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. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    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.
     
  2. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  3. Tim Sullivan

    Tim Sullivan Member

    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.
     
  4. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Tim,

    I was with you til you dissed cockfighting.
     
  5. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    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.
     
  6. spaceman

    spaceman Active Member

    Some Guy, you are absolutely right.

    The discussion here will have ZERO impact on the situation.
     
  7. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

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

  8. You are also assuming the majority of members posting here are professional journalists.
     
  9. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

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

    RustyHampton Member

    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.
     
  11. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

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

    broadway joe Guest

    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.
     
Write your reply...
Uploads are not available.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page