Overdramatic Reporting Makes Job Seeker Look Ridiculous

Today's paper had a McClatchy article about a pair of job seekers who have created "Laid Off" wristbands. I admire their creativity and their resilience. Hopefully taking this action and garnering all the press coverage will help them in their job searches. I wish them the best.

But I have a real bone to pick with a terrible conflict in the article. I hope it's the result of overzealous dramatizing by the reporter and not the job strategy of the person in the article.

In the opening paragraph, the article emphasizes just how hard this person is looking for a job. She has been "spending 10 to 12 hours on the Internet looking for a new one."

She's spending all day inside her house, talking to no one, going nowhere and doing nothing but searching for job listings on the Internet??Is that what the reporting is implying? Because that's what I'm inferring.

If that's true, no wonder she's having a hard time finding a job.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 70 percent of all jobs are found through networking. Sure, there's rapid growth in jobs found through social media, but it is still a tiny fraction.

The really hilarious part of the article comes toward the end when the reporter quotes a spokesperson for the local workforce board.

"Networking in today's economy is very important and a very big part of what job seekers should be doing... Sending resumes to companies is not enough. It's getting in front of people." [emphasis mine]

I suspect that the reporter didn't interview the workforce person in the context of letting her know that he's telling us the job seeker isn't getting in front of anyone.

It gets better. The end of the article is another quote from the workforce person, "...the unemployed are a little bit invisible, and this is to make them more visible."

How is anyone going to see the unemployed person wearing the wristband if she's on the Internet 10 hours a day?

Let's hope this is over-dramatic reporting and that the job seeker - who is a smart and creative for coming up with this idea - is getting out and networking in person.


  1. You are so funny and so right. I sit on my tussi for hours on this computer looking for job posts ect.. however, after I completed the Central Valley Professionals workshop and heard your presentation I realized that getting out there is must be more effective.

    It is much better for the morale and it keeps you social. I have a good idea. I do think a button with my picture saying 'I need a job' would be a good ice breaker. What do you think? Politicians do it.

  2. Susan,

    That is a good idea! Then, you can give buttons to your employed friends, with your picture and the caption "My friend needs a job." That is what politicians do; they're campaigning for a job. Why not recruit your employed network to help you?

    Thank you,

  3. Anonymous7:36 PM

    Good point but I saw them on Neil Cavuto today so I know they get out. Plus I looked them up on their Facebooks and they have a pretty good following. It is all about networking. I also saw an ad that Laid Off Need A Job was doing free resumes to the unemployed so that may be why she was on the computer so much too.


    I love the idea, how about you?

  4. I was on the internet, like, all day yesterday searching for an appropriate comment to this article.
    I didn't find ANYTHING!
    I'll be searching again today, and will keep you posted.

  5. I'm glad that these ladies are actually very smart networkers and clever promoters. Seems like the writer took a few shortcuts... at least it provided us with a little food for thought.

  6. Anonymous8:39 PM

    I don't know why anyone would follow you on twitter or anything else, why would you be bashing other people? Especially another woman? Why would anyone respect your advice after doing something like that? Just lost respect for you.

  7. I'm sorry that "Anonymous" has missed my point which was stated twice: I believe that the reporter didn't do a good job of covering this. I'm also sorry that "Anonymous" also missed my comment directly previous to theirs which also clearly states that I do believe these women are doing a good job, but that the reporter didn't clearly report the story. I think he was a man, so that hopefully excuses me from being a woman-basher, haha.

  8. I don't have much respect for anyone one who is "anonymous". Beth, people who have a real thought sign their name. Just flush.

    Anon, she wasn't bashing anyone but questioning the methodology of the reporter. Things were conflicting and she was pointing it out.

  9. Interesting article. It reminds me a bit of people standing at an intersection for hours, even days at a time, holding signs that declare they can't find work. I sometimes carry help-wanted print-outs from the local employment agency, roll down the window, and hand it to them, and wish them the best in landing one of the jobs on the list.

  10. The difference between you and Anonymous is that you have the integrity to use your name - and your statement was not a cruel bash while the words of Anonymous were. You were actuallly trying to help people with your post.

  11. Anonymous11:23 AM

    These are tough times and we should be helping each other, not bashing. I think it is a great idea.

    However, during this recession, have we learned anything?

    I wish everyone the best. Jane