Rachel Nichols canceled

[Roy H.]

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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent. 

[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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

[gouki88]

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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

[Quetzalcoatl]

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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

ESPN is a private company and can put people on the air however they want.  If ESPN feels like having a lack of representation is hurting their brand, then they have every right to address that.  Rachel Nichols then attacked ESPN and ESPN responded in the way they felt appropriate.  ESPN has a horrible record promoting black employees.  She could have moved past this but she kept attacking ESPN in private.

[Kiorrik]

.edit: i mistook an identity :]

[Donoghus]

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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what is being said here but Maria Taylor isn't exactly a slouch, either.  She's a solid reporter who has some pretty impressive credentials herself and NBC was more than happy to snap her up right away and give her an Olympic hosting job which is a pretty prestigious gig.  She's busted her tail too.

[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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what is being said here but Maria Taylor isn't exactly a slouch, either.  She's a solid reporter who has some pretty impressive credentials herself and NBC was more than happy to snap her up right away and give her an Olympic hosting job which is a pretty prestigious gig.  She's busted her tail too.

See? This is my point, once again.

As soon as we ditch the conversation about race, it's really not all that clear cut anymore.

That's why going to race first, is stupid. Cuz once again, as a whitey, if we don't tie this arguement, we deserve to lose it for some very, very obvious reasons.

[Roy H.]

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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

ESPN is a private company and can put people on the air however they want.  If ESPN feels like having a lack of representation is hurting their brand, then they have every right to address that.  Rachel Nichols then attacked ESPN and ESPN responded in the way they felt appropriate.  ESPN has a horrible record promoting black employees.  She could have moved past this but she kept attacking ESPN in private.

So, if ESPN thinks they're losing their white audience and decides to fire black employees and promote white broadcasters, that's legal? 

[gouki88]

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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what is being said here but Maria Taylor isn't exactly a slouch, either.  She's a solid reporter who has some pretty impressive credentials herself and NBC was more than happy to snap her up right away and give her an Olympic hosting job which is a pretty prestigious gig.  She's busted her tail too.

See? This is my point, once again.

As soon as we ditch the conversation about race, it's really not all that clear cut anymore.

That's why going to race first, is stupid. Cuz once again, as a whitey, if we don't tie this arguement, we deserve to lose it for some very, very obvious reasons.

But it isn't a tie ballgame. Maria Taylor is no slouch at all. She's one of the more renowned up and coming journalists in the game.

But she is not on the same level as the premier female voice in basketball journalism who was contracted for that role.

[Roy H.]

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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what is being said here but Maria Taylor isn't exactly a slouch, either.  She's a solid reporter who has some pretty impressive credentials herself and NBC was more than happy to snap her up right away and give her an Olympic hosting job which is a pretty prestigious gig.  She's busted her tail too.

See? This is my point, once again.

As soon as we ditch the conversation about race, it's really not all that clear cut anymore.

That's why going to race first, is stupid. Cuz once again, as a whitey, if we don't tie this arguement, we deserve to lose it for some very, very obvious reasons.

What are those reasons?

[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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what is being said here but Maria Taylor isn't exactly a slouch, either.  She's a solid reporter who has some pretty impressive credentials herself and NBC was more than happy to snap her up right away and give her an Olympic hosting job which is a pretty prestigious gig.  She's busted her tail too.

See? This is my point, once again.

As soon as we ditch the conversation about race, it's really not all that clear cut anymore.

That's why going to race first, is stupid. Cuz once again, as a whitey, if we don't tie this arguement, we deserve to lose it for some very, very obvious reasons.

What are those reasons?

Stop and think about what you're asking.

It's quite obviously a tie. But if you'd HAVE to choose between white and black. You'd choose white, in today's society? Really?

Yeah I'd choose black. Unless you don't believe in systemic racism at all, you would too?

But again, the point I'm making is - take, the race, out of the question. For one second. Let's say this person was as white as they come. Is it still an issue now?

[nickagneta]

I don't have a horse in this, but when it comes to being on the job, if you start saying that other people at your job are only getting hired because of their race, regardless of that race, and your employer hears of it, it's not going to end well for you.

[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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what is being said here but Maria Taylor isn't exactly a slouch, either.  She's a solid reporter who has some pretty impressive credentials herself and NBC was more than happy to snap her up right away and give her an Olympic hosting job which is a pretty prestigious gig.  She's busted her tail too.

See? This is my point, once again.

As soon as we ditch the conversation about race, it's really not all that clear cut anymore.

That's why going to race first, is stupid. Cuz once again, as a whitey, if we don't tie this arguement, we deserve to lose it for some very, very obvious reasons.

But it isn't a tie ballgame. Maria Taylor is no slouch at all. She's one of the more renowned up and coming journalists in the game.

But she is not on the same level as the premier female voice in basketball journalism who was contracted for that role.

Being "the premier female voice". Let's break that down.

First, female doesn't matter because we're comparing to another female caster.

Second, how'd they get to be the premier female voice? Because this role would definitely get you there. It's a combination of platform and tenure, right? And skill, and maybe connections. I've yet to hear a single argument of skill in Rachel's favour. Most responses in this topic have been about her not being a great reporter. She has connections though, so fair enough.

Third, where would that premier voice be best put to use? At the highest platform? Or trying to raise a lower level show up to that level? I'd argue the second would be more fruitful. And then you can use her former role to raise another female voice to power.

I don't know. I think new blood isn't a bad thing.

And I also think immediately throwing shade and pulling a race card when you get replaced is lazy.

.edit: ps, in doing this, she also sabotaged the heck outta Maria Taylor. Anything she's gonna get now will be blemished by "she got that due to her race"

[Roy H.]

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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what is being said here but Maria Taylor isn't exactly a slouch, either.  She's a solid reporter who has some pretty impressive credentials herself and NBC was more than happy to snap her up right away and give her an Olympic hosting job which is a pretty prestigious gig.  She's busted her tail too.

See? This is my point, once again.

As soon as we ditch the conversation about race, it's really not all that clear cut anymore.

That's why going to race first, is stupid. Cuz once again, as a whitey, if we don't tie this arguement, we deserve to lose it for some very, very obvious reasons.

What are those reasons?

Stop and think about what you're asking.

It's quite obviously a tie. But if you'd HAVE to choose between white and black. You'd choose white, in today's society? Really?

Yeah I'd choose black. Unless you don't believe in systemic racism at all, you would too?

But again, the point I'm making is - take, the race, out of the question. For one second. Let's say this person was as white as they come. Is it still an issue now?

There's no such thing as a true tie.  If there was, I'd come up with a better way than separating two candidates than by race.

And what's it look like if race is taken out of the issue?  Nichols complains because a younger, more attractive woman is getting handed her position despite her contract guaranteeing her that position?  In that case, I suspect she'd be garnering sympathy, rather than scorn.

[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.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Nichols was replaced by a young, inexperienced black host during the height of BLM, when ESPN was openly catering its coverage toward racial justice?  Despite Nichols being contractually promised hosting duties?

This was all about skin color.  Hiring / firing / promoting / demoting based upon race should be unconstitutional, and hopefully the current Supreme Court will overturn prior racist precedent.

You're doing it again.

Just digging in.

I don't know either of these people, but so far I only know that people here think;

 - Rachel isn't as knowledgeable about basketball
 - Rachel isn't considered a great reporter
 - Rachel likes pushing players that talk to her
 - Rachel got replaced
 - Rachel pulled a race card

I don't know anything about the other person, and I haven't seen a single positive word about her other than "she has been doing this for a long time", which, well, experience is something anyone can get.

So, knowing NOTHING else about this situation, I'm still 100% sceptical about that race card. And the more people say "it's about race" instead of "she's better because X", the less I'll believe it.

The contractual obligation ESPN had to give Nichols hosting duties? Maria Taylor was certainly less qualified than the most powerful female voice in sports.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what is being said here but Maria Taylor isn't exactly a slouch, either.  She's a solid reporter who has some pretty impressive credentials herself and NBC was more than happy to snap her up right away and give her an Olympic hosting job which is a pretty prestigious gig.  She's busted her tail too.

See? This is my point, once again.

As soon as we ditch the conversation about race, it's really not all that clear cut anymore.

That's why going to race first, is stupid. Cuz once again, as a whitey, if we don't tie this arguement, we deserve to lose it for some very, very obvious reasons.

What are those reasons?

Stop and think about what you're asking.

It's quite obviously a tie. But if you'd HAVE to choose between white and black. You'd choose white, in today's society? Really?

Yeah I'd choose black. Unless you don't believe in systemic racism at all, you would too?

But again, the point I'm making is - take, the race, out of the question. For one second. Let's say this person was as white as they come. Is it still an issue now?

There's no such thing as a true tie.  If there was, I'd come up with a better way than separating two candidates than by race.

And what's it look like if race is taken out of the issue?  Nichols complains because a younger, more attractive woman is getting handed her position despite her contract guaranteeing her that position?  In that case, I suspect she'd be garnering sympathy, rather than scorn.

I realise there's no such thing as a true tie.

I'm just arguing we make this decision the same way we do with basketball players.

Look at the numbers. Not the skin colour.