Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

[imjustagirl]

Tim,

If you don't know the difference between writing for a newspaper and writing for a message board, then there's not much I can do for you.

And my name has been posted on here many times. I'm hardly a secret.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Tim, you've been on here before with the same tune and generally you fail to goad people into agreeing with you. A sane person would consider that the other point of view therefore must have some validity, even if he doesn't agree with it. Having failed to become a moral authority with the weight of your words, you could apply to become a moderator here and thus achieve your goal by decree from the management. But most of them use (or once used) pseudonyms as well, for good reason.

 

[Tim Sullivan]

I recognize that different standards exist. I fail to see that as an adequate rationale. That cockfighting is accepted in some cultures does not make it right.
Forgive me for asking professional journalists to behave like professional journalists.

 

[Ace]

I recognize that different standards exist. I fail to see that as an adequate rationale. That cockfighting is accepted in some cultures does not make it right.
Forgive me for asking professional journalists to behave like professional journalists.

Tim,

I was with you til you dissed cockfighting.

 

[Some Guy]

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.

If the powers-that-be at The Register check with SportsJournalists.com before deciding to discipline or not discipline Whicker, this business is way more screwed up than I thought.

You give this website far too much credit. Nothing written here is going to affect Whicker's career one way or another.

 

[spaceman]

Some Guy, you are absolutely right.

The discussion here will have ZERO impact on the situation.

 

[Some Guy]

I fail to see that as an adequate rationale.

Again, duly noted. But you appear to have been overruled.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I recognize that different standards exist. I fail to see that as an adequate rationale. That cockfighting is accepted in some cultures does not make it right.
Forgive me for asking professional journalists to behave like professional journalists.

You are also assuming the majority of members posting here are professional journalists.

 

[Some Guy]

I recognize that different standards exist. I fail to see that as an adequate rationale. That cockfighting is accepted in some cultures does not make it right.
Forgive me for asking professional journalists to behave like professional journalists.

You are also assuming the majority of members posting here are professional journalists.

Good point. Many folks here have recently lost their jobs, and didn't even get to pen a wildly insensitive column first.

 

[RustyHampton]

For what it's worth, I agree with Tim on the anonymous posts.
The anonymous posting that reporters and editors participate in on this MSG board is akin to what we decry on our own newspaper Web sites and the fanboi sites where the regulars take great joy in crushing us with their words.
I don't expect anyone to change their opinion or habits, just putting in my 2 cents.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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.

Actually I think the Globe suspended Ryan and ESPN followed suit. What Ryan said was nothing compared to what Whicker wrote.

 

[broadway joe]

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.

Actually I think the Globe suspended Ryan and ESPN followed suit. What Ryan said was nothing compared to what Whicker wrote.

OK, he was suspended by his paper, which makes it even more similar to the Whicker situation. And yes, Whicker's mistake was worse. I don't remember there being much sentiment that Ryan's penalty was too harsh, and I don't see why it would be unreasonable for Whicker to get something along the same lines.

And as far as Sullivan's contention, it's quite a stretch to suggest that anything written here could be career-threatening to Whicker. If anything, the anonymity of these posts will keep them from having any bearing on his future.