It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
The video game industry isn't really a "breaking news" kind of industry because more often than not the corporations decide when they want something to be news. Half the leaks ("leaks") out there are part of a marketing strategy.
yeah I'm skeptical about what the Giant Bomb News Beat is going to be but Jeff seems very aware of the problems with video game news so he probably has some ideas
I think what a news editor could potentially do is cover the smaller stuff that doesn't get press releases, and for the stuff that does get press releases provide some Experienced Analysis of what it could actually mean. the latter is already kind of done on the bombcast, but the job description mentions news delivered through audio podcasts and video so maybe they're planning some kind of more formal Rundown Of What Happened This Week
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
Being a different gender or having a different cultural background is definitely a plus. An actually bullet point to be taken into consideration.
You cannot consider things like this when hiring. It is literally against the law.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law only if you use it as a reason not to hire someone. If not, you literally can't hire anyone without breaking the law because the human mind will consider all factors presented to it, legal or otherwise.
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
Being a different gender or having a different cultural background is definitely a plus. An actually bullet point to be taken into consideration.
You cannot consider things like this when hiring. It is literally against the law.
Personality is built by background. So by considering personality you're literally considering background.
Which would mean any talk show host ever was hired based on discrimination, which is literally against the law.
I'm not an HR specialist, and I don't know where the lines are drawn. I do know that you can't come out and say "You know what we need around here? A Spanish woman" but you can say "We're a personality-driven website, and we need people with views that differ from others on staff."
When that's how you approach the process you may well get a Spanish woman who applies, and she may be a great fit, but you may also get a white guy whose opinions are different from the other staffers. And at that point you compare their resumes and see how they fit with everybody else on staff. Personality is built by background, you're right, but background is built from more than things like gender and nation of origin.
Hell, for GB specifically, diversity could mean something as dumb as "enjoys and knows a lot of Japanese RPGs" because they do currently lack that expertise on staff. And if their eventual potential JRPG expert happens to be a white guy from Ohio then good for that guy for having a good resume and passing the interview process.
how would you even quantify merits for a personality based job
Taking into consideration what qualities your cast already has personality wise and what they're lacking. Then you look at applicants and see not only how well they would mesh with the existing cast, but also see what qualities they would contribute.
And basically who you should hire adds the most while not detracting from how well they'd mesh with the cast.
it is in fact literally against united states federal law to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, genetic history, or veteran status but unfortunately it still happens
it is in fact literally against united states federal law to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, genetic history, or veteran status but unfortunately it still happens
Exactly. It's how a lot of straight white male people get their jobs.
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
Being a different gender or having a different cultural background is definitely a plus. An actually bullet point to be taken into consideration.
You cannot consider things like this when hiring. It is literally against the law.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law only if you use it as a reason not to hire someone. If not, you literally can't hire anyone without breaking the law because the human mind will consider all factors presented to it, legal or otherwise.
Using it as a reason to hire somebody is the same as using it as a reason to not hire everybody else. Just like you cant' say "Females need not apply" you can't say "Must be male".
how would you even quantify merits for a personality based job
Taking into consideration what qualities your cast already has personality wise and what they're lacking. Then you look at applicants and see not only how well they would mesh with the existing cast, but also see what qualities they would contribute.
And basically who you should hire adds the most while not detracting from how well they'd mesh with the cast.
I'm talking about quantification as a counter to what jclast is saying. Bringing the legality stuff seems utterly meaningless when looking for a personality hire, there's no numerical way to assess "the best candidate". Similar to what you're saying
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
Being a different gender or having a different cultural background is definitely a plus. An actually bullet point to be taken into consideration.
You cannot consider things like this when hiring. It is literally against the law.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law only if you use it as a reason not to hire someone. If not, you literally can't hire anyone without breaking the law because the human mind will consider all factors presented to it, legal or otherwise.
Using it as a reason to hire somebody is the same as using it as a reason to not hire everybody else. Just like you cant' say "Females need not apply" you can't say "Must be male".
Call me crazy, but I don't think a male host will be getting Rosie O'Donnell's recently vacated chair on The View. I'll take it as a good sign that the outcome for the GB hire is not quite as etched in stone.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
how would you even quantify merits for a personality based job
Taking into consideration what qualities your cast already has personality wise and what they're lacking. Then you look at applicants and see not only how well they would mesh with the existing cast, but also see what qualities they would contribute.
And basically who you should hire adds the most while not detracting from how well they'd mesh with the cast.
I'm talking about quantification as a counter to what jclast is saying. Bringing the legality stuff seems utterly meaningless when looking for a personality hire, there's no numerical way to assess "the best candidate". Similar to what you're saying
Jeff said they're considering adding screen tests to the interview process. Alternatively, I'd set up a group interview with the regular podcast crew and see how they do with a topic. They still have to have a relevant resume to get there, but I can't imagine that when Jeff interviews somebody he's throwing out the bog-standard "Tell me about a time that you had to make a difficult choice at work." You're applying with a demo video, examples of writing, things that show you would fit in with the culture of the place you're applying to work. After that, just like auditioning for a movie, it's up to the person in charge's preference and you have to trust that Jeff isn't going to see 2 people and say "Man, girls suck - I wanna hire that guy because we can bond over how we've both got weiners!"
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
Being a different gender or having a different cultural background is definitely a plus. An actually bullet point to be taken into consideration.
You cannot consider things like this when hiring. It is literally against the law.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law only if you use it as a reason not to hire someone. If not, you literally can't hire anyone without breaking the law because the human mind will consider all factors presented to it, legal or otherwise.
Using it as a reason to hire somebody is the same as using it as a reason to not hire everybody else. Just like you cant' say "Females need not apply" you can't say "Must be male".
....Yes, we are aware a white guy might be qualified.
However, Giant Bomb is also a site which has been pretty friendly to minority views on gaming but it's additionally one of the only major gaming sites currently staffed entirely by white guys. I don't understand what's so controversial about saying "boy it sure would be nice if they got someone who wasn't a white dude in for this hire" especially since none of us are going to be doing the hiring.
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
Being a different gender or having a different cultural background is definitely a plus. An actually bullet point to be taken into consideration.
You cannot consider things like this when hiring. It is literally against the law.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law only if you use it as a reason not to hire someone. If not, you literally can't hire anyone without breaking the law because the human mind will consider all factors presented to it, legal or otherwise.
Using it as a reason to hire somebody is the same as using it as a reason to not hire everybody else. Just like you cant' say "Females need not apply" you can't say "Must be male".
1) It literally isn't the same.
2) Don't say anything.
1) You're free to disagree.
2) You don't get to dictate what I can and can't respond to.
Protected classes worth both ways. You can't say "I hired her because she's a woman" without also saying "I disqualified all those other applicants because they're men."
I still struggle with the inevitable response to "I hope they diversify with their next hire" always being "but what if straight white males don't get a fair chance?"
It's really not. CBS Interactive is an equal opportunity employer. They have to follow the laws when it comes to non-discrimination. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
Being a different gender or having a different cultural background is definitely a plus. An actually bullet point to be taken into consideration.
You cannot consider things like this when hiring. It is literally against the law.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law only if you use it as a reason not to hire someone. If not, you literally can't hire anyone without breaking the law because the human mind will consider all factors presented to it, legal or otherwise.
Using it as a reason to hire somebody is the same as using it as a reason to not hire everybody else. Just like you cant' say "Females need not apply" you can't say "Must be male".
1) It literally isn't the same.
2) Don't say anything.
1) You're free to disagree.
2) You don't get to dictate what I can and can't respond to.
Protected classes worth both ways. You can't say "I hired her because she's a woman" without also saying "I disqualified all those other applicants because they're men."
businesses definitely can and will give preference to genders when hiring. if hooters wants to hire a waitress then then it will be a woman. at my job you would see the opposite since young educated men are rarer and frequently needed in education. in fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the reasons why I was hired since there are a total of two men under 50 at the school.
I don't think samantha kalman is looking for a job at giant bomb and she also does not really have a history of writing video game news
Well, she's pretty tight in the indie space so she brings a lot of connections, has a good repertoire with the current crew, and also has media experience from her time with Unity/promoting her game.
If she was interested, which from talking to her isn't so much a "I don't want to do this" as a "I want to do game development more", she's qualified.
I still struggle with the inevitable response to "I hope they diversify with their next hire" always being "but what if straight white males don't get a fair chance?"
I don't care about the gender or sexual orientation of their eventual next hire. I care about putting those things front and center when considering applicants.
Protected classes worth both ways. You can't say "I hired her because she's a woman" without also saying "I disqualified all those other applicants because they're men."
How do you deal with this? By not saying anything.
I still struggle with the inevitable response to "I hope they diversify with their next hire" always being "but what if straight white males don't get a fair chance?"
I don't care about the gender or sexual orientation of their eventual next hire. I care about putting those things front and center when considering applicants.
None of us are going to be involved in choosing the applicants, so....
I still struggle with the inevitable response to "I hope they diversify with their next hire" always being "but what if straight white males don't get a fair chance?"
I don't care about the gender or sexual orientation of their eventual next hire. I care about putting those things front and center when considering applicants.
None of us are going to be involved in choosing the applicants, so....
I still struggle with the inevitable response to "I hope they diversify with their next hire" always being "but what if straight white males don't get a fair chance?"
I don't care about the gender or sexual orientation of their eventual next hire. I care about putting those things front and center when considering applicants.
None of us are going to be involved in choosing the applicants, so....
Then you're setting yourself up for disappointment if what you really want to see is something that they can't legally consider.
I still struggle with the inevitable response to "I hope they diversify with their next hire" always being "but what if straight white males don't get a fair chance?"
I don't care about the gender or sexual orientation of their eventual next hire. I care about putting those things front and center when considering applicants.
None of us are going to be involved in choosing the applicants, so....
Then you're setting yourself up for disappointment if what you really want to see is something that they can't legally consider.
Yes, I know. It sure is disappointing that they legally can't hire any of the qualified women we've said they should hire. It'd be discrimination if they did.
I hope they don't decide to do it. It'd suck if Jeff went to jail for illegally hiring someone who's not a straight white guy.
I still struggle with the inevitable response to "I hope they diversify with their next hire" always being "but what if straight white males don't get a fair chance?"
I don't care about the gender or sexual orientation of their eventual next hire. I care about putting those things front and center when considering applicants.
None of us are going to be involved in choosing the applicants, so....
Then you're setting yourself up for disappointment if what you really want to see is something that they can't legally consider.
Yes, I know. It sure is disappointing that they legally can't hire any of the qualified women we've said they should hire. It'd be discrimination if they did.
What? They can, and should, hire qualified women if they also are the best-qualified of the entire pool of applicants. Saying "Hey, <person> would be a cool addition to the team" is markedly different than saying "Hey, GB desperately needs to hire a woman."
I appreciate the sentiment behind wanting giant bomb to hire women but I think it's basically too late, not just on this site but anywhere that will pay people to write or talk about video games full time
the existing talent pool with experience in those kinds of publications is not diverse to begin with and good luck finding new people to break in
the best you're likely to get if you want to write about video games is a supplemental income from patreon, and if you would like to support people like cara ellison I would suggest kicking in a few bucks there
I still struggle with the inevitable response to "I hope they diversify with their next hire" always being "but what if straight white males don't get a fair chance?"
I don't care about the gender or sexual orientation of their eventual next hire. I care about putting those things front and center when considering applicants.
None of us are going to be involved in choosing the applicants, so....
Then you're setting yourself up for disappointment if what you really want to see is something that they can't legally consider.
Yes, I know. It sure is disappointing that they legally can't hire any of the qualified women we've said they should hire. It'd be discrimination if they did.
What? They can, and should, hire qualified women if they also are the best-qualified of the entire pool of applicants. Saying "Hey, <person> would be a cool addition to the team" is markedly different than saying "Hey, GB desperately needs to hire a woman."
Posts
If you kick first, you can move backwards
Maybe you didn't read that first post of mine.
This person wouldn't be hired because they're a woman, they'd be hired because their personality isn't a carbon copy of Brad, while the other applicant's was.
Unless you're telling me that hiring based on personality on a job that requires being on camera quite regularly is discrimination.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
yeah I'm skeptical about what the Giant Bomb News Beat is going to be but Jeff seems very aware of the problems with video game news so he probably has some ideas
I think what a news editor could potentially do is cover the smaller stuff that doesn't get press releases, and for the stuff that does get press releases provide some Experienced Analysis of what it could actually mean. the latter is already kind of done on the bombcast, but the job description mentions news delivered through audio podcasts and video so maybe they're planning some kind of more formal Rundown Of What Happened This Week
You also said this: You cannot consider things like this when hiring. It is literally against the law.
Personality is built by background. So by considering personality you're literally considering background.
Which would mean any talk show host ever was hired based on discrimination, which is literally against the law.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law only if you use it as a reason not to hire someone. If not, you literally can't hire anyone without breaking the law because the human mind will consider all factors presented to it, legal or otherwise.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
I'm not an HR specialist, and I don't know where the lines are drawn. I do know that you can't come out and say "You know what we need around here? A Spanish woman" but you can say "We're a personality-driven website, and we need people with views that differ from others on staff."
When that's how you approach the process you may well get a Spanish woman who applies, and she may be a great fit, but you may also get a white guy whose opinions are different from the other staffers. And at that point you compare their resumes and see how they fit with everybody else on staff. Personality is built by background, you're right, but background is built from more than things like gender and nation of origin.
Hell, for GB specifically, diversity could mean something as dumb as "enjoys and knows a lot of Japanese RPGs" because they do currently lack that expertise on staff. And if their eventual potential JRPG expert happens to be a white guy from Ohio then good for that guy for having a good resume and passing the interview process.
Taking into consideration what qualities your cast already has personality wise and what they're lacking. Then you look at applicants and see not only how well they would mesh with the existing cast, but also see what qualities they would contribute.
And basically who you should hire adds the most while not detracting from how well they'd mesh with the cast.
Exactly. It's how a lot of straight white male people get their jobs.
Using it as a reason to hire somebody is the same as using it as a reason to not hire everybody else. Just like you cant' say "Females need not apply" you can't say "Must be male".
I'm talking about quantification as a counter to what jclast is saying. Bringing the legality stuff seems utterly meaningless when looking for a personality hire, there's no numerical way to assess "the best candidate". Similar to what you're saying
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
1) It literally isn't the same.
2) Don't say anything.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Jeff said they're considering adding screen tests to the interview process. Alternatively, I'd set up a group interview with the regular podcast crew and see how they do with a topic. They still have to have a relevant resume to get there, but I can't imagine that when Jeff interviews somebody he's throwing out the bog-standard "Tell me about a time that you had to make a difficult choice at work." You're applying with a demo video, examples of writing, things that show you would fit in with the culture of the place you're applying to work. After that, just like auditioning for a movie, it's up to the person in charge's preference and you have to trust that Jeff isn't going to see 2 people and say "Man, girls suck - I wanna hire that guy because we can bond over how we've both got weiners!"
However, Giant Bomb is also a site which has been pretty friendly to minority views on gaming but it's additionally one of the only major gaming sites currently staffed entirely by white guys. I don't understand what's so controversial about saying "boy it sure would be nice if they got someone who wasn't a white dude in for this hire" especially since none of us are going to be doing the hiring.
1) You're free to disagree.
2) You don't get to dictate what I can and can't respond to.
Protected classes worth both ways. You can't say "I hired her because she's a woman" without also saying "I disqualified all those other applicants because they're men."
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Don't say anything.
She has explicitly told Brad she would love to work at Giant Bomb
but she has a game to finish
Well, she's pretty tight in the indie space so she brings a lot of connections, has a good repertoire with the current crew, and also has media experience from her time with Unity/promoting her game.
If she was interested, which from talking to her isn't so much a "I don't want to do this" as a "I want to do game development more", she's qualified.
I don't care about the gender or sexual orientation of their eventual next hire. I care about putting those things front and center when considering applicants.
He is answering the points. He's saying to not say anything as the solution. Not to you, but in the hypothetical.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
How do you deal with this? By not saying anything.
...so we should have no interest in fairness?
Then you're setting yourself up for disappointment if what you really want to see is something that they can't legally consider.
Yes, I know. It sure is disappointing that they legally can't hire any of the qualified women we've said they should hire. It'd be discrimination if they did.
I hope they don't decide to do it. It'd suck if Jeff went to jail for illegally hiring someone who's not a straight white guy.
What? They can, and should, hire qualified women if they also are the best-qualified of the entire pool of applicants. Saying "Hey, <person> would be a cool addition to the team" is markedly different than saying "Hey, GB desperately needs to hire a woman."
the existing talent pool with experience in those kinds of publications is not diverse to begin with and good luck finding new people to break in
the best you're likely to get if you want to write about video games is a supplemental income from patreon, and if you would like to support people like cara ellison I would suggest kicking in a few bucks there
Not really.