Sports reporter to undergo sex change

exactly. read 21.

 

I think I might actually be changing my mind on leaving out the wife.

If this is simply a "Look, here's the deal, we'll be doing more on this in the future" introductory COLUMN, then you certainly don't have to answer all the questions with your first shot.

And, I may have missed it, but did the Times say what section the "Woman in Progress" stuff would be in?

 

Thank you for proving my point --- and this goes back to one of my original points which is, this is another example of a self-serving and self-important mostly annonymous and/or borderline public figure who is doing a very calculated publicity stunt. This is no different than John Amechie, a fringe NBA player at best, suddenly deciding he could cash in by "coming out" and oh by the way, signing up with ESPN to write a tell-all book about it (and hopefully include some dirt on some of my former teammates).

Prior to ESPN's grandstanding about Amechie, how many people do you think ever heard of him? And the same is true in this case.

 

One more thing, zagoshe...are you a reporter? You should just call Penner and/or Dillman and ask these questions. Just let 'em know what you think. As you said, 'That is what we do here in this business.' Go for it.

 

But this became a huge news story. And they assigned a reporter to do a straightforward news story on the fallout from the column.

If you're the reporter or the editor handling that news story, I don't see how you can ignore some pertinent details because you know the people involved and don't want to invade their privacy. A lot of victims' relatives don't want to talk to reporters (and like many of us, I've discovered that first-hand), but that doesn't stop us from having to ask the questions, or bring up the issue.

If Lisa wanted to say "no comment," that's fine. But ignoring her is too much of a double standard for me when it comes to a news story.

The column, the guy can handle it any way he wants to. It's his column. If you're assigning a news story, that's different.

 

If a writer is going to write a personal column, he or she should tell the whole story. Period.

 

Um, they denied every interview request that came in. While it could end up being a publicity stunt, you certainly can't call it that now.

 

They denied every interview request because if he goes on Oprah and tells his story, suddenly his blog -- and their ability to get every mile possible out of the story, goes up in smoke.....

That's even MORE evidence that this is a publicity stunt and I can't believe more of you aren't pissed at the LA Times for trying to exploit this for the paper's own gain.

 

I'm curious as to how its known -- without any evidence or indication thereof -- that the "family" was destroyed? We have no information for it. For all we know, it could be a situation similar to herWife.com, where the couple are perfectly fine with the arrangement, and their children are doing just fine.

And, yes, the stroy itself is about Christine -- not Christine and her family. How her family chooses to deal with this *might* become newsworthy, but, at this moment, isn't.

The speculation is rather pathetic, and, as I've noted earlier, typical of those who seek to demonize TS folks for various personal reasons that typically aren't applicable outside of themselves.

 

And Finishthehat -- took it one step further. If you are going to write a news story, write a newstory.

Although, maybe you are right, 21, I'm quite sure John Q. Public is more interested in reading quotes from Sportsjournalists.com than say, what is happening with the guy's family and how they are handling all of this....

 

Its a newspaper. Exploiting information for the purpose of selling advertising is how they make their living.

 

Are you just assuming that this marriage was intact? Is it relevant if they were no longer together?