More from J. Todd Foster

I wonder if parents or the public ever minded or got upset that the star quarterback was made "notorious" by the paper for his football exploits.

I wonder if the kid was ever felt "suicidal" over his football exploits being splashed all over the paper.

No?

Well, then, they shouldn't mind the kid's name being mentioned when he takes a leak, on purpose, in public, during the national anthem.

Hello...

People make such a big deal about the kid being "a minor." That is nothing but a technicality in this case. A teenager -- especially one involved in sports who pays respects to the flag and stands through a national anthem at every game -- ought to know not to be urinating, in public, during the national anthem.

And if he didn't, well...I guess he does now. Geez, the excuses people make for kids are ridiculous.

As for whether or not Foster called the superintendent back, and asked if he could use his "suicide" quote, or told him he was going to do so, I hope he did so. I think I would have. But, how do we know he didn't?

The superintendent probably was engaging in hyperbole, and he probably knew it, if he was asked or confronted about his message, or the issue.

Foster tends to try to educate the public, through his columns, regarding inner workings of a newspaper, and let people in on them. In short, like a lot of us, he likes to talk shop, and will engage anyone about it.

I applaud his putting this type of stuff out there. Whether it gets put up for debate, or ridicule, is really beside the point.

 

Yes, yes, and yes. Nonetheless, Super's got to be smarter than to leave that voicemail.

Maybe they wouldn't. And your average truck driver or secretary or even a cop, I wouldn't expect that they would. A school superintendent, though, really should know better. This is PR 101. Control the message. The person at the top of that system's PR department, not to mention the school system attorney, is likely losing substantial sleep over this. I guess my point is this situation has been poorly managed by both sides by people who should know better.

 

The other thing about the superintendent is, how does he know that the kid is suicidal? If the kid truly was, I would think the super is violating some sort of confidentiality law in discussing it with a reporter. And if nothing else, I would find it pretty hard to trust the superintendent with anything confidential again.

 

Sure. Put it out there. And I can defend the decision, too. But why not state the facts and maybe what concerns went into making the decision. Why come off looking like an ass?

You could easily have said that you got calls expressing concern from the super and others.

The suicidal part is bad because 1) It's true and you are mocking it 2) It's not true but you are using it apparently without having the balls to call the super first.

 

Couple points:

1. The kid's talent and hard work made him a good football player. The fucking newspaper just reports about it.

2. Holding a high school kid to a different standard because he's a star athlete is just as wrong as pandering to a high school kid because he's a star athlete.

3. J. Todd Foster is a petty and tedious wannabe who's been exposed by his newspaper's award.

 

And my point is, I wonder if parents got nearly as upset about the kid urinating, on purpose, in public, in the middle of the national anthem, as they did about this kid's name being mentioned in the paper when it should have been mentioned.

I highly doubt it, which, frankly, ought to bring into the question the credibility of the complaining parties.

A superintendent of a school district should know that when he calls the editor of a newspaper, he's on the record unless he says, in preface, that he's not.

Because it was a phone message, I would have called the guy back in order to make sure it was him in the voicemail and/or to give him a chance to say that, no, it wasn't him, and please don't use it (or else I'll be suing the daylights out of you).

But, we don't know that the super wasn't called back. Maybe then, he realized he should've said he wanted his stuff off the record, and did so at that time, and so, no additional information or update was used. Now, I don't know about this, I'm just raising a possibility.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased because I've been on the receiving end of some very good, clear, decisive, fair, encouraging and much-appreciated feedback about my work from Foster in the past, and I know, from personal experience, that, even as hard as he sometimes may be for sources, or the public, to like or understand, he is not one to throw journalists under the bus.

That goes a very long way with me these days, and I'd work for the guy in a minute because of it.

 

I'm sorry, I can't see defending this J. Toddd action.

 

At no point does Jackass Todd say he spoke to the super or even tried to call him, he merely quotes his voice mail.

Unprofessional, unethical bullshit.

Nice that his paper won a Pulitzer. I guess that makes Jackass Todd a fucking star. But his methods make him look like a pompous ass and his 15 minutes have more than expired.

 

Excellent points spnited. You have truly pinned the tail on the jackass!!!

 

Sigh ... seriously guys? Seriously? J. Todd Foster (total disclosure, I'm his sports editor who has had a great working relationship with this guy for about seven years ... give or take) did what I would hope every ME would do in this situation. What situation?

Well, he knew that despite EVERY editor in this building agreeing to run the kid's name, that everybody but him might be getting phone calls and nasty e-mails. So, like a good manager (or coach in any sport) he deflects the vile toward him. Guess what? Holy freakin' crap, it worked. Let us not mention that, and I'm only counting the phone calls I've gotten, it's at least 4-to-1 in favor of naming the kid from the general public. You know, the people we freakin' serve and report the news to. You know, readers.

But, alas, here we are behind hidden names with hidden agendas. People who never met the guy and don't realize what he does for people on his staff who work their asses off. Or people who worked for him, didn't get along with him and come on here to rail against him. And then those mindless saps who form an opinion of somebody despite never having met the person.

Hey, I was fired from a newspaper once many moons ago. You know what I did? Nothing. I never spoke an ill word toward the paper and used it as motivation the rest of my career. It seemed to work pretty well for little old me. Maybe some people would do well to follow in those footsteps. (Sorry, didn't mean to get egotistical which, lo-and-behold, is suddenly a point of contention with us sports writers … the most egotistical bunch of them all.)

 

So J. Todd Foster talked to the staff and everyone wanted to run the kid's name. He agreed and also said that he would run a holier-than-though column where he'd come off as a a condescending know-it-all to make sure that none of his staffers would be bothered by irate readers?

Good for him. Sounds like a gem to work for.

 

He wants and encourages hard-nosed, thorough reporting, he admires, believes in and understands the importance of quality enterprise work, he promotes and takes pride in his staff and his paper; he's passionate about journalism; he's willing to take a stand; he's unafraid of public ire and to take risks; he's willing to back his staff and others he knows and believes in; and he is unlikely to throw any good journalist under the bus...

Seems like a pretty good person to work for to me...