Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

[mb]

He needs not a cup, but a forking 6-liter of STFU. You know, at some point, don't you have to realize what you've done if EVERYBODY ELSE is killing you for it?

 

[Joe Williams]

We should stop our hand-wringing over the tone and content of his apology. The only lesson that will come from that is to have more and more insincere apologies, offered simply to save one's ass or sweep a situation under a rug.

In a warped way, I like that Pete Rose refused to admit and apologize for so long, even though his refusal (more than the gambling, over time) was the only thing standing between him and what he wanted. And if Mark Whicker really feels defensive and put-upon by "crazies," I give him points -- on some weird scale -- for at least stating that. He could simply go belly-up and craft a politically correct "apology" without any of us ever knowing whether he was sincere.

At least, in failing to satisfy some of his critics with his level of apology, he is being truthful. Ornery maybe and tired of getting whomped around, but truthful.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Again, horrible gaffe by a usually excellent columnist. But I don't think we should just dismiss it as "well, he made a mistake." No he didn't. He made a series of mistakes. While his typing speed is legendary, it likely took more than five minutes to write this column. And during the writing of it, he never once stopped to say "Wait a minute . . . is this really working?"

I don't blame the desk. It's easy to go auto pilot when A. A columnist is very good just about every time out and B. You have to clear each edit through a higher-up. That's how mistakes get in the paper, but that's on management's policy, not on the deskers who aren't allowed to do their job without going through channels.

I don't think Whicker should be fired. But the more I read his responses to the criticism, the more I think, "You know . . . if whacking Whicker during the next round of layoffs/buyouts at the OCR can save three or four jobs, then that wouldn't be so bad."

And I really don't want to feel that way.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

He definitely seems out of touch.

The Poynter article bothered me a bit because he did this type of column before, in 1991, when Terry Anderson was released.

A former editor of mine told me "There are about 10 columnists in this country who can survive that column and Whicker isn't one of them."

 

[Joe Williams]

A former editor of mine told me "There are about 10 columnists in this country who can survive that column and Whicker isn't one of them."

Nominations? Anyone?

 

[Joe Williams]

Not that their episodes are at all similar, but is Bob Greene remembered for his decades of devoted and often strong newspaper-column work or for the way his days at the Chicago Tribune ended? (Ousted for a fling with a student journalist).

Ditto for Mike Barnicle: Do we first recall the years of service or the shameful end?

There have been others. Just wondering if Whicker takes this stain with him long-term. Awfully good guy and talented writer to have that happen. But in lieu of examples of folks who failed as grandly and rebounded nicely, I'm worried for him. Whether he keeps his job or not, whether he chooses to move on or not.

 

[Starman]

About 8 pages ago, I was saying "the apology should be enough," along with a few more eyes being required on his columns in the future, but if I were the head honchos of the OCR, at this point, I'd tell Whicker, "If we see any more statements out of you saying anything other than 'I realize the column was inappropriate and I understand why readers would react negatively,' you can plan to take a few weeks off." And I'd institute the mandatory 'extra-reads' policy on his columns, right now.

Everybody makes mistakes, sometimes pretty serious ones, but the defiant reaction to it raises some big red flags about the danger of something similar happening again.

And once again, most everything I've read from Whicker in the past has been quite good. This isn't a Rob Parker, Mark Madden or Jay Mariotti, career trolls who have made offensive forkups their specialties.

 

[WaylonJennings]

I'm not trying to defend his "apologies." But I think it's pretty clear what's going on. When you're a columnist, you get just bags and bags of hate mail (figuratively speaking, of course) every time you turn a phrase, you get shredded on message boards, talk radio and everywhere in between. Yes, you should have thick skin to do the job. But at some point it gets to everybody. My dime store psychological analysis is that he's having a difficult time separating this barrage from the normal barrage of "Fire him!" that results every time he questions Pete Carroll's game plan. From his chair, this is the same crowd that assaults him daily from all angles, taking advantage of an opening they perceive.

 

[Jim_Carty]

I don't think that explains it away, Waylon.

The problem here is the same problem when the column was hatched: He clearly doesn't understand this was an offensive premise, and not just offensive to some segment of the readership, but to all reasonable segments.

 

[1HPGrad]

This one is on the night sports editor/copy desk chief/LDO, etc.
Whoever is responsible for that night's product had to pull the plug on this, or at least call the SE/AME Sports.
That's the job. Not everybody is cut out for it, but that's the job.
Maybe it's not that way at smaller papers, but this is a metro. This is how it works. Rookies aren't in that position for a reason.
Whoever was in that seat, regardless of how busy the night was or how few copy editors were in that shift, has to kill or question this thing.
I did it. I questioned/suggested killing stuff when I was a copy editor without a title. I've had that conversation with stud columnists. I told one (pre-1HP), "My job is to keep you from looking stupid, and this is the stupidest, most illogical piece of crap I've ever read." About a week later, that dude thanked me.
Somebody had to call Mark. "Dude, you're awesome, but what the heck were you thinking? This doesn't work, and this is why ...." They want that. Their egos are huge, but they want to be right.
MileHigh has made that call. Anybody who has been in that position has had to make these decisions, those calls.
No way that gets through.
No way.

 

[jaredk]

Out of touch? You think?
Out of touch with humankiind.
He never once thought, "There, but for the grace of God, is my daughter."

 

[DirtyDeeds]

I don't blame the desk. It's easy to go auto pilot when A. A columnist is very good just about every time out and B. You have to clear each edit through a higher-up. That's how mistakes get in the paper, but that's on management's policy, not on the deskers who aren't allowed to do their job without going through channels.

I just hope the desk went through those channels. If they just didn't feel like calling the columnist or an editor, that's pathetic. And I have to belive this sort of column was in fairly early, though I could be wrong on that. As a desker, I definitely would have made a call and raised heck if anyone demanded that this column run. It's the editor's job to save writers from themselves sometimes. They all make mistakes on occasion, which is why we have editors in the first place. This is just terrible.