Comments on: monster, yahoo! get poor ratings on diversity commitment

By: yeahright

yeahright — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:56:21 +0000

And how easy would it have been for Vanessa to update the story. Just another Cheezhead smear. Have some objectivity!!

By: ROI

ROI — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:21:33 +0000

The Diversity Inc article is hack journalism. Case in point that they didn’t even bother to call Monster to see if Steve Pemberton even worked here anymore. How difficult would that have been to fact check?

Instead of doing their due diligence they just wrote a crap story and ended up having to print a retraction.

By: Sales ploy

Sales ploy — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:12:47 +0000

It sounds like DiversityInc is just releasing a slam story to try and get Yahoo! and/or Monster to partner with them. It all sounds like a slimey sales ploy. I’m not sure if DiversityInc has an unbiased opinion on this topic.

By: yeahright

yeahright — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:19:55 +0000

I’m calling BS on this one. You don’t really expect anyone to buy your last comment do you?

By: Vanessa Dennis

Vanessa Dennis — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:18:19 +0000

I didn’t reprint the retraction because I didn’t even mention Steve Pemberton in the article and found it irrelevant to include this. The other portion discusses references to Monster’s site, which I also published in the article. The retraction does not, however, retract the article itself.

By: Vanessa Dennis

Vanessa Dennis — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:14:29 +0000

Diversity Inc. mentions a retraction, reprinted here, about incorrect speculation as to whether Steve Pemberton still works at Monster:

Retraction: This story, originally posted on Dec. 5, incorrectly stated that Steve Pemberton was no longer employed by Monster. DiversityInc had received this information from two reliable sources but had not confirmed it from Monster. Monster subsequently informed us that Pemberton remains its chief diversity officer. DiversityInc regrets this error. The story also discusses Monster’s lack of commitment to diversity on its web site. To be clear, all of those references are to Monster’s corporate web site, corporate.monster.com, not its consumer web site, http://www.monster.com.

By: due diligence

due diligence — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:34:51 +0000

Vanessa,

I’m curious to know why you didn’t include the retraction that’s now published on the article that expresses their regrets for incorrectly reporting this information.