Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

If Albom is in the union than a lot has changed in the last several years because he was blamed for that strike because, if memory serves, he crossed the picket line. That was when he was writing "Tuesdays with Morrie" and is one of the reasons why so many at that paper refuse to acknowledge him.

Granted, that was several years ago...

 

This is a guess but I think we can find the answer to your question in how he handled the post-publishing criticism. He basically told people they didn't understand/didn't have a clue/he was right and they were wrong.

I'd guess he would have told the person to fuck off, albeit politely.

 

Yes. As I said earlier, I once got a column from a hot-shot columnist spiked and had to go through the ME to do it on deadline.

I don't think Whicker should be fired. I think the desk equally shares the blame for letting that column get in the paper if they didn't raise any flags.

I can see both sides. I assume Whicker got an idea, thought up some clever lines and didn't really grasp the context of what he was doing.

I can see the desk groaning but giving the column a pass.

 

You can't compare Rob Parker's work to Mark Whicker. For starters, Whicker has more experience and is much better than Rob ever was. Whick made a mistake. There's no mulligan in journalism. He's taken his lumps. Time to move on.

 

Albom was not "blamed" for the strike. Yes, he crossed the line. As did almost every other member of the sports department except for a few writers and a few deskers, I believe. As did many other union members of the newsroom. He was hardly alone, just one of the most visible. I don't know this but I believe that they were still in the guild even after crossing although I don't know how that worked. I just know he was a dues-paying member at the time of his "indiscretion," and that's what helped him get out of it. The union definitely came to his rescue.

 

I chose my words poorly. I know some there blamed him for the strike not being effective because their biggest name writer went back to work.

 

One reason why many on the sports staff crossed was because there was an underlying threat that if they didn't cross, they wouldn't have a job or be replaced permanently. Sports jobs, as many of us know, are difficult to obtain.

 

If you're addressing me, Tim, I'm not anonymous. I'll tell anybody on this board who I am, and many people already know. The only reason I use a shortened version of my name is because I don't want my SJ posts showing up in a general Google search of my name.

I think Whicker deserves some serious punishment. And if you or anyone else want my full name, PM me.

 

Jack, I kind of get the impression he was directing that at more than one person... ;D

 

ESPN suspended Bob Ryan for a month, if I remember correctly, for saying he thought Jason Kidd's wife ought to be slapped. Similar situation -- a guy with a sterling reputation making the first major gaffe of his career. If anything, Whicker's mistake is worse because it can't be excused as just a momentary lapse in judgment. The fact that it's his first offense is a factor, but like Ryan, it shouldn't get him completely off the hook.

 

He wrote a poor, insensitive column. He didn't libel anyone or make stuff up.

I don't see why someone should be suspended or fired for that if it is out of character.

 

It's not a question of piling on. It's about accountability. This is a board for journalists, after all, and we ought to strive for a higher standard than the Wild West anarchy exercised elsewhere on the web, particularly when someone's career is at stake.
Ask yourself this: How many newspapers would allow you to run an anonymous quote attacking someone or advocating his dismissal, particularly when no new information was introduced in the quote? If it doesn't meet the standards of fairness of responsible journalism outlets -- and of the many excellent copy editors who have saved some of us from ourselves -- why should we not demand the same from a journalism board read by thousands of professionals?
It's one thing to make a snide remark about a particular piece of work. It's quite another to contribute to a firestorm that can have serious consequences for an individual. That's not to say that Mark Whicker, or any of us, is above criticism. But it's shameful and pernicious for journalists to anonymously advocate penalties that imperil someone's livelihood.
Lastly, it's more than slightly hypocritical to claim you can't identify yourself for fear of repercussions when your published statements may create repercussions for one of your peers.