Ageism is a monster in the room, not just a 600 lb gorilla.
It not only affects women but men too AND religious, sexual preference, trans etc.
All you have to do is just look around..It’s criminal and there’s nothing being done about it.
@G.Talbot, yet now today we read that the well-paid head of NYCHA openly approaches his job with the attitude of no skin off his nose if it doesn't work out, that hey, he'll just retire. I've never been a boss with hire and fire decisions, and never wanted to be (I find it tough enough to be at auditions and have to help make choices as a writer among actors who want a part).
But the NYCHA head's open comments, though he's 69, makes me wonder - it would be illegal "ageism," though civil not criminal still illegal, wouldn't it, for a boss to consider what lower stakes an older person at 60 or so might have in doing everything possible to make everything work. That he or she says they're not actually building a career anymore, and would be ready to just retire if the job doesn't work out. If a worker said flat out no biggie if this doesn't work out, I can always retire, I'd be scared of putting in all the upfront training time in a person with that attitude towards the job!
The news about cyclists ignoring red lights surprises me not at all. I don't know what it will take for the police to start enforcing the law against reckless bikers.
The Paris is closing! I can't believe it.
7
I'm sympathetic to the NY 1 women anchors, but stopped watching the channel years ago when my building (thank heavens) offered a cable provider other than Time-Warner. I cannot express to you how bad that company's service was. A 10 a.m. appointment might mean a 6 p.m. appearance. Service people arrived without basic equipment... But even before then, Jamie Stelter's cutesy shtick with Pat Kiernan irritated the heck out of me.
8
Fascinating and I SUPPORT THESE WOMEN! I've noticed the changes on NY1 and do NOT approve of them! NY1 is about NEWS FOR THE CITY and it's turned into something else under the new management, with constant banter and chatter between Pat Kiernan (whom I like) and the "ladies" over issues that have nothing to do with life in NYC. I don't want or need my NY1 news to provide anything but the FACTS about what's going on in the city - STOP the nonsense and don't think we haven't all noticed! These new people come in and have to make their mark, it's the same old story about BREAKING WHAT ISN'T BROKEN. I hope these ladies win their suit and that NY1 is forced to recognize them as valuable assets and give them the respect and airtime they're entitled to.
11
@ManhattanWilliam . One of the most popular shows that Spectrum cancelled was "The Call" with John Schiumo. I loved that show! These days, I only flip to NY1 to check the weather and time and sometimes the traffic conditions. Inside City Hall with Errol Lewis is just about the only show of any substance still existing on NY1. The "Mornings on One" with Pat Kiernan and co., is execrable! It is exactly the kind of programming that NY1 used to boast it didn't have! "Food that looks like people" comes to mind!
What a difficult situation this is. Some of the decisions of who was dropped by NY1 when Spectrum took over were confounding - yet it's the people who were not let go who are bringing this, while the people who were let go have not sued in any very public way.
The Roma Torre situation is IMHO unique, in that even I as a huge fan of what her considerable insight (call it brilliance) brings to theater criticism makes me find her so special on the theater beat, but it's always felt very jarring when she's sitting at the anchor desk and suddenly the news anchor would say "Here's my review" and give us a valuable opinion piece on a show. But I always hoped she'd get her own theater show, which they seem to have actually tried to do with "Onstage" for a much-too-brief while; I was in bliss while it lasted, with a half-hour with a lot of Roma Torre, with Patrick Pacheco offering pointed history and commentary, and gave to assume it was ratings that led them to things like star-filled pool parties hosted by Frank DiLella.
CONTROVERSY CAVEAT: The "looks" aspect in general is fascinating in all on-air anchors everywhere - I follow Jamie Stelter and Anika Pergament, but (and I've never been a Pat Kiernan or even Jim Acosta myself), they're not "conventionally beautiful" - not in a way that HAD to have helped a few of these plaintiffs over equally-gifted women. IF true and IF "looks" are one part of what first got you the gig over equally gifted women, a tough quandry.
8
This NY1 story is not surprising to anyone who has worked in broadcast news (I have) -- because first and foremost it is an industry still dominated by men and as such, the usual boy's club rules apply.
Namely a disparity in pay, an over emphasis on a female's age and physical attributes, and a so-called 'glass ceiling' that's made of reinforced concrete. Few get to the top tier positions
Everyone of the anchors here have been with NY1 since the very beginning, they are capable, professional and have solid news chops.
Here's wishing them every luck and success.
15
@N. Smith I enjoy watching Roma Torre both when she's reviewing theater and when she's anchoring the news. She is the most polished, professional, well-spoken member of the NY1 on-air team. Her elocution is perfect and her crisp, clear delivery is a pleasure to listen to because you can actually hear every word she says. That cannot be said for many (if not all) of the rest of the NY1 anchors. Most of them gobble and swallow their words; some mumble and mutter and have absolutely no professionalism when it comes to their delivery. If I have to strain to catch what an anchor is saying, it's time to switch to another news channel. Many of them need to polish up their delivery.
NY1 is on the thinnest of thin ice with their age discrimination against women. A LOT of women watch NY1, but that could change (which NY1 doesn't seem to realize!).
Hey, NY1, those ladies are excellent at their jobs! Roma Torre is my particular favorite - and I appreciate seeing a non-Barbie-Doll looking woman delivering the news on TV.
I don't know who NY1 is trying to compete with, but if they were smart, they'd know not to mess with a winning team of reporters & anchors. We don't watch NY1 for glitz; we watch it as a bit of "real" New York.
15
@L - it's got to be about ratings. Even years ago, the Neilsen ratings could tell everyone information about viewer drop-off by half-or for longer shows, when viewers started watching a show and tuned away over the two or three hours. (One critic referred to a really lethargic section of an awards show saying "you could feel the breeze across the country of viewers reaching for their remotes as this segment kept going on and on" and that it was borne out by the ratings drop-off during that half-hour, never to recover.). With NY1 actually being the cable company, they must have incredibly accurate info about how a news half-hour segment starts in terms of viewers, and can likely see how many stay. They know in detail which anchors lose viewers, and remember these are anchors and reporters they did not "purge" when they came on board. Even Pat Kiernan holds viewers because of the banter with the people at the news desk/table with him, and thankfully, they've started adding some men when they saw Pat surrounded only by women just looked weird.
It's the viewers' "fault" if we're reacting this way. Maybe this is hyperbole :) but If they had a Rosh Hashanah segment with my dad teaching his kasha varnishkas recipe and my mom telling Jackie Mason jokes and it held viewers for a whole segment (and in real life, that is really entertaining, even at 98 & 90), they'd try to develop it to a regular spot. It's about what the customers want, not what the owners prefer, sadly.
4
Those women are five of the best journalists on NY1.
I trust the news they deliver and Charter should see them as an asset.
11
@Don, the legal complaint somehow seems to emphasize the anchorperson position as the measure of status, yet isn't that delivering news that's written by all the various people in the newsroom? On NY1, Isn't it the people in the field, which perversely seems to be seen as lesser status (and I don't know why except that's the TV news tradition), who are more likely to be presenting us with their own journalism?
"I trust the news they deliver" - but did they even necessarily have a major hand in shaping that copy on their own?
3
eons ago, after moving to nyc, whenever i turned on my tv, invariably i would choose channel 1. it seemed like such a friendly, inclusive, informative place. later, i discovered msnbc & cnn. today, it saddens me that the channel which helped introduce me to nyc, is as hypocritically sexist as many of the areas it’s reporting upon. the younger female announcers appear like caricatures of their more seasoned sisters. had they been employed by channel 1, female stars of other news channels, e.g., rachel maddow, andrea mitchell, judy woodruff, might have been pushed out by channel 1 or joined the fabulous 5 in their long overdue lawsuit.
9
Someone help me understand this. Full disclosure, my wife is a millennial. My question is, is this 'ageism' or 'sexism'? Were the plaintiffs fine with things as they were when they were younger? If so, the suit is about ageism.
Let's go with that (ageism). I understand the feeling as I am a 41 year old director of software development and nearly every month, there is some new, 20-something developer coming into the company with different ideas, good ideas, new ideas... should I think that my CEO or "the powers that be" should never, ever, ever, allow those brilliant younger folks to have at least the opportunity to nudge me aside? Can I claim ageism then? To me it seems like a simple fact of life. Every year more and more young people are graduating from university and entering the workforce in all capacities, should we (the "old-guard") force them into a holding pattern until WE decide hang it up and "allow" them to fill our vacant roles?
It doesn't make a ton of sense. Again, I understand one should not be kicked out of their jobs solely based on age but sometimes that is simply not the case. Now I'm not a news anchor but I would think that somewhere @ NY1 there are hungry, talented, capable anchors who happen to be younger who may deserve a shot to be on the air. Should they not get it because they're younger? That too seems like 'ageism'. We were all there once ourselves and someone may (or may not have) given us an opportunity to shine.
2
@Deez, it would be ageism if it were happening equally to the men. But in this case (and many other situations especially in media) the men stay in their jobs into their 80s, while the women are kicked out at the first wrinkle.
16
@Deez: Start looking over your shoulder, because in your line of work, by age 45 you will be "too old" and will become less employable with every passing year.
I wonder how you'd feel if your CEO let you go b/c you are no longer "cutting edge" enough? Why shouldn't some of those young and hungry 20-somethings have a crack at YOUR job, after all? THEY are the future!
All this because in America, youth is valued over experience and wisdom.
3
@L I honestly would not mind if it were valid, as in, if the newcomers honest could move the company to another level. Why should the company remain stagnant? I'm not someone who would feel bitter about it at all.
Besides, we all know the game when we first start out in whatever field we're in. We're young, the older folks want to "play it safe" or are not open to new technologies or whatever - we know when we come in that "someday" we will have the jobs of those folks... how could I possibly think that would stop with me? Sure one of the newer folks will have my job and I am fine with that. Can't play blind these days as if I will be be in my role until I "retire" that's just not how the world works. Of course I could try to mold the world to fit my beliefs and feelings but that would simply be a monumental waste of my time. Sorry.
We are behind you and fully support you, NY1 women! I admire your bravery to take on this fight and i have even more respect for you now than I did before. Thank you and we will be watching.
Signed - NYC women over 40
19
The more I read through the complaint, third time now, I actually find it a bit disturbing how clear it is that conventionally beautiful or handsome person-next-door-looking people have an advantage, all talent and resume being equal, in getting hired to begin with. (I flashed while reading the complaint on the very sad-but-true story that Julie Chen at CBS actually felt she had to have her eyes made more "American" - and maybe even sadder in a way for society that it actually did change her on-air career for the better.)
4
I remember going to the Paris Theater. It is beautiful, intimate -- different from the enormous, ornate Flatbush Avenue movie palaces I was used to as a kid. But it's true, I've been to only two movies in the last two years, and before that the last one I saw was the final Harry Potter film.
If theaters have to rely on the likes of me for revenue, no wonder they're closing. The Paris is exceptionally lovely, and its demise is sad.
4
Growing up, the small but so friendly and well-kept Trump Cinema (it was right between Luna Park where we lived and Trump Village in the Trump Shopping Center, which now sound like a sci-fi film joke but were really lovely) was my favorite place to see a movie, then we'd go to the Jade Pagoda next door to eat there or bring home. When I first moved to Manhattan, the Sutton was across the street and was as much comfort as I ever could have wanted, and I could see the length of the ticket line from my window.
But I can see from my charge records that it turns out I really almost entirely stopped going to the movie theaters right after the Aurora Colorado violence at the "Batman" showing; I really became aware that any movie I really wanted to see had somehow started to become available for some viewing 2-3 months after it opens, and for comedies, it usually was easy to get a small group to watch on a big TV screen and make a party of it. I never focused on why I pretty much stopped seeing movies in theaters, but the timing suggests that Aurora incident must have had some effect.
3
Oh well, Freddie. Movie theaters. You can get gunned down, or you can pick up bedbugs. I admit I think more about the bedbugs than about armed lunatics, but in either case it's nicer to be home anyway.
4
@B. - "in either case it's nicer to be home anyway" - And yet I feel different in a Broadway house. I guess it's because I feel the experience of seeing a movie doesn't suffer too greatly if at all by seeing it at home. But watching even a terrifically shot video of a live show just isn't remotely the same as being with an audience that really made an effort to be there - however half-hearted and cursory the quick glance in your bag by the often-rude bag checkers may be. :)
1