1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Inky_Wretch, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. Magic In The Night

    Magic In The Night Active Member

    OK, Grizzly, I'll respond. I've been a writer and an editor so have been on both sides of the fence, sometimes at the same time at the same shop. I can say it's extremely difficult to get a story spiked, let alone a column, and I've rarely succeeded for an entire three-edition paper. Sometimes, they'll spike it for first edition but it will come back like a bad penny for later editions. I do, however, express reservations about things like bias or unfairness or sexism or racism and sometimes have some luck in modifying things slightly although most of the time they don't want to do anything and, in general, sneer in the direction of most copy editors. I think this column is a good lesson in that people should continue to bring things up and the next time they're given grief about it, say, well, hope we don't have a Mark Whicker situation on our hands here. Then smile and walk away.
     
  2. broadway joe

    broadway joe Guest

    Oh please. Stop whining. It's not as if no one ever listens to the desk. Stories get changed and sent back for re-writes all the time. According to the SE's apology, three different editors read Whicker's story and none of them brought it to the attention of a senior editor or called Whicker. If they had done either of those things and been ignored, then they would have been blameless. If you don't do your job because you think no one will listen to you or you're afraid to call the star columnist, then you shouldn't be in that job.
     
  3. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    That's a pretty silly stretch of logic.

    It wouldn't be obvious that a made up stat from a prep gamer was off.
    It should have been patently obvious to anyone with half a brain that something was off with this Whicker column.

    Put another way. If the copy desk isn't there to, you know, edit copy ... then why are they there?

    If all they're supposed to be is a spell checker, what good are they? My computer has spell check. Let's lay all those dudes off. Journalism business saved. Voila!
     
  4. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    Bingo.
    And double bingo.
     
  5. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    I disagree with that. It's not easy to ask tough questions to the people you cover, especially when you know it's going to piss them off and may have long-term ramifications on your ability to do your job. But you've got to do it, especially if the story is important enough.

    In this example, if you're a copy editor and you have been repeatedly "grilling" higher-ups about things you want changed, then you've probably been crying wolf too much. So in a situation like this, when a real wolf comes along, you are too gun-shy to say anything.

    Just to reiterate: I am not absolving the writer in a case like this. Obviously, the writer takes the bulk of the responsibility. But the desk shares some.

    Unless you are self-publishing, it takes two parties to get something to the readers. One person writes it. One person (ultimately, at the end of the chain) puts it in the paper.
     
  6. armageddon

    armageddon Active Member

    Me, I would have called that idiot columnist at home and asked him if he was on crack when he wrote what he did.

    Based on Whicker's subsquent "apologies" he would have reminded me that he was a columnist and I was just a copy editor.
     
  7. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    I mentioned earlier in the thread that I've spiked columns, but it rarely has come to that. There may be a heated argument, but in the end most people make a decision based on reason, even if the columnist's first instinct is to defend his work/turf or, in the case of some SEs, avoid conflict with a star columnist at almost any cost. Except in one instance (my first one), spiking happens only when there's insufficient time for the writer to remedy the situation. Revision is usually what happens. But most columnists have reasonably high batting averages, at least in the sense of being basically sane and ultimately, when challenged, making decisions that won't ruin their relationship with readers. Except for one guy that I thought was going senile, every columnist I've edited eventually was willing to rethink bad decisions if an editor took the approach that readers might not take this column in the manner it was intended and does keeping it this way really have any upside for the columnist?
     
  8. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    I wonder what would have happened if one person -- just one -- whom Whicker respected had called him up and said, "I know you don't mean for this column to sound insensitive, but some people might think it is."

    Maybe Whicker tells that guy to go fuck himself.
    Or maybe Whicker tells the guy to go fuck himself, then sits down, thinks about it, and decides -- even if he can't see what the big deal is -- the column isn't worth the hassle.

    I know from experience that sometimes it can only take a small nudge from someone I respect to make me re-think a piece I've written.

    Of course, we'll never know in this case.
     
  9. Tim Sullivan

    Tim Sullivan Member

    I'm not a close friend of Mark Whicker, but I know him to be enterprising, energetic, entertaining, prolific and amazingly fast. I also know that he identifies himself when he writes something. For all of those who would like to see him fired, suspended or keelhauled, I would ask for the same kind of personal accountability.

    It's irresponsible, hurtful and gutless to take anonymous and potentially career-threatening cheap shots at a guy who has elevated our profession for three decades. If you can't forgive this one column, please have the decency to say so without a pseudonym.
     
  10. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    Eh. I don't think he should be fired. Or drawn and quartered. Or anything like that.

    But the whole "you shouldn't use anonymous handles on an Internet message board" argument is both tired and lame. It's an argument people fall back on when they've run out of contructive things to say.
     
  11. Tim Sullivan

    Tim Sullivan Member

    Professionalism is constructive. Anonymity is for amateurs.
     
  12. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    Blah blah blah. It's an Internet message board.

    This is supposed to be a place for journalists to speak freely. As those of us in the business know sometimes, with some sources on some topics, that business is more freely conducted anonymously.

    I'd say most people here chose an anonymous handle for reasons that go way beyond Mark Whicker. This ain't the only thread here, ya know.

    But if the best you've got is a screed against anonymity, well, duly noted.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page