Tom Junod Q&A

Okay, that's probably it for the time being, I'm afraid -- Tom's heading out on assignment. But I hope this thread continues to generate discussion.

Sweater, thanks for posting the Kalamazoo story, which, I would quietly suggest, serves as an interesting contrast to Tom's piece.

DD, I don't want to answer for Tom, but just so you're not left hanging -- I know there was considerable debate at the magazine over what to do with the story after it fell apart. Even after Tom had re-written, I think there was still debate, mostly concerns over his safety. I'm sure there were times when everybody involved wanted to throw in the towel -- I happened to be in the office when Robert Scheffler was fact-checking the piece, and he looked pretty ready to barf -- but I think the story was so good, everybody thought it was worth the trauma. Also, I think everybody involved thought it was important to expose this guy for the fraud that he is, given the job he was holding at the time.

And River: Those celebrity stories suck. We'd all rather get punched in the nuts than have to write one.

All right. Thanks again everybody. Happy reading.

 

When you're cursing out the trolls or trying to wade through another pissing contest, remember this thread - which shows why SportsJournalists.com is a great site.

 

Jones, no worries. My question was answered in a round about way by both you and him, I think.

Thanks again for throwing this together. Really good stuff.

 

Actually, that might be a great story.

 

Junod had a legitimate reason to write. Clark had conned his way into a job in security at a nuclear facility. My guy was a sociopathic drifter angling for a handout to pay his Motel 6 bills. (He was passed to me by a NYT buddy with the advice, "Whatever you do, do not give him any money, ever.") Repeating the low-life's lies in any interesting way would have been a waste of my time and an insult to the readers.