Sports reporter to undergo sex change

Dude ... that has to be on the short list of most ridiculous things ever posted here. It's a PUBLICITY STUNT becuase they turned away all the publicity?

Lay off the brown acid. The brown acid is bad.

 

finishthehat, I'll give you that. (no rhyme intended, lol). ... But the column was free will to reveal what she wanted to. ... zagoshe, just can't respond to anything you say. Cuz YOU are ASSUMING and being accusatory that she did it as a publicity stunt. For now, I'm going to stick with what, to me, makes the most sense: she "came out" because her bosses are cool with it and said she wouldn't be fired, and so the readers deserve to know that Mike Penner and Christine Daniels are the same person and here's how and why.

 

Dysonance -- if you re-read one of my posts from above I said exactly what you said -- we don't know what happened with his family because it was completely left out. And if we are all speculating, then I imagine what John Q. Public is speculating about it as well.

And your point about advertising revenue -- and trying to generate traffic and interest -- speaks even louder about the paper's exploitation of this story.

Here is a question -- don't you find it strange that the paper turned down all the media requests? Do you think that was part of a deal already in place -- you know -- "If you come out, we get exclusive rights to market you and this story....."

I know, we shouldn't ask tough questions about subjects we've deemed to be politically correct.

 

And what if the family doesn't wish to be a news story? Susan Stanton's family doesn't wish it.

Given that Lisa works at the paper herself, I'd think it almost certain that she's been involved with every aspect of this coverage so far, and is the cheif reason we don't know anything.

I can say that my wife's reaction is precisely that way: how the family is dealing with it is a private, family matter, and, knowing my wife, lol, I'd say she'd probably say something akin to myob in a pleasant but no uncertain terms kind of way.

 

What's truly sad, zag, is that you clearly don't care about the actual journalism questions here. You'd just like to see someone else shamed and embarrassed publicly for even being associated with a lifestyle you find sickening. I don't particularly agree with the decision to write this column. I'm not sure Penner was enough of a blip on the radar screen of readers of the LA Times to matter. (If Plaschke or Simers decided to be a woman, it's one thing. It's a public figure.) But nothing has been lost by not forcing two people to publicly hash out their marriage issues simply so you can sit back and mock it with all your smugness. Maybe he wanted to include it, she was mortified, and Harvey decided (out of respect to one of his employees who might be going through hell) decided to delete it. But I'm sure you would have, as an editor, done your best to publicly embarrass someone who may have had zero say in Penner's decision, all in the name of journalism. Real class, you.

 

Since when do we allow sources to dictate coverage?

If a family wishes to have certain not so nice things left out of an obituary, do we just say -- OK?

No, that's not how we operate and all of you should know better.

And turning down the publicity means only one outlet -- the LA Times -- gets all the bang for the buck and if you read the story, it was the paper who turned it down "on his behalf."

 

Man, oh, man.

I wrote a post mildly criticizing Zagoshe ... and EF rightly, I think, deleted it. That was on page 6.

And then all this happened.

Having written that, I'm literally speechless at his lack of understanding on this. But I guess there are all kinds of people here, and we'll leave it at that.

As for his saying there were "holes" in a first-person essay, well ... I'm sitting here saying "What? How can there be reporting holes in a first-person essay?"

I literally got a little nauseous reading some of this "publicity stunt" shit.

Anyway, I type this from a hotel in Central Florida. Back to four days off. See you on page 23.

 

Double Down - I'm glad you know what I do or don't care about. Are you the thought police now? I guess we will put you in charge of the hate crimes division since you know what people are thinking.

And you have the audacity to call me smug?

 

There's no question they are speculating. And, like you, they are almost certainly speculating with a slant that condemns.

As for my point -- without advertising revenue, there'd be no business. That's the nature of the beast: ignoring it doesn't do any good, but trying to make it seem like some sort of dark conspiracy is just a tad iffy, don't you think?

Its journalism, Zagoshe. Of *course* there's a deal. Hopefully a lucrative one for Christine.

So no -- I don't find it strange.

 

"If a family wishes to have certain not so nice things left out of an obituary, do we just say -- OK?"

zag, if the obit is being paid for, YES! And most public obits are PAID FOR by the deceased person's family.

 

Dysonance -- so you agree with me then, that this was as much about generating publicity as anything else. Again, this guy-girl -- I don't care what paper he writes for -- was a bit player until now.

Why is it OK for you to suggest that this is likely going to be lucrative for this guy-girl but when I do the thought police on here condemn me?

And I don't know what happened to his family, I'd like to find out because it is a big part of the story.

 

Sour grapes, zagoshe.

So Lisa is a source now? Have you spoken with her, then? Gained some insight directly from her that you aren't sharing?

Sources generally dictate a story -- especially if it directly influences them. If they are stupid and get caught, that's one thing - fair game.

But if its a matter of this nature, and she's not talking, then yeah: she's dictating the story.