IUf he's writing a review, it's fine... If he's writing a "What to do around town" column, it's fine... In the context he did it, as funny as it was, it was pretty unprofessional.
I know if I asked for a preview story for a football game, and the writer turned in something that said both teams stink, and your money would be better spent elsewhere, I would be most unhappy.
It appears to be an alternative weekly in Boise. I suspect mocking Nickelback is not viewed as a grave transgression.
It's a matter of credibility, though, isn't it? If you don't take what you do seriously, why should anyone else?
Again, it's an alternative weekly. Its audience isn't going to be looking for that. His follow-up article included the line "The f$&@ing Poynter Institute for journalism even emailed me with an interview request about this circus." And besides, I don't think pretending Nickelback doesn't suck in any way equates to "credibility."
Unless you're selling tickets to the game, why would you give a flying fuck? Last I checked, newspapers were meant to report facts. If you're previewing a game between a pair of 2-7 teams, why would you have some obligation to make it seem like some clash of titans absolutely not to be missed?
I'd rather have this than the glowing tributes written for entertainment sections that pull a muscle trying not to say that critical consensus is that the band is awful. I remember reading a small town's entertainment section try to make Eddie Money sound like he was still on top of the world as a performer.
The surprising thing to me is how this story has become a continent-wide topic. If I read this paper regularly, I probably would have laughed and shown some of my friends (partly so we can ponder exactly how he meant for us to bang our domes with hanging hammers: Running through the house? Incidental contact? Beats me), but I don't really see why anyone else gives half a hoot.