End of Saban/Herald/Radio story

Where you screwed up, Mizzou, is by expressing outrage that people were ripping "one of our own" when what you were really pissed about was the fact that people were ripping "one or your boys." If this mistake was made by a writer you knew nothing about and had never met, say, the 25-year-old beat guy for the San Diego Chargers (let's just pretend there is one), I don't imagine for a second that you would have expressed this kind of anger over a thread like this. In fact, while I'll never know for sure, I can quite easily imagine you joining in on the ripping. I have no problem with you or Jemele sticking up for your friends. I would do the same if one of my friends (or someone I wasn't close to, but really respected and shared mutual friends with) made a mistake and was being crucified on the board over it. But I doubt I would try to do it by throwing out the collective guilt trip that "we need to stick up for one of our own" if I had a long history of mocking certain writers who also happened to be "one of our own."

 

If we convened a panel of SJ rulemakers, like the ManLaw gang, I think we'd agree that posting a link and starting a discussion about a specific piece of work is what this site should be about. You like it, you hate it, here's why. Next post. We're all capable of forming our own opinions.

It's pretty clear where the line crosses over into personal attack.

As for the 'one of our own' line, I got the sense that was more related to the death threat issue, not the general need to protect each other from criticism.

 

DD, if you're looking for someone to vent at, might I suggest the quick-hitters who have signed on here only to scold the regulars for how they conduct themselves on the board and then stalk out quietly?

If I thought that to be true, I wouldn't have said what I did in the first place. Your line may not be my line may not be mizzou's line may not be Ace's line.

 

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that someone is getting ripped here, one of "our own" or not. The best and worst in our business make their money trying to take the athletes we cover down a peg or two. Why would this be different? It speaks to a mindset, a cynicism that's pretty pervasive.

In Australia, they call it the "tall poppy syndrome." Whichever poppy stands head and shoulders above the rest (whether it's fame, or salary, or in this case, success in our business at a very young age) is just ripe for others to try and cut him down. It's endemic, and nothing we as a group should be proud of.

Anyone who claims there aren't a ton of posters on this board who aren't jealous of Darlington's quick rise is fooling themselves. All you have to is go to the threads where who did or didn't get a certain job is discussed to see it every day. That it's coated with the "ethics" question is disingenuous; in my opinion, that's just the easiest excuse to kick the guy when he's down and not seem like just a flat-out meanie.

So some will take a certain glee in seeing him get his "comeuppance." If the guy was a lifer writing preps for the Podunk Press, it would be completely different.

Geez, I thought only we women specialized in tearing each other down.

That said, the "name" posters, who have clearly succeeded in a difficult field, should find a better way to make their point than to "big-league" people. It's childish, and beware: the people you crap on on the way up the ladder tend to be the same people you run across on your way back down.

I've had someone physically threaten me in my career. No one should have to go through that. I couldn't feel worse for the guy. And no, I don't know him.

 

The problem is that we could argue forever about what is and isn't a personal attack. I'd like to think we'd know one when we see one.

But, like I said, we've got to be real about it. Those we like, we defend. Those we don't, we don't. If this would have happened to Lupica, Albom or some of the other notoriously hated people, I really doubt there would have been a vigilent defense. Mizzougard, I appreciate you changing your mind about me... to some degree...but I sincerely doubt you would have defended me the way you did Darlington. But I'm OK with that because, honestly, why would you?

 

You make a good point, ballscribe, but as for myself, I didn't know Jeff Darlington from the beat writer for the San Diego Padres. That may be the case for considerably more posters than you realize. He could have been a 55-year-old journeyman for all I knew.

For every "national" writer who posts on here, there's at least one other person who works in the office somewhere around the country ... and there's at least one other person who toils at a small paper and doesn't get out to make these contacts.

Hey, I don't know Ms. Hill either. Might know her better if some of her posts came on something other than the ultra-serious threads.

 

We're in agreement there, shotty.

Greg Doyle doesn't need to lecture me, or anyone else, on how to conduct themselves in public or private.

Mostly in all this, I really do feel for Darrlington, because at some point, we've all probably unknowingly trusted a spineless coward who ends up stabbing us in the back. And that's probably where the focus of anger should be, on this radio guy. Frankly, I don't care if he got on the radio and begged for forgiveness, he went out of his way to screw someone he thought was his friend. He probably didn't give a shit either when it happened, because he had to know there would be a fallout for Darrlington. But in his thirst to get something good, he weighed Darrlington's trust with his own personal need to get something juicy, and chose to screw over his friend. The fact that he's sorry now doesn't earn forgiveness from me.

Trusting someone is a good character flaw. Fucking over a friend is a pretty bad character flaw. I've trusted stupid people before, and while I might not have handed over a tape to a radio guy, I've certainly shared stories with people that would have harmed my career had they been repeated elsewhere. I feel for him.

 

Shot--I'm not disagreeing that we may have different barometers for 'personal attack', but I think each of us knows when we're saying something unrelated to a person's work.

'What a crappy column' is a lot different than 'What a fucking douchebag this guy is.'

Who are the people you respect on this site? The folks who can express an opinion by showing you why they think it, or the folks who fling insults without evidence?

That, to me, is the difference.

 

Indeed ... why you remain one of our faves.

 

oh you almost manned up and apologized. mizzougrad, i've read your posts for a long time. you're far from stupid. you know exactly what you did and why i have a problem with it (although the others, DD, shotglass and ace, explained it well).

you look like a hypocrite at best. based on your previous posts, had jemele made the same mistake as jeff, you would've called for the herald to cease publication. and this is why you never go overboard with criticism of the very young. jemele's blog entry doesn't come close to this saban screwup. jemele and jeff are both going to be big impact players in our industry as long as their self-confidence isn't undermined.

nothing wrong with apologizing and admitting you were wrong. in fact, it would enhance the credibility of your anonymous persona.

 

And, of course, that's why this board is a microcosm of society as we know it.

Some people do not know how to debate issues. And if you call them on it, they tell you that you need thicker skin. Well, no, I don't need thicker skin. They need to be more adult in their presentation.

 

In a thread filled with shock value, I'm most shocked that whitlock and Mizzou have finally found reason to stop gagging on each other.

Damn womenfolk, always getting between the fellas.