20 years without a promotion

I thought I'd misread this, and went back. Boy, and I thought I was a procrastinator.

IIRC, Wilson's work during the civil disturbance was compelling. Lots of shots of him close enough to the fire that the heat waves were caught on the videotape--he was even on the roof next door to the roof of a burning building at one point. Even if he has been relegated to the "black beat", that beat should include more of City Hall than it currently does. I would think that this should get the station's attention. This has been a curious oversight.

I have worked with Warren Wilson many times over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, I can't recall one interaction where he was not rude, confused and generally out of line. The man is not professional. I can't believe that KTLA management has put up with him for this long.

It's sad that Warren's chosen to play the race card when talent and attitude are the real issues. I wonder why he wants to be taken off the "black beat." With all those years of experience and personal history, who could possibly cover it better?

It's unbelievable that Warren Wilson even has a job. He has been warned and punished by KTLA for numerous ethical violations over the years, including trying to get a fee from referring some guy he covered in a story to a lawyer.

I know the above because I worked at KTLA for several months in the fall of 1997.

20 years without a promotion

Stan Chambers beats that by a mile -- he's been there 57 years!

Can some of you assailing Warren please revert to journalism for a moment and talk facts, not conjecture? If Warren was abusive of someone, I'd like to hear about it. If he was incompentent, tell me how.

The facts are that nobody else at KTLA or probably any other LA station has been written up and reprimanded for ethical violations as often as Warren. KTLA is an amazingly tolerant place. They even gave me a job.

KTLA is an awesome place to work. I so wanted to get taken on permanently. Management bends over backwards to be fair and kind. Employee morale is high. Most people at KTLA are super. I remember this black female TV reporter who was just adorable and made everybody relax and laugh, cutting across color lines. I am known to utter non-PC sentiments but this woman just made all my crap go away.

Joeseph - I've written many times on my web site about how he editorializes in his stories, which is obviously poor journalism. But I think the most glaring example of his incompetence came on a particular story last year.

Here is what I wrote:

This has to be some of the worst reporting you'll ever see. Alright, let's pretend you're the reporter. You find out that a 45-year old crime-the murder of two El Segundo police officers - has been solved. They hold a news conference for this most unusual story. You tell me, what do you feel is the most important information to learn for your viewers? In fact, just as a normal person with normal curiosity, what is the first thing you'd want to know? If your answer is "I'd want to know how this 45-year old crime was suddenly solved," then you may have the basic curiosity and common sense to be a reporter. Unfortunately, KTLA reporter Warren Wilson managed to "cover" this story without answering that question!

I watched his coverage three times to make sure I did not miss something. I didn't. But he sure did.

Wilson spent the entire time explaining the crime, and no doubt some of that was important to tell. But nowhere, NOWHERE did he address how they came to solve this old crime from 1958.

Turns out that recently, the El Segundo Police got a false lead on this double murder. But with interest renewed in the case, LA County Sheriff's detectives were able to match an old finger print with a national data base. It was only in February 2002 when the Sheriff's department became connected to the data base. Pretty interesting, huh? I got that from the LA Times. The same night that Wilson botched the story, I did see a short version on KNBC, which at least told viewers that it was an old finger print which made the case.

Besides pointing to the fact that is may be time for Wilson to pack it in, this also shows a very flawed system within the KTLA newsroom. Didn't someone in newsroom management look at this script ahead of time? And if they did, how could they not say, "I think we missed the story here." Someone over there should be asking some questions.

Charging KTLA with racial discrimination is absurd. Tell me what other station in this market has a black general manager! From management to air talent, the station's ethnic mix is admirable. Charging Channel 5 with racism is an act of desperation.

I wonder who will cover the story, Larry McCormick?

Just for the record...KNBC has also a black GM, Paula Madison.

Some of these comments are rather disturbing, as they seem less concerned with whether or not Warren Wilson was discriminated against, and more with attacking him for daring to raise the accusations.

The comments seem to break down into two types: (a) Warren Wilson sucks, and (b) KTLA is racially diverse.

Under (a), we're told:

Unfortunately, I can't recall one interaction where he was not rude, confused and generally out of line.

Which may or may not be true. However, someone can be rude, confused, and out of line, and still be harmed by racially biased employment practices.

Also:

But I think the most glaring example of his incompetence came on a particular story last year. [anecdote]

It may be true that Wilson did a poor job and possibly editorializes too much. I haven't watched enough recently to tell. However, whether this is true or not has no relationship with the question of whether he was unfairly denied promotions on account of race.

The facts are that nobody else at KTLA or probably any other LA station has been written up and reprimanded for ethical violations as often as Warren.

Again, someone could be written up for any variety of things, and that has nothing to do with racial bias.

It's not enough to dismiss an accusation of racial discrimination by merely saying "Yeah, but the guy who made the claim sucks."

Among other things, it could very well be that the reason a person is unpleasant or gets in trouble with his superiors is because of racial bias -- perhaps he's unhappy because he's never been promoted off the "black beat", or maybe some of the bias involves writing him up for something that a white reporter could get away with.

I'm not saying those scenarios are true -- I have no idea -- but it seems that many are quick to dismiss the accusation as false. It's summed up by this:

It's sad that Warren's chosen to play the race card when talent and attitude are the real issues.

By immediately casting this a case of "playing the race card," the issue of potential racism is dismissed out of hand. This is often the case whenever someone of color tries to use the legal means available to combat racist job practices -- the assumption of "the race card" thinking is that racism simply doesn't exist, and any black person claiming otherwise is somehow making a false charge.

Except, we know that racism does exist, and is alive and well within any number of industries, including television news. So let's not automatically dismiss this one, okay?

The second type of argument says that if a company appears "diverse enough", then it couldn't possibly have racist promotion practices that discriminate, and so any complaint raised must be false.

This type of argument is faulty and dangerously so. Unless we're talking about some sort of class action style lawsuit, the question is not whether the company is inherently racist, but whether this particular person's employment was affected by racism.

To give a related example, it's perfectly possible for a woman to be a victim of sexual discrimination in a company that has a female CEO and a number of female managers. The company itself may not be sexist, but for a specific person, her career may have been held back for sexist reasons.

This could be the case here with Warren Wilson -- I don't know, one way or the other, but I don't buy the arguments being put forward as to why it could NOT be true. For example:

I remember this black female TV reporter who was just adorable and made everybody relax and laugh, cutting across color lines. I am known to utter non-PC sentiments but this woman just made all my crap go away.

The fact that a black female reporter could easily make people laugh does not mean that Warren Wilson was not discriminated against. In fact, it does not mean that the black female reporter's career was unaffected by racial bias, either.

They even gave me a job.

Whether they gave a white Australian a job doesn't really pertain to the question at hand -- which is discrimination against Warren Wilson, not Luke Ford.

Tell me what other station in this market has a black general manager!

Whether the station has a black general manager or not has little bearing on whether Warren Wilson's accusations are true. This type of reduction-to-pointing-at-skin-colors argument doesn't prove lack of racism at all.

For example, one could easily encounter a case in which higher executives are unwilling to promote other qualified blacks because "we already have a black general manager."

From management to air talent, the station's ethnic mix is admirable.

The question before us is not the general ethnic mix at Channel 5, but whether or not this specific person was a victim of racially based promotion practices. There could be an "admirable mix" even if it were true that he was denied promotion to better assignments and higher pay due to his race.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that the diversity of the "ethnic mix" is a subjective thing, as it depends on the viewer's perception of race as well as their own sense of what the "right" ratio would be.

Does a Latino morning anchor or an Asian reporter "count" when you're talking about a black reporter's career? Reducing talk to "ethnic mix" can easily lead us down a path where we say "well, they've got half ethnics, so that's a good thing" -- lumping together everyone who is "not white" into the category of "ethnic mix."

These are racist assumptions themselves, and if existent within the station management could EASILY lead to a case where it's considered okay to hold back an African American reporter because, hey, we have a Mexican American anchor. We've got good diversity, after all!

Once again, I have no idea whether Warren Wilson's accusations are well-founded or not. I am just disturbed by the reasoning expressed in these comments, which seem to completely dismiss the idea that he could actually be right.

Too often, people -- usually white people, but I have no idea what most of the ethnicities on this thread are -- will assume automatically that since they aren't aware of racism in the workplace, it doesn't exist, and anyone who claims otherwise is deluded or lying.

More facts are necessary to determine the truth, and less of the kind of nonsense reasoning displayed here.

--Kynn

[Hey "Not Identified," try again when you have the ethics to make your accusations publicly...Comment deleted by Kevin]