There might be — if the first-choice candidate already chose to publicize the rejected offer, and a professional news blog chose to carry the story. Trumpeting senior offers that are rejected is a way of very publicly revealing subsequent appointments as having been second-or-later choice candidates, with optics unlikely to reflect the completeness of the welcome that a department is offering their eventual appointment. This risks tarnishing a relationship between new colleagues; it interferes in a professional relationship that is (starting the moment the first candidate decides to reject the offer) none of the first candidate’s business; and these, I think, are sufficiently uncollegial outcomes to be worth carefully avoiding unless some unusually strong professional interest is served by making the announcement.---"Job Offers: Are They Professional News?" Feminist philosophers.
It is generally unwise to talk about past relationships (or marriage(s)) on a first date. It is also imprudent to mention other people that you are dating on a date; it is awkward to be told that you are one of several prospective candidate mates. (Of course, if you are at a speed dating event or on Tinder you got to assume it.) But once you decide you are a good fit with somebody and, miraculously, they decide the same about you and things are (ahh) clicking, then you might enjoy learning the broader story of that first date. Inquiring minds notice gaps in the narrative, after all, and sometimes comments/allusions by well-meaning friends require informed interpretation and reinterpretation. Even when one discovers that in a certain sense one was a second choice that does not undermine one's happiness (contentment, sexual bliss, whatever). Of course, if one is regularly told one was second choice, one might reasonably plot an exit strategy.
Perhaps because the post I am responding to appeared on the same day in which one of my job offers got considerable blog (here and here) and facebook publicity, I hesitated about responding to it. (I have no idea if the timing is coincidence or not.) While here I do not wish to discuss the merits of the post's main point, information about job offers is best not treated as professional news, I do wish to offer some experience on what it's like being second choice and then obtaining the position. (Like many others, I have also been Nth choice and never offered a position; in addition, I have been the last-man-standing and not offered the position (that is, a so-called failed search); and I have been second choice, then offered the position which I declined because of alternative options.)
A decade ago (wow!) I was on the shortlist for a junior early modern tenure-track position in philosophy at Syracuse. At the time I had spent three years in non-tenure-track positions (Wesleyan and WashU, don't cry for me) and so it was the fourth year on the market (recall here). I had already applied to many hundred jobs and had landed under a dozen job interviews, and maybe a handful of on-campus visits.* As it happens it was a 'good year' for early modern (with in addition to Syracuse excellent openings at Harvard, Chicago, McGill, WashU [recall], Western Ontario, and at least half a dozen other very fine institutions). I, too, had a few interviews (aided, perhaps, by an improved publication record).
Syracuse was the only major research-focused department that invited me for an on-campus interview. I had the time of the life; despite extremely grim weather, I I adored my visit not the least because I was wowed by the folk there. I was impressed by the philosophical excitement in the air. (The fifth floor of Hall of Languages also fit my Romantic image of where a philosophy faculty should be housed.) If I remember correctly, there was a distinct seminar on a writing sample and also a standard job-talk. It's always hard to judge how one is perceived, but for the first time in four years on the market I felt 'it all had come together.' I had been as good and personable as I could imagine being.
Even so, it was not good enough to be ranked first.
As it happens I knew the names of some of the other finalists ('early modern' is very small). There was no shame in this; my competitors were all impressive people that I was already reading and whom I admired. When I was told by the Chair at Syracuse that I was ranked second, I was, of course, disappointed, and started to contemplate a life outside professional philosophy. (I had a few other leads still, but nothing concrete.) He told me that the lead candidate had two weeks to respond to the offer, and that I should keep him up-to-date. As it happens, I had just learned that my only other realistic shot at a job (a fine college) had also placed me second, so I had nothing to inform him of.
Within a week of the decision, he contacted me to ask me if I was still available because he was about to approach the Dean if he could extend a second position to me. Yes, I was still available. The number one candidate had received another offer and Syracuse was worried he would prefer another department and that I might not be available by the time they would go down the list. Swell!
Moreover, by offering me a position before the other candidate had rejected it, Syracuse made me feel extremely welcome. (In fact I spent the next week lobbying the number 1 candidate to join us in Syracuse--alas to no avail.) But even if they hadn't done so I would have been thrilled with the position as runner-up. I was ecstatic to have exceeded my professional aspirations and to have landed at a well-respected place. (Once there I was inducted into post-Lewisian analytical philosophy and my view of the intellectual side of the profession was transformed.)
Of course, I had some hurt pride that I was not ranked first. But I felt that very same pain at all the early modern job hiring decisions that passed me over. But I don't think these decisions were obviously mistaken or flawed; amazingly good scholars (male and female) landed in jobs ahead of me that year. (Of course, I feel that they didn't always get the best person; but the best wouldn't always be me.) While any individual hiring decision is full of unfair biases, it is very rare that unqualified and incompetent folk land permanent jobs--there are just too many fine people out there. (So that the job market is a rigged lottery does not mean that unworthy candidates regularly sneak into jobs ahead of others.) Having been on the hiring side of a number of searches, my general feeling is always, "I wish I could offer more jobs because there are so many fascinating/interesting people out there." (I never think, "we got that special somebody obviously superior to the rest.")
The difference between a decent tenure track job and no tenure track job is existential. This is why it is really important to remove biases from the process. This is even more so true now with the more widespread exploitation and job-insecurity of adjuncts than it was a decade ago. So, to be on the right side of that existential divide was a huge relief and sense of accomplishment. Obviously, other people with different psychological dispositions might never recover from the thought of being ranked second. But frankly I don't quite understand how such people handle the constant stream of rejections (not just of jobs, but also publications, awards, etc.) that are a feature (not a bug) of being part of a profession. So, whatever the merits of the general conclusion (recall that "information about job offers is best not treated as professional news"), I find the particular argument on offer unconvincing.