Paging Lynn Hoppes ...

Mods and users can always ask Kenny to remove the log-in time feature.

 

I don't know who carrie is. And I haven't checked her post history to try to "figure out" who it is. I don't do that, ever. I either know who people are because they tell me or because I found out in the course of their posts. Or else, I don't know.

I get the sense that people overstate how much others follow people around. Someone may do it when/if there is a reason, though, and Versatile made a legitimate point by his checking up on Lynn_Hoppes. By doing so, he showed that maybe, just maybe, Hoppes hasn't been sitting on this thread and enjoying the show, as some posters suggest he might do. Now, maybe he has been, as a lurker, but at least as far as could be told, he hasn't, and it was Versatile's research, such as it was, that backed up that point.

Other than the trying-to-lighten-up-the-moment reply I posted, carrie's takedown made me sad -- sad that someone would come on and post something so damning, and, well, so, frankly, mean, about someone who holds a position in this business that, let's face it, probably all of us would accept if it was offered to us. But it also made me sad that she apparently could do so -- that there may have been reason to do so.

Sure, the post made me uncomfortable, too, but that was largely because it also had a ring of truth to it. It was a post/story by someone with knowledge.

In journalism parlance, it was a story of substance -- the best kind.

That's why people were uncomfortable. But, given the subject matter, that didn't make it wrong to write.

 

I go back to November and the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal. It was easy then to say, "This could happen anywhere." It was easy to avoid being too hard on Joe Paterno for a role that remained largely covered up at the time. It was easy to point to those wanting to put everyone involved on death row as jumping to conclusions that the facts didn't support.

Upon first reading about Lynn Hoppes' copy-and-paste streak, my reaction was focused on the poisoning influences of power and ESPN. My reaction was focused on who Hoppes, once a venerated sports editor at a major newspaper, had become.

Carrie's post is important because it refocuses the discussion. This isn't about who Hoppes has become, it's about who Hoppes always was and how he hoodwinked enough people through the vetting process. As the back story emerges, I've channeled my anger at the entire situation at a different source. Carrie and a few others on this thread have made me worry less about corrupting influences and more about the process of advancement in this industry.

Now, if Hoppes or any of his many friends and coworkers would like to provide a counterpoint, I would love to hear it. If they want to dismiss any of Carrie's allegations, I'm open to the possibility that this anonymous poster has a vendetta all her own. But her account of how this all happened makes a lot of sense to me. She's approached it with a mean streak, sure. But she's used real examples, as have one or two others, and she's made clear points.

The conversation has shifted to a more important one, and it's waiting for us whenever we get done discussing the board's activity tracker.

 

For those wondering, the last time Versatile was active was at 4:20 p.m. today. Which is freaking me out because it's only 3:53 p.m., so Versatile apparently owns a time machine.

And I only post that to make the point that he was making: Anyone's latest activity is visible to anyone else. I'm not stalking him. There are much cooler people on this board that I could spend my time stalking. Not that I'm stalking them, either. Just saying I could. But I wouldn't.

 

The no name guy, although he made a mistake, was canned with good reason. Hoppes should be joining him.

 

How I wish you were right about this.

 

Clearly, racial insensitivity is more offensive to a bigger segment of ESPN viewers than plagiarizing Wikipedia. Whether public opinion should decide the day on a journalist's career is questionable, but can't be overlooked.

 

Hey, if you make a video in which you portray yourself as a Rock Star Journalist and All-Around Cool Cat at ESPN, you pretty much set yourself up for criticism down the road if you do something unsavory, do you not? Hoppes, by marketing himself as a brand, becomes a public figure and is wide open to criticism and ethical concerns when he makes his own rules, does he not?

 

It has been a while since I've had a reason to come to this site . . . and I can see it hasn't changed any.

The personal attacks on Lynn Hoppes here are quite something. Regardless of what happened at ESPN or what might happen, I find the back-biting and reputation-trashing here reprehensible.

If you were a writer in Orlando, Lynn was a great boss to have. He did what assigning editors and (then) deputy editors are supposed to do: shield writers from the crap and protect them from themselves.

Crap, meaning ideas drummed up by the Editor, the Managing Editor, the Sports Editor and other high-ranking people inside the building. He was a great filter. Most writers had no idea, cause the crap never got to them.

From themselves meaning he didn't pass along to upper management all the curse words writers say about (plug in your drama here from the day/night before). He just let you blow off steam, and then you both get back to work.

Lynn protected Van in much the same way.

Upper management never had any issues with Lynn ever, because when top editors asked for something special from Sports, Lynn and the staff delivered.

I suppose Lynn's self-confidence betrays him here. It's easy to kick people when they're down or not ready to surface. But I supposed this how it always has been on this site, so this thread is hardly surprising. Disappointing and sad nonetheless.

 

Hoppes deserves to be fired and most of the criticisms here have been valid and appropriate. But it is kind of sad and a little creepy just how much joy some people are getting out of all this.

Is that really who we are?