Paging Lynn Hoppes ...

Really?

 

It's easy to pick at weak comparisons and cite past precedents. I'd like to see you rationalize Hoppes' behavior without either crutch.

 

Let's not compare the guy to a pedophile. That's a bit much.

 

Can I rationalize Hoppes' behavior without looking at precedent? I can't even rationalize it with it. But you still have to consider precedent when you evaluate an infraction.

 

Yeah. That's gross hyperbole and it's stupid.

One, I work for them, doing long-form work that demands intense investigation. I'm working on a piece right now that's nearly killed me. They've invested thousands in it. You don't do that if you don't care about journalism. And I am probably the smallest blip on the outermost regions of the ESPN bubble.

Two, there are lots of much better, much more talented people than me who bust their asses to do great journalism for ESPN.

Anyway, sorry, I'm done. As you were.

 

Huh? No idea what you are geting at. I think both should be punished harshly. But just because one wasn't doesn't mean the other shouldn't be. Now, if Hoppes worked for the NYT, you'd have an argument, but ...

 

The amazing thing to me is how often he plagiarized.

The Deadspin piece was posted on July 11 and gives 17 examples ... since May 1?

That's, what, 17 times in 72 days? So he averaged stealing content from Wikipedia once every 4.2 days over the past 2 1/2 months?

That is unreal. If that's not grounds for firing, what is?

 

99, when an industry leader like the NYT does nothing, it establishes a certain precedent. ESPN admonished Hoppes publicly, which is more than the NYT did.

 

So ESPN did more than the NYT did, but they followed the NYT's precedent. I see.

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/how_to_rate_a_writers_deceipt/

 

If you think the execs care about journalism, you are delusional. It's about making a buck.

 

Okay.