A column to make you cringe

You ever seen a grown man naked, Billy?

 

The sad thing is the paper isn't that small, nor is the town. 50,000 or so.

For all the problems I see dissected on this mainly American board, journalism, and sports journalism in particular, is head and shoulders above what other than a couple of papers in Canada produce (mangled grammar aside)

 

This guy seems to have fallen victim to small town journalist starry-eyeness (I just made up a new phrase!). Shame, It just makes the rest of us look bad.

 

Good point. A very good point.

That's bullshit. You must not read too many newspapers in either country. One shitty column in the St. Catharines Standard is not a fair representation of Canadian print journalism, just like the best work being done at the Washington Post is also not representative of American print journalism.

In both countries you'll find that good, even great work, is being done at some very small newspapers (the Simcoe Reformer in southern Ontario, circulation about 9,000, is a perfect example) while big stinking chunks of crap are floating to the surface at huge metro dailies. You have absolutely no basis for such a general statement.

By the way, the population of St. Kitts went past 50,000 several decades ago. The city itself is about 130,000 and its metro area (Niagara Region) is about 400,000.

 

Agree completely double J! Can't fathom how that column made it to print in St. Catharines, but it's by no means a fair representation of the kind of stuff you see in most Canadian sports sections. I'd venture to say that some of the best writing in the newspaper -- on either side of the border -- is done in the sports pages.
And, the idiot in St. Catharines aside, you can't judge Canadian journalistic ethics on that crap.

 

Have you ever though how it would feel to slide down a banister of razor blades into a vat of alcohol ?

 

very interested in the venom directed at this guy, who obviously knows (or cares) little about ethics. on other threads, i read plenty of you writing about your bosses being dicks, yet it seems as though it's many of you who are unforgiving dicks who can't, for the life of you, understand, or care to take the time to realize, that maybe this guy never has been taught ethics ... just because a vast majority of us have degrees and have sat through ethics classes, doesn't mean this guy has. (or maybe his SE writes the same type of columns and he models his columns in that manner.)

i'm guessing he has no degree and is in his first three years of sports writing without much leadership from his SE.

i'd also be willing to bet 75 percent of those who kicked this guy in the ass on this thread either have five or less years experience or are 28 or younger ... hence you still know it all because you read one shitty column the guy wrote and fail to own the ability to view the world past the terminal that sits upon your shitty little desks.

i'll go out on a limb and say you're a bunch of chicken shit pussies for beating up on a guy when he's not here to defend himself and having absolutely zero information or facts concerning this guy's background.

i could be wrong about the guy and his intentions, yet i'm still able to give the guy the benefit of the doubt for making such a horrendous error in judgement. you fuckers just want to lynch him without knowing the facts.

i'm guessing the guy is sitting at home and is ready to cut his wrists right now because he feels like the biggest sports writing dick in north america after getting torched on this board. but who knows? he just might be a jackass who flaunts what he does because he can get away with it at his shop. but the thing is, none of us can answer that question because we knew nothing about this guy until his column miraculously showed up here.

i'll go ahead and assume the answer is the least repulsive of the two choices since i have no other facts to base my opinion.

 

I don't get it. You're slamming the guy's ethics for accepting the gifts in the first place, then say you (assuming you put yourself under the "every one of us" umbrella) have accepted a gift here or there. What's the difference, other than the fact you didn't write about it. Does that put your ethics on a higher plane?
Was what he did wrong? Yes. Should he have written about it? No. But was he about the coolest dad in the world to his 4-year-old son for doing what he did? Probably so. I doubt he gives two shits you guys are ripping him for that.
I tend to agree with Mr. Petty.

 

Yeah, this board is teeming with mid twentysomethings who lecture about journalism while shackled to a copy desk. It must be a great thing to know so much about the business at 24.

 

Anyone who thinks this is a Canada-only problem is completely out of touch. This goes on at papers across the U.S.

I know of a sportswriter at a small paper in the Midwest who has dozens (f not hundreds) of autographs and souvenirs from pro athletes he covers. At his paper, this sort of thing apparently is not verboten. The writer even gives these items to folks he knows in the community.

My personal ethics (and that of my newspaper) strictly prohibit any sort of activity in this area from tickets to autographs to other "swag." And yet, our entire industry is stained, in my opinion, when the lack of a similar ethics policy allows other writers to traffic in this sort of thing.

It would be ideal if everyone adhered to the same standards. But our reputation will continue to be compromised as long as even one paper continues to use its access to let its representatives act as if they werre fans.

 

And 90 percent of all polls use made up numbers.

Your sanctimony would be laudable if you weren't so full of bullshit and assumptions. My guess is that he has no idea his work has been posted on this site because, clearly, he's oblivious to knowing anything about the trade, particularly such a niche web site as this. If he did know about this site, then shame on him all the more. That means he would have read some threads at some point. And if he never took a journalism course in his life, then he should have learned something in this forum.

So get off your high horse. This is a great example of what not to do. Many editors might find it beneficial to click on the link, print out the story and post it on their bulletin boards for their stringers and/or interns.

So many people assume our jobs aren't work because we cover sports. We get to watch the games for free and sit in the press box and go in the locker room and talk to the players and eat popcorn and get autographs and ...

This column HURTS OUR PROFESSION. I don't give a damn who wrote it. Somebody brought up Rick Reilly, and I agree wholeheartedly. His actions and his column -- separately, but even more grievously when combined -- breaches a trust and gives PR fucks and SIDs all the more reason to build up that wall between us and the people we cover. The guy SHOULD feel bad about it -- some would argue lose his job. I think feeling like a turd while still drawing a paycheck is a more desirable alternative.

 

And yet, the fucktards here still use circulation as the gauge for knowledge.

And Canada still sucks. Just thought I'd tack that on.