Who cares, really, about the Fearless Forecasters? I don’t (or at least I didn’t), and I bet you don’t, either. Do you even know who the Fearless Forecasters are? If you don’t, flip to page eight of today’s Gameday, the last one of the quarter.
While you’re there, take a look at the records of the forecasters, who are traditionally members of The Daily Northwestern’s sports staff or editorial board. If Sarah Kuta’s numbers seem lower than the others, that’s because they are. She did not make forecasts for three of eight weeks, including the first one. In fact, the impetus for her inclusion was an Oct. 4 letter to the editor (“NU football, coverage is unwelcoming”) complaining about the previous week’s panel of all-white, all-male Fearless Forecasters.
From my perspective, the initial motivation for including Sarah, a Daily sports writer and photographer who is very qualified for the task, was not necessarily to give a voice to a group commonly underrepresented in sports reporting but rather to appease our critics and appear less sexist. Either way, she was replaced the following week by men’s soccer reporter Katherine Driessen, who was in turn replaced by Editor in Chief Brian Rosenthal – thus reinstating the original all-male panel. No racial minorities were offered the opportunity to make forecasts.
Something of an argument broke out in the Daily newsroom the next Sunday. At issue were three main questions: Was the conscious decision to exclude Sarah sexist? Would including her be tokenism? And most importantly: What does it matter if the forecasters are all white men?
Well, if the homogeneity makes sports-minded women and minorities feel uncomfortable seeking positions at The Daily, it matters a lot.
As the only consistent female contributor to The Daily’s football coverage team, I often feel the effects of that homogeneity acutely. However, I have not faced any blatant sexism on the job in my year and a half as a Daily sports photographer, nor have any of the female sports writers and photographers to whom I’ve spoken – emphasis, of course, on “blatant.”
In my experience, being a female student-journalist means you will struggle at times to prove to your sources, your readers and even your editors that you deserve your position, be it as photographer, beat writer or forecaster.
You’ll learn that among sports journalists, as among the general population, there are good guys and bad guys, and you’ll learn quickly to tell the two apart. In the meantime, you will grow tired of the phrase “I don’t mean to be sexist, but…” You’ll even hear male journalists slam women in the press box for their choices in make-up and footwear – “She’s wearing sandals,” one whispered to me once, adding disdainfully, “What a bitch”- while sparing their male counterparts similar critiques.
On a good day, you’ll burst with pride for succeeding in a profession dominated by men; on a bad one, you’ll be treated in ways that make your blood boil. For example, if you’re a female student-photographer, some rules on the field will be enforced for you (“It’s for your own safety”) but not for your male colleagues, putting you at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to getting the best shots – and, if you’re like me, the lost opportunities will annoy you more than the sexism.
If you’re passionate, though, it won’t matter if you’re not white and male. As a result, I encourage all of you who don’t fit that bill to consider working as a writer or photographer on our sports desk or, for that matter, on any desk at The Daily Northwestern. Yes, you will face different challenges than white, male staffers, and yes, it might get frustrating. But if you love it enough – if you love sports, your paper, the rush that comes from getting the perfect shot, the perfect quote, the perfect lead enough – then any and all crap you get for being a woman, a minority or both ultimately won’t matter one bit.
Just like the Fearless Forecasters.
Mackenzie McCluer is The Daily’s photo editor and a Medill junior. She can be reached at [email protected].
