The WashPost House of Ill Repute

Thank you.

 

Nice try, fish, but blue is the sarcasm font. Red is the "I love child porn" font. Make a note of it.

 

With all due respect to Mr. Kindred, I see nothing wrong with the ombud's column. It's all about tone. As she wrote, the pool "is not a grave ethical matter," but given that they're journalists, some of whom have written about the dangers of sports gambling, maybe it would be better if the pool was for something other than money. That's not an unreasonable position. It certainly doesn't sound like she 's calling anyone "sinners doomed to journalistic hell."" Sounds to me like some of the writers in that house are a little thin-skinned.

 

Seems to me there is an easy solution here. The writers bet Oreos from now on. Winner, we'll say Lenny Shapiro, collects 500 Oreos when Zach Johnson wins. After filing their stories and having a late meal and a drink, the writers enjoy a post-meal cigar. Suddenly, everyone gets a jones for Oreos. Alas, it's too late to make it to the store, for the Augusta supermarket is closed. Who can remedy this situation? Why Lenny Shapiro, of course! Being the businessman that he is, Len decides the going rate for Oreos is $10 for five. After distributing the Oreos accordingly, he's made himself a nice little profit.

 

The above doesn't come close to describing this:

"Many newsrooms -- like many offices -- have sports pools; I never stopped them when I was an editor. The Post's internal NCAA pool was changed this year to make the top prize an iPod instead of cash. Just as well; a company lawyer won it.

The Masters pool is not a grave ethical matter, but The Post should have written rules to guide sports journalists on betting."

And the logic of the following makes sense as well:

"Malcolm Moran, who holds the Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society at Pennsylvania State University, said, "I wouldn't call [the Masters pool] serious. For myself, I don't get involved in pools."

Moran, a former sports journalist at the New York Times, Newsday and USA Today, believes there ought to be rules as there are at the Times, which states in its ethics policy: "To avoid an appearance of bias, no member of the sports department may gamble on any sports event, except for occasional recreational wagering on horse racing (or dog racing or jai alai). This exception does not apply to staff members who cover such racing or regularly edit that
coverage." The Times' prohibition does not apply to pools, said Craig Whitney, standards editor."

Sounds to me like a few veterans are bitter their toys might be taken away. But in actuality, the ombudsman was asking why play with toys, when the potential to invite reader scrutiny is there? Journalism is not like it was in past decades; readers now have more access to our information, both personal and professional, than ever before. And the eagle-eyed ones will call us on things that are the least bit questionable. We no longer have the wherewithal to scream about morality without taking care to keep our own noses clean.

The buzzword, I believe is "The appearance of impropriety." And the ombudsman wrote a column that included a note that the New York Times (!) has a policy to guard against these things, and mentioned that the Post should probably have some set guidelines to eliminate any questions of what is and is not allowed. I don't honestly see how those involved can adopt some arrogant "leave our pool ALONE!!!!!!!!" attitude in the face of the New York FUCKING Times having a set policy.

Sure, it's a little heavy-handed for the Ombud to imply that a harmless pool turns guys who rail against big-time gambling into hypocrites. But the Kornheiser/Kindred response to this is much, much too sensitive.

 

The careful reader will note that Ptor quotes the NYFT standards editor saying the NYFT has no set policy concerning pools. This immediately precedes Ptor's declaration that the NYFT has a set policy.

On the charge of being "much, much too sensitive," I plead not guilty. Mumblety-mumble years of columnizing have given me Kevlar skin impenetrable by barbs, knives, and gaffing hooks (though I remain vulnerable to 21's stilettos). A sensitive nature would have prevented me from posting the column in the first place. I posted it in hopes of having hyperbolic fun. Also, there's a small lesson in it somewhere, mote small, but there.

 

I feel stupider for having reading that column.

Where do I go to get my five minutes back?

 

Andy wanted to tell you about a trifecta, he just didn't know you well enough ...

 

Why is it OK to bet Oreos but not $50? The act the ombudsman is speaking out against is not betting $50, it is betting. So if you bet Oreos, you're still betting.

 

Hell, the one I umm, organize, paid 670 points for first, 270 (I think) for second, 103 for third with last getting their money back and 50th winning another 40 points, just because I can,...

Dave,
Maybe's she's just pissed that you didn't invite her to get in....