Nobody's posted this yet? Whitlock on Kornheiser?

Unless she's on TV.

 

I really didn't mean to drag this into a dialogue about specific people.
Jason explained his reasoning; some of us disagree with it but clearly his editor doesn't have a problem with it. I could never get away with some of the language Jason uses in columns, either, but clearly that's not the case elsewhere.
We all chose the paths we take in this business. I'm just curious if any strict boundaries remain.
At your place, do they literally set down rules regarding how far your relationships can extend with people you cover?

 

I'm in print.
And I know your editor wasn't suggesting by not speaking you were agreeing it's ok to engage in domestic violence, but wow. I never thought to carry it that far. When I speak to school children about how important it is to read, read, read, even if it means reading our competition, does that mean I've become an advocate for the other newspaper in town?
Now my hair hurts.

And there are people in this business who have more intimate relationships with sources than those who just sleep with them. The ethic question is way more involved than sex.

 

That's cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. It's not like attending a meeting for the Republican candidate, which would be perceived as coloring your coverage for the Democratic candidate. By attending the domestic abuse thing, would you be accused of coloring your coverage against those in favor of domestic abuse? By going to church, I guess you can't ever interview an agnostic or an atheist.

Sure you need an ethics policy. You also need common sense.

 

Yeah, that is a little over the top. Readers complaining that the reporter is biased against wife-beaters. He could never interview Bobby Cox again.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll throw in my two cents.

As a whole, I think we write too much for our peers and not our readers. Sure there are some rules that make us much better writers.

However, I just don't know when we stopped writing for each other, rather than our audience. We write to win awards and move on to bigger and better papers.

Personally, I'm happy with the small town atmosphere. For some reason, I always felt that others viewed me as an underachiever or a less talented writer because I'd rather stay in a small pond.

 

A couple things. I'm guessing Jason didn't sleep with Kornheiser (and I apologize for that image). Also, Jason's a columnist -- not a reporter -- so the rules are different.

 

get a fucking clue ... the rules are different, really???

ethics are ethics dipshit.

 

you ain't my reader. the average kc reader isn't asking all of these "ethical" questions and wondering whether his supervisor at all state insurance would let him write about tk.. the average reader would ask himself whether he learned anything about tk and leave it at that.


as to the person who mentioned the "trophy" wife thing... it was a joke. she's 56, i believe tony is 58... i intentionally included her age. i called her a trophy wife because that's what i called her all the next day on the set with tk...

 

So now we just pepper our columns with inside jokes between us and the subject?

Fabulous, J-Dub. Just fabulous.

 

IJAG, are you saying Whitlock and Bill Simmons are on the same level?

If so, has Whitlock sunk or risen to that point?

 

I don't know...I never read Simmons as being 'inside jokes' because any nicknames or whatever, he explains.

But a reference that only he, TK and crew members on PTI would get doesn't seem like it fits in a column for the masses.