SB Nation pulls Daniel Holtzclaw longform piece

Point taken

 

It would be disastrous to say anything until they decide what the outcome is. (One or both might be fighting for their job.) It seems clear from Spencer Hall's note someone in senior leadership wanted that story changed, or held, and it wasn't changed. Did Stout go rogue and publish on his own, assuming he knew better than others? It's clear from that internal memo he loved the story and thought it would "get people talking." Did he push "go" without others looking? Has he always had authority to push "go" without getting a green light from Hall or others?

They do have a woman in management there, I've learned. Elena Bergeron, who used to be at ESPN Mag. So she likely must have seen or been aware of the piece. Jason Kirk implied as much in the comment section of Hall's editor's note.

I'm convinced Stout essentially had his own island and he got to operate as he saw fit.

 

It's not so much that I disagree with this but what, exactly, are you suggesting? That none of those topics haven't been covered on this board? Most of them have. At great length.

The "cult of longform" is because of the Internet and its limitless space. At least it is for me. It makes longform logistically feasible, even when it's unwise.

 

It's like it's a the-bigger-they-are, the-harder-they-fall type of thing.

It's more difficult to do long-form writing well. If it is done at all, the expectation is that it is done that way -- that the story is worth it, that the effort that was made throughout it, from reporter, to editors, was put to a test and raised to a higher standard than the average story. That's where the lapse was here.

This, in fact, could have been a great story. It should have been a great story. And to address Elliotte's question, I don't think it will, or should, destroy everything for Stout, unless, as DD suggested, he may have posted it behind others' backs and/or before planned. That said, I can't fathom how this story could have gotten through at all without more balance and depth. No matter who had, or did not have, the final say in the matter.

It was way overwritten, but that was mostly because that only considers what was written, and didn't include what was not, but should have been.

As an aside, was anyone else jarred by that big sandwich quote of Holtzclaw's near the top about his admiration of Ray Lewis' "leadership"? I found it ironic, and telling.

 

I'm not personally seeing it.

 

I still think the only way it could've worked is if you framed it around the total denial people close to him are still in, then dropped a hammer in the last section that detailed how effing stupid they all are by laying out the evidence.

 

That's what this story needed, from whatever viewpoint you saw things -- more evidence.

I know we're sports people around here, but I also think the sports angle needed to be de-emphasized a bit. It would have forced more of the actual news/evidence/meat of the story and issues involved to be reported out and used instead of allowing the subject to live in his dream world to too great an extent, at least with regard to whatever it had to do with what is going on now.

 

2 things I am curious about in the aftermath of this ...

1) This writer is married. What do you think his wife's reaction to all this is? I wouldn't imagine it would be a good one.

2) His future as a freelance writer. Would this keep you from hiring him or using his work entirely? Or is it OK to use him, as long as he doesn't write about serial rapists?

 

I know someone else posted that they thought the top of the story was overwritten, but I thought the visual of Holtzclaw rocking back and forth, then folded over in despair and disbelief upon the reading of the charges/verdict, was excellent. I could totally see it, and could see it happening, under the circumstances.

I so wanted to hear more from Holtzclaw about his one assertion to the jury that "I did not do this." How could there have been no effort to follow up on that?

I so wanted to hear more from Holtzclaw's fellow law enforcement officer/Dad, perhaps about any culture of cops that might contribute to cops behaving badly -- and why it was so impossible that his son could have fallen onto that dark side.

The story badly needed the inclusion of more direct reporting on victims, quotes from them, police reports, as well as analyses and reactions from jurors, more information on prosecutors' evidence, more from some of the former football teammates now keeping their distance even though they, too, are having a hard time seeing Holtzclaw as a convicted rapist, and then, some of the stuff about football, its importance to Holtzclaw, etc.

 

The longer he goes w/o commenting, the more I think this has a real shot to be a career-ender. It's not good when he's the only one who has not spoken publicly. The NY Times got brief comments from Arnold and Hall, but not Stout.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/b...alflow&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I'd be surprised if this doesn't, at the very least, end his time with SB Nation. That's a slapdick collection of blogs, with a few forays into legitimate writing, backed by some serious money. The last thing they need is bad pub like this tarnishing the brand.

Ditto for a 25-year-old institution like BASW. They don't need readers wondering about the creds of the series editor.

 

This portion of an email from Stout (quoted in the NYT link) sent out before the shitstorm doesn't help:

The article was “a nuanced portrait that never loses sight of the fact that women were victimized,” the editor, Glenn Stout, wrote. “I think people will be talking about this one.”