Phawker: Stephen A. Smith loses Inquirer column

touche slappy, touche.

and that's exactly why i'm voting for you when poster of the year balloting comes around.

 

Good for them. He wanted to be a TV guy and wasn't really a newspaper guy anymore. Now he's got what he wanted, albeit without the second salary.

 

Re: Stephen A stripped of column

Saw that. Actually, it was a pretty good matchup for Stephen A. The guy from the Richmond rag came off looking like a naive fool.

 

Re: Stephen A stripped of column

Much like you whenever the subject of Bonds or steroids comes up here.

 

Re: Stephen A stripped of column

Seem to recall Mr. Smith assuring folks that his newspaper responsibilities and quality of his column never would suffer because of his growing electronic career.

Notice, too, how the editor says it used to be enough that the Inquirer could have its guy on ESPN. Hell of a lot of good it has done for that paper during Stephen A.'s crossover period.

When you cc: Mr. Canzano, include the Inquirer's circulation numbers when Mr. Smith started his TV work and where those numbers are at now. So much for promotional value.

At least this new boss gets it -- Mr. Smith was cheating the paper in terms of work ethic, the quality of his work declined and finally someone called him on it. If he or any other of these multi-employer journalists wants to pump up his broadcast or Internet presence and income, go, go! Make the bucks! Just do the right thing and give up the newspaper job to the folks who would keep that first.

 

supposedly, stephen A. turned in a column a week or so ago that wasn't salvageable

they spiked it

 

I do know that the Inky posted circ gains at last report.
One could argue that Screamin's work quality wasn't very good to begin with, but this is what happens when you create a brand.
The brand can make money others can't and then they do. It creates a certain amount of professional jealousy since one of the primary tenets of journalism is being church mouse poor.
I don't think most would argue that Wilbon's work at the Post has slid, outside of his recent sloppy job on Ball State, but that didn't have anything to do with his ESPN work

 

Agree on Wilbon. Think he's more the exception than the rule, though. Look how the Post has let Kornheiser scale back, to the point of non-writing.

To me, this isn't just a bunch of character actors, who might fancy themselves as artists, clucking their tongues when one of their own -- let's say Tobey Maguire -- "sells out" by doing a string of blockbusters. It's more like the guy is trying to have it both ways, keeping his off-Broadway role (but skipping matinees now, letting the understudy do the work) while double-dipping. If newspaper folks want to use their jobs as springboards to glitzier gigs, good for them. But then just go. Honor the first job enough to know when you're giving it less than 100 percent.

 

Mr Huggy,

Near Riverdale Farm. Does his daughter live there, maybe?

YHS, etc

 

There's been a SAS in every newspaper and TV news department since American journalism began. A colorful, loud mouthed, opinionated, but local character. Readers and viewers understand and accepted their work for what it was mostly entertainment with some thoughtful opinion mixed in. The character was a local celebrity but not of any real consequence. SAS's problem was that he attempted to be that character on a National level, but took himself far far too serious.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable for a newspaper to expect their columnists -- sports, features, metro, business, whatever -- to have the pulse of their community. To do that, you've got to be there.

 

Any circ losses (and it would be minimal) would be covered by not paying SAS's salary.