Idiot columnist of the day

[MartinonMTV2]

We do not spike columns simply because we don't agree with them.

That's weak. There's a difference between simply disagreeing with an opinion and disagreeing with how it is expressed. If the newspaper doesn't want to see that difference, then it deserves to get blasted.

 

[Ace]

The paper responds in an editorial.

http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/04-13-2011_column-firestorm

That's weak. The guy in the coma could write a better explanation/apology than that.

 

[Ace]

Marty, we are so simpatico!

My highlight as an editor was spiking a column that was about 1/100th as dumb and insensitive as this. OK, maybe 1/10th.

 

[holy bull]

"Newspaper readers here are familiar with Steigerwald enough not to take him too seriously. But others around the nation – particularly the San Francisco area – and the world, who read the column after being prompted by national websites, television networks and Facebook, were outraged."

A. Hey, ignoramuses. You're not supposed to take him seriously. We don't.
B. Hey, sheep. Don't let the Internets prod you into reading stuff.

 

[Brian]

Newspaper readers here are familiar with Steigerwald enough not to take him too seriously.

This is a mind-blowing sentence. This sentence is worse than the column itself.

Do these guys publish a newspaper or the print-version of an open-mic at the Chuckle Hut?

 

[holy bull]

Newspaper readers here are familiar with Steigerwald enough not to take him too seriously.

This is a mind-blowing sentence. This sentence is worse than the column itself.

Do these guys publish a newspaper or the print-version of an open-mic at the Chuckle Hut?

Right. It's our fault because we don't understand that its all just a big snorting laugh, this column about the guy in a coma.

 

[Big Circus]

I'm proud I was able to provide a brief George Brett-jack to the thread.

 

[holy bull]

I'm proud I was able to provide a brief George Brett-jack to the thread.

This was a tremendous public service by you, especially since it led to my first-ever exposure to "The George Brett Story." I was in tears, at work, trying not to be too conspicuous about it. I think I pulled something in my stomach.

 

[Calvin Hobbes]

I read that editorial and also was stunned by the sentence about people in the area knowing not to take Steigerwald seriously.

Why, then, are they publishing his work? That truly was a whiskey tango foxtrot moment.

The editorial read like one of those non-apology apologies some people issue with zero sincerity.

"I'm sorry you were offended."

Lame.

 

[HanSenSE]

Please tell me that editorial was written by The Onion. There's no way in heck they can be serious about defending the guy.

 

[mpcincal]

I'm proud I was able to provide a brief George Brett-jack to the thread.

This was a tremendous public service by you, especially since it led to my first-ever exposure to "The George Brett Story." I was in tears, at work, trying not to be too conspicuous about it. I think I pulled something in my stomach.

A guest column by George Brett talking about all the times he shirt his pants would be 10 times better than that Steigerwald column.

 

[Ace]

I'm proud I was able to provide a brief George Brett-jack to the thread.

My favorite memory as a sports writer was doing a spring training feature on George Brett.

While waiting for me to interview him, he had me sit on the bench and he and Dan Quisenberry just started cutting up and telling stories for about an hour.

I didn't even want to ask any questions. It was too much fun.