Jim Trotter out at SI?

Fran,

What kind of BS compliment was that? He is a pro who has worked with some big time publications. It is a given that he is a natural writer and comes through clean. Jim is one of the best in our business. Period. I have never seen that written about white writers and I have edited several who are not clean.

By the way, it is great to see Trotter land quickly and with a great opportunity. Very well deserved.

 

Very happy for Jim. Great addition for ESPN.

 

Is that like a natural athlete vs a smart athlete?

 

He should start his own blog, then, so we could read him unedited.

 

As a former copy editor for multiple major metro newspapers, I can attest that many writers for big-time publications, including some of the biggest names in the business, turn in raw copy that needs major work, and some of it is downright awful. That is not limited to writers of any particular race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc.

I think you're taking it the wrong way. Assuming Fran Curci is an editor who once worked with Trotter's copy, his statement is high praise indeed. Saying a writer's raw copy is clean is the perhaps the highest compliment a copy editor can pay a writer. At one of my stops there was a columnist who put so much work into his stuff and was so meticulous about it he wanted us to call him if we changed so much as a comma, but we were happy to do it because more often than not, we didn't have to touch his copy. It was usually flawless, so no one ever bitched about him.

 

Welcome back, Trotter.

 

Indeed, I also hear he's a great person, who writes really clean copy.

 

We also know now that he's not white based on scope's post. I had no idea prior nor
did I care.

 

I didn't know he was black either. I'm not a regular SI reader anymore but I knew Trotter's byline. Seems like he was the one who trotted out that story on reaction to Michael Sam coming out but I glad he found work.

It also seems like he was an odd choice for the budget cuts, since he had a fairly large following and was generally well respected.

 

Joe,

Good points. But I have never seen that written about any other writer on this board. It wasn't that big a deal but I felt it needed to be addressed.

 

More than once I've read on here that William Rhoden had to be heavily edited.