The WashPost House of Ill Repute

Anyone can reach into their wallet and pull out $50...but how often can you do that with Oreos? You can be sure if they were playing for Oreos, Feinstein wouldn't have fallen asleep.

 

Double stuffed, chocolate covered oreos... mmmmmmmmmm.

 

Oh, like someone is going to put that much down on a stupid sports bet? Who are you, Pete Rose?

 

I'd have for sure studied up instead of drafting the best athlete available with 3 vowels in his name.

 

Isn't that stalking?
No offense, but my personal life is no one's fucking business but my own. If I choose to write about me personal life, than that is something different altogether, but if I'm working my beat and taking care of my business, than what I do when I'm not working is my concern and no one else's.
If I bet $5 in an NCAA tournament pool or $50 in a Master's pool, so fucking what.

 

So, we bitch when ESPN doesn't listen to its ombud and then we bitch when an ombud takes us to task (because, I suppose, we shouldn't be listening to her). She did a good job of asking a bunch of knowledgeable people outside the paper and she's got the reasonable, logical SE saying what we all know -- not a huge deal, but management tells them not to do these pools for money. If she isn't pissing off people on the paper, she isn't doing her job. As with a lot of ethical questions, it's all about appearance.

 

All of which brings up a new question: What will this mean for the lines at the press box betting window at Churchill Downs in two weeks?

 

They'll have to open up another window.

 

The Times has an ethics policy, which leaves no question. Sure, it does not apply to pools, so what? There are rules in place that say what can and can't be done. The Ombud said the Post needs such a policy.

Seems it would prevent people from going on the radio and calling an ombud column "the dumbest waste of space in the newspaper's history." Or, for that matter, coming onto Web sites and calling an ombudsman's work "her swill" in a post which had a decidedly unfriendly tone. And then subsequently backpedaling while identifying the original posting as "having hyperbolic fun."

 

No offense taken, since you missed my point anyway.

Sure, you can call it "stalking" and get on some high horse about your personal life and blah blah blah. It doesn't change the fact readers have more access to information noew than every before, and they also have more and easier access to let us know exactly what they think. Check the blight on humanity that is Internet fan boards. EVERYONE is an amateur reporter now.

And . . . . in a world where we breathlessly write up the off-field exploits of athletes, it is incredibly short-sighted to think the way we live our own lives is "nobody's business." Unfortunately, people make it their business - right or wrong - since again, information is so freely available. Hell, if you have a column with your name and face on it, does itnot behoove you to make sure you're not making an ass of yourself while ou drinking with your buddies? Lest some fanboy who disliked your recent rip on his favorite team's quarterback let you know about your own glass house?

It's not the old days. We have to cover our own asses more than ever before. What was the trigger for the Post Ombudsman's column? That's right, a letter from a reader.

I don't like it myself. But these are the facts.

 

I know what you are saying, but I just hate it. I just hate that a PR firm did a workup on a biz reporter who then got e-mailed the dossier by mistake. At least he knew what they were up to.
I guess it just bugs that me some reader is out googling my name to see what they can dig up. If they really cared all they would have to do is call or e-mail me.
Or, even worse, some PR hack has a file on me full of nasty little notes.