Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

I'll respond. I've been on the desk, done some designing, have covered a variety of beats and worked with several columnists.

I've expressed concerns about certain columns that have run in our paper, both as a desk person and as a beat guy working with said columnists.

The response from the bosses has been universal: yawn.

I eventually surrendered.

Years ago I suggested we needed to address a serious bias issue in a news story penned by an NFL writer, one who is universally respected here.

Based on the look I got from the SE at the time you would have thought I told him I was going to shoot his wife.

 

"A better question is, has anyone ever called a columnist with concerns about what he wrote? Or has anyone ever brought a story to the SE or some other superior's attention because of those concerns? It's not asking too much for an editor to do at least one of those two things. It's not that someone on the desk should have read it and immediately set out to have it spiked. It's that if they just slapped a headline on it without attempting to flag it somehow, they didn't do their job. It's not passing the buck to look at the entire process, from writing to editing."

That sounds like a similar question to asking if someone had pursued revisions. You don't reply as to whether you have done either, so I guess the safe assumption would be the answer is no.

Also, what you describe is the very definition of passing the buck -- trying to point to some other part of the process as the problem.

You can't say it's not too much to ask for someone to raise concerns. I agree. The problem, though, is what happens after the concerns are raised. If you had ever raised one, you would know this. The subsequent poster seems to know exactly where the problems lie.

 

If you're implying that anyone who hasn't tried to get a story spiked doesn't understand how hard it is and therefore has no room to talk, that's bullshit.

I'm a writer, not an editor. But I've certainly been on the other end of it, where a desk guy calls me with concerns about something I've written. Don't act like it's above and beyond the call of duty. It's part of the job description. Armageddon went to his bosses and got a yawn. At least he did his job.

 

Joe:

I agree that I did my job. But my problem, and the point of my post, was that the indifference displayed when I did raise those concerns had the effect of sending a clear message.

That message was that I was wasting my time, and theirs, by raising the concerns because of the name/status of the writer.

Although that might be SOP it's also a load of BS. If you are a desk person and you get that response enough times at some point you say forget it. Message received.

And that is one of the ways a column like Whicker's gets online and in the paper.

If you don't value or at least listen to the observations of the desk, why have them there?

 

I get what you're saying, but even in that atmosphere, if you had been presented with something as objectionable as Whicker's column don't you think you would have said something to somebody about it? If only to cover your own ass? I think saying "the higher ups never listen to us" isn't much of an excuse. If anything, that's passing the buck.

 

I'm not a desk guy and I never have been, so you can feel free to tell me to shove it. However, as a reporter, I know what would happen if there was a big controversy involving someone on my beat and I didn't bother to ask that person about it because "He won't say anything" or "He told me no comment on this kind of thing before."

Even if you know what the answer is going to be, you ask the question just to cover your own butt. I've asked hundreds of questions I knew wouldn't be answered.

Same thing here, I think. If I'm a desk guy and I read that and find it so terribly objectionable, I would say to someone, anyone higher on the pay grade that me, "I think you ought to look at this to make sure it's OK." If you do that, you've done your job.

My 2 cents.

 

Agreed BB. . .That makes sense to me.

I don't know Mark personally (although I do know his wife, Robyn Norwood, a tremendous reporter herself), but he's always struck me as a pretty professional guy. Sometimes, good people just do stupid things, no matter the line of work. And this was pretty stupid.

 

Evidently, somebody didn't do their job.

 

So far, only one person has responded directly to the question of: "Have you tried to get a column spiked or to get serious revisions made?" And that response has spoken volumes.

"However, as a reporter, I know what would happen if there was a big controversy involving someone on my beat and I didn't bother to ask that person about it because "He won't say anything" or "He told me no comment on this kind of thing before.""

The difference, though, is you are talking about grilling people outside at the paper. I guarantee if a desker starts grilling people at the paper, then the outcome won't be good.

"Evidently, somebody didn't do their job."

Yeah. The writer. He needs to stop passing the buck and start taking some responsibility for this.

 

Well, no shit. I don't think anybody on this thread disagrees with you.

However, there WAS a systematic breakdown of the editing process as well. You know how I know? This atrocity got into print (and online!).

If the system works like it's supposed to, that doesn't happen and this thread doesn't exist.

Nobody is saying Whicker wasn't responsible. Nobody is even saying that he doesn't deserve the lion's share of the blame. We're saying, if this thing went down like it apparently did, there is more than enough blame to spread around.

 

The reason that your question hasn't gotten much direct response is that it's pretty much irrelevant.

Everyone agrees that there is shared responsibility for what happened, but that most of the blame obviously goes to the writer. What's your point? That the desk deserves no blame? Desk guys should just process stories like they're on a conveyor belt because nobody listens to them anyway?

 

The point is that if people listened to the desk more often, then it might be easier to head off things like this.

That's why my question is pretty much very relevant to this discussion.

And just saying that "this got into print" means the desk is at fault is an oversimplification. So if a writer just makes up something off the top of his head about a prep game and it gets into print, then the desk is at fault? Don't think so.