SB Nation pulls Daniel Holtzclaw longform piece

[3_Octave_Fart]

Songbird, if he doesn't write about finish carpentry then I will. There's a good book there somewhere.

 

[Doc Holliday]

What was better about the old days?

I ask as a reader.

I can only speak about what I've seen and done myself, none of which include your accusations. The decline of journalism the last 10 years is very sad to witness. Heartbreaking in a way.

I'm sure there have been plenty of writers who did not convey entire stories or got drunk with the teams they covered back in the 1920s or whatever time it is you are trying to pigeonhole me into. However, that's not how I've conducted my business and that's not how any of the people I've worked alongside conducted their business.

Since the "old days" were just 10 years ago, I'm not sure what you're referring to as things being so much better now. Journalism has changed a lot in the last decade --- not just how information is delivered but the process of how information is gathered, what exactly is being delivered along with the education and experience level of the journalist delivering it. Those things are gone, sadly replaced by less capable but far cheaper means.

What was once an admirable and respectable profession is shirt now.

 

[Songbird]

Songbird, if he doesn't write about finish carpentry then I will. There's a good book there somewhere.

It starts with a hammer.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

I don't think what I was saying is mutually exclusive to what you are saying.

Just curious. In the case of the writer you mentioned, did the writer think what he or she had written was offensive? i.e. -- did the writer refuse because he or she thought there was nothing to apologize for? Or was it because the writer wasn't stand up enough to take criticism of their work?

I agree about standing behind your work -- for better or for worse. And I agree that you have more control over your reputation than others do -- your work is YOUR work.

But that wasn't what I was addressing. What I typed wasn't to say that Arnold's work isn't to blame. Obviously he came up with the idea and wrote the piece. He isn't ducking responsibility for that. The guy made a mistake and wrote something terrible. I get it. His name is on the story. But I was saying that the people he was working for shouldn't have been piling on, even subtly -- the way that memo that came out did.

The site that hired him didn't stand behind the fact that THEY hired him and as a result his work became sbnation's work. People who read that story were at the site because they were reading something on sbnation. Not because they were looking for Jeff Arnold's latest -- even if it is his name at the top. Add to it that sbnation hires a person like that on a work-for-hire basis (i.e. -- he sees limited rewards; write a piece, get paid for that piece and that is the extent of our relationship). ... and for me, it shows a lack of character and leadership, when the person who heads up editorial doesn't make it entirely about the fact that HE ran the story. At the least, if you want the buck to stop with the writer, give him equity in the site. The way that memo was worded said a lot to me. If I worked for that guy, it would send a message to me that he will throw me under a bus when things get tough.

For me it is one of those tests of character that tells a lot about a person. I once produced a custom magazine for a high-profile client. Rather than cutting and pasting some cover lines that had been run through a copy editor, a designer retyped a name and misspelled it -- on the cover! Naturally, it slipped right through and went to the printer, and it created a mess. When I had to deal with a shirt storm, my first instinct was to blame it on the designer. My ego wanted to. Everyone has that reaction. But 1) I was the face of that publication to the people I was producing the magazine for, not the designer. 2) And I *was* to blame. I didn't catch the error before sending it off to the printer. I should have. That had to be the end of the story. I never once made it about the designer -- to the client, at least. Ultimately, I hope it demonstrated that when I make a mistake, I am stand up enough to face it. ... and if I am in charge, I take the bad with the good. And hopefully it told people who worked for me that I will have their back. That is a reputational thing too, isn't it?

Ah I see. I get your point. Still think it's on Arnold most of all, but I understand where you are coming from on the "stand behind" issue.

The writer, in our case, thought there was no need to apologize. But, also didn't want to deal with it. A little from column A and a little from column B.

 

[studthug12]

I can only speak about what I've seen and done myself, none of which include your accusations. The decline of journalism the last 10 years is very sad to witness. Heartbreaking in a way.

I'm sure there have been plenty of writers who did not convey entire stories or got drunk with the teams they covered back in the 1920s or whatever time it is you are trying to pigeonhole me into. However, that's not how I've conducted my business and that's not how any of the people I've worked alongside conducted their business.

Since the "old days" were just 10 years ago, I'm not sure what you're referring to as things being so much better now. Journalism has changed a lot in the last decade --- not just how information is delivered but the process of how information is gathered, what exactly is being delivered along with the education and experience level of the journalist delivering it. Those things are gone, sadly replaced by less capable but far cheaper means.

What was once an admirable and respectable profession is shirt now.

Assertion vs. Verification. Now, many journalists don't verify anything before running with a version of their story. We see it all the time. Today with Fowler signing with Cubs. One guy says he's signing with O's. Another guy: Source says Fowler to O's. Then Rosenthal tweets out asking questions like what happened? You tell us jackwagon. KR reported he's going and then asks questions about how it fell apart and why he's going to Cubs. Well, do some reporting. Call Fowler, the agent, the teams like you should have done before saying he's going to the O's. Once someone says something on Twitter people follow and don't even suspect they could be wrong. KR is like: No thanks, I'll retweet when someone finds out what happened.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Assertion vs. Verification. Now, many journalists don't verify anything before running with a version of their story. We see it all the time. Today with Fowler signing with Cubs. One guy says he's signing with O's. Another guy: Source says Fowler to O's. Then Rosenthal tweets out asking questions like what happened? You tell us jackwagon. KR reported he's going and then asks questions about how it fell apart and why he's going to Cubs. Well, do some reporting. Call Fowler, the agent, the teams like you should have done before saying he's going to the O's. Once someone says something on Twitter people follow and don't even suspect they could be wrong. KR is like: No thanks, I'll retweet when someone finds out what happened.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The business is shirt now.

 

[jr/shotglass]

What was better about the old days?

I ask as a reader.

Do you think that newspapers in the "old days" that you like to dismiss ran stories in print without an editor as writers do on a regular basis online to get it up there first?

And on a tangent note, do you think the news is edited and fact-checked better today?

 

[CD Boogie]

Do you think that newspapers in the "old days" that you like to dismiss ran stories in print without an editor as writers do on a regular basis online to get it up there first?

And on a tangent note, do you think the news is edited and fact-checked better today?

all true, except the takes in the good ole days were not nearly as HOT!

 

[Double Down]

http://deadspin.com/how-sb-nation-p...source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo]

Beaten to the punch by two minutes. That was an absolute skewering of Stout.

 

[Cosmo]

Interesting that Spencer Hall, who is usually extremely prolific on Twitter, hasn't tweeted since the story was pulled.

 

[JackReacher]

Beaten to the punch by two minutes. That was an absolute skewering of Stout.

SKEWERING!!!!!!!