Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

I agree in theory, but they have to decide whether the posters online are truly speaking for the majority of his readers and whether the most vocal critics will be moving on to fresher meat next week.

 

You can't put Mark Whicker with these incidents. Rob had done some questionable things as a columnist. Ms. Hill was also the same way and the 49ers PR guy was shakey.
Whicker is as good as they get and even better as a columnist. This too shall pass. He's going to be fine.

 

This is a mistake made often. You're comparing incomparables.
As for the apology, you don't know what Mark was told to/allowed to write and by whom. There are many, many forces working in a formal apology made by a publishing company.

 

I don't know what the "incomparables" are. But to the previous poster, the 49ers PR guy did not have a "shakey" reputation in the least; he was considered one of the best P.R. people in the NFL.

Regarding Whicker's apology, fishwrapper, I'm sure you are correct about the layers. But then he needs to bite the bullet and not go on and do interviews that make his apology seem insincere and forced upon him, and that he blames the meanies on the Internet for stirring up all this trouble for him. As it stands now, it's pretty clear he doesn't see what the big deal is and his apology is of the "sorry to anyone who's offended" variety.

 

If T.J. Simers had written this column would he have been fired?

 

Something like this would be more Simers' style: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/15/sports/sp-simers15

 

I just think it's tough to connect instances that involve a 19-year-rape-and-captive victim, Hitler, a nonprofessional question to an NFL coach and a PR guy with a camera.
Ok, they're instances involving the media, in some cases. But, to try to draw a parallel or perceived precedent is mistaking.

 

That Poynter interview made me a little queasy. I truly want to give the benefit of the doubt to a longtime pro, but his defensive position is hard to take.

Also thought this was interesting:

 

Yep. Point taken.

 

At my paper, the sports editor reads the columnist's work before passing it to the copy desk. I'd be shocked if, even on a holiday, the copy desk is the only line of defense between this column and the light of day, especially at a paper the size of the OC Register. There's probably at least one assistant SE who would have been on duty that day. The copy desk might have thought the column was tasteless - or not. But if someone of greater authority approved the column, then there might not have been an argument.

I would hope someone, somewhere in the paper's hierarchy had a counterpoint to running this column. If it was run without question, then everyone who read this story should be holding themselves accountable in this shitstorm. And what was Whicker's intent for writing this column? He hasn't addressed that. Was he trying to be funny? If so, he failed miserably. Is it a fireable offense? I still don't know about that. In 22 1/2 years, he wrote just one really, really bad column, or at least one that we all know about thanks to the Internet. I see he pointed that out.

And unfortunately, having worked on a copy desk that has discovered plagiarism, documented it and notified higher-ups, it isn't always grounds for firing. Not one person we caught was ever canned for plagiarism. Yes, that's more than one.

 

That's pathetic.
Back to Mark, look the guy has enjoyed an outstanding career. Who along here has not made a gaffe or two, maybe three? I can't believe so many are willing to throw him under the bus for one mistake that should've been caught.
I'm surprised no one has said this is a conspiracy of some kind.