"

Imagine being the other side in this scenario, and for once in your life, the colour of your skin is the reason you get hired, instead of the reason you don't get hired.

And I do mean that; try imagining it. From all sides. Because even on the flipside, there's definite pros and cons to this whole thing. Being hired "for diversity" sucks, because it implies you're somehow less worthy. Even when you are, or if you do a better job. And certain people will hate you for it.

Not a great start.

I think that vastly oversimplifies things given she's a woman in sports journalism whose career began in the 90s. She was a true trail-blazer, and definitely did not get to where she is today because she's white.

Sorry - was editing my post to add a LIL more nuance.

My point isn't that she got there because she's white. It's that skin colour isn't the point she should be arguing with.

.edit: sorry, lotta editting - the other point is, yes, that she got there because she wasn't black. because i believe there's a REAL high chance, if she were black, she wouldn't have gotten where she was now.

[PhoSita]

Seems like an extreme response to what she said, but she tarnished her brand and by extension ESPN.  These days it doesn't take much for a media company to feel like they have a good enough reason to get rid of you.

I never particularly cared for Rachel Nichols, though.  She always seemed to be more of a shill for whichever star players were willing to give her access than she was a reporter of any kind. 

[Donoghus]

ESPN really couldn't trot her back out on TV on a regular basis after what happened.  The damage was done.  It would've overshadowed any really journalistic thing she was trying to accomplish. 

[Kiorrik]

Made 2 bullet point lists of everything said in this topic so far.

1 list of all the reasons Rachel should stay.

1 list of all the reasons she should go.


STAY:
 - she's a woman in sports journalism whose career began in the 90s (tenure?)
 - She was a true trail-blazer (same as above)

GO:
 - Never particularly liked her as a journalist
 - she was willing to throw them (ESPN) under the bus
 - She always seemed to be more of a shill for whichever star players were willing to give her access than she was a reporter of any kind.

I'm not listing the skin colour ones because those are rubbish, right? Or DO we care about skin colour? In that case, does the colour of Rachel's skin put her in column A or B?

So, tenure is why she should stay?

So far, it's not looking rosey.

Again, my point remains the same; if you want to argue someone got hired because of the colour of their skin, at least bring points to the table that argue for/against that. Don't just bring more of the same rhetoric but from the other perspective.

[Celtics2021]

ESPN really couldn't trot her back out on TV on a regular basis after what happened.  The damage was done.  It would've overshadowed any really journalistic thing she was trying to accomplish.

Pretty much this.  Players weren't going to want to go on her show for interviews after that happened, not this year anyway.  She had that awkward apology session with Perk and whichever other co-host was on that day, and it was obvious then she was done.

[Atzar]

Always felt like Nichols was emblematic of ESPN’s shift from sports coverage and analysis to tabloid-style drama-mongering and sensationalism. 

Perhaps that’s unfair.  I don’t know. 

[Ed Monix]

Seems like an extreme response to what she said, but she tarnished her brand and by extension ESPN.  These days it doesn't take much for a media company to feel like they have a good enough reason to get rid of you.

I never particularly cared for Rachel Nichols, though.  She always seemed to be more of a shill for whichever star players were willing to give her access than she was a reporter of any kind.

I completely agree, it’s especially the case with ESPN because of their subsidiary connection to Disney. It seems imagine is the most important and protected aspect of Disney’s corporate policy.

In saying that, Nichols was secretly recorded in a private conversation. If that private opinion is her ‘skeletons’, I’d say most people should be so lucky.

What Nichols said was most probably correct. IMO it was ESPN executives killing two birds with one stone, by replacing Nichols with Taylor they were demonstrating diversity & putting in a much younger, prettier woman.

In saying all that, Nichols never added much to basketball broadcasting. Other then a bubbly, happy personality, she was the furthest thing from insightful or vital.