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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
"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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
>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
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.
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.
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.
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.