I got told last week I didn't make the cut for an editor position at a new outpost.
They claim that I didn't have quite the specific experience they wanted in some ways. Yeah, it's been several years since I've managed one or more staff writers.
But I have.
The initial interview was called a Google Phone screen. I took that as meaning a telephone interview.
I was surprised to see a link, that was supposed to be video. I pleaded tech difficulties (true, as my office computer doesn't have a video camera built in the monitor, and my Microslob-backbone laptop doesn't want to fire up its video half the time, and don't get me started on the Mac laptop I bought on eBay), and they interviewed me anyway.
Made the cut. They sent me a writing and editing test. Did fine.
Then, second interview, which was video and I was ready.
Maybe the lighting at home was too diminished for them. Maybe they thought that was part of me trying to mellow out being older, too, which might have surprised them. Nothing I can prove, but ....
That said, I'd forgotten about CI's "pay to play" angle and other things, until Googling after the first interview. How they're doing in places like Plano, where Local Profile may be better in some ways? I don't know? How either one of those does vs "traditional" media when they don't cover crime, or in-depth politics, I don't know.
There's also the issue of no opinion items. No editorials, no op-eds, etc. I didn't realize that; I had forgotten the pay-to-play, or buy a bigger ad, get a bigger story, angle, but teh Google refreshed me.
But, I didn't know at all about the no opinion angle.
Anyway, per the above? Age discrimination is still the most insidious major version of employment discrimination in the US, and abroad in the modern world, too. It may not be the worst, as in, versus racial discrimination for sure, but it's the most insidious.
No comments:
Post a Comment