BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 13,202
Talent meaning ex-pro, experience meaning top flight and suitability meaning possession of a dick?talent, experience and suitability
Talent meaning ex-pro, experience meaning top flight and suitability meaning possession of a dick?talent, experience and suitability
I was talking more generally.Talent meaning ex-pro, experience meaning top flight and suitability meaning possession of a dick?
Well I think you're incorrect generally and specifically.I was talking more generally.
Except there seems to be a disproportionate number of poor pundits who are white, male and middle aged. As with all things, for a woman to break through the glass ceiling, she generally has to be better than her male counterparts.I'll say again that I don't like his language which is way over the top. But if you don't think there's a lot of box-ticking in football punditry, and in many, perhaps most, organisations of any size, then we'll have to politely disagree. I'm a bit old-fashioned in that I thank talent, experience and suitability should be the key drivers for selection, even though I do think there's a case for temporary positive discrimination in some areas.
That's very obviously untrue. Or at best, a.meaningless statement because 'deserve' is highly subjective.Well I think you're incorrect generally and specifically.
People are hired because they deserve to be hired.
If you say soThat's very obviously untrue. Or at best, a.meaningless statement because 'deserve' is highly subjective.
There are plenty of terrible pundits who are male and middle aged, agreed. But certainly not exclusively white.Except there seems to be a disproportionate number of poor pundits who are white, male and middle aged.
I think that used to be the case in many areas. Maybe it's still the case now in some areas. Football punditry isn't a good example IMO.As with all things, for a woman to break through the glass ceiling, she generally has to be better than her male counterparts.
It's not because I say so. It's because a context-free, sweeping statement like "People are hired because they deserve to be hired" is self-evidently unsustainable.If you say so
If you say soIt's not because I say so. It's because a context-free, sweeping statement like "People are hired because they deserve to be hired" is self-evidently unsustainable.
Absolute nonsense. There’s a minuscule number of female pundits and commentators in football compared to men. Even if everyone one of them is due to box ticking it’s hardly “a lot.“I'll say again that I don't like his language which is way over the top. But if you don't think there's a lot of box-ticking in football punditry, and in many, perhaps most, organisations of any size, then we'll have to politely disagree. I'm a bit old-fashioned in that I thank talent, experience and suitability should be the key drivers for selection, even though I do think there's a case for temporary positive discrimination in some areas.
Not bad. Liew's a bit hit and miss for me but he does touch on something worrying there.I though this was a good article. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ints-to-sad-malaise-among-footballs-lost-boys
Quite.No there isn't.
It's complete codswallop.
But then hes got plenty of publicity for his new podcastBarton seems to want to make himself totally unemployable and will then blame everyone else.
I can’t see that lasting long.But then hes got plenty of publicity for his new podcast
You say that, but inexplicably Katie Price still has a career in the media. There is a bum for every seat, whether you like/agree with them or not..I can’t see that lasting long.