'Woody Plaige'

That's impressive work by SportsbyBrooks.

Do I think Paige fabricated a portion of the Jackson column and stole the idea from DLB? Absolutely.

Could anyone prove it? I seriously doubt it.

 

woody has little choice at this juncture to deny, deny, deny... i'm fully aware what a 'big cheese' woody is in denver, but sorry, not even RED SMITH keeps his gig if caught with his hand in the cookie jar like this, if his bosses investigate further and reach the conclusion he's guilty as charged.

what the heck, woody probably dreams he's got a full-time future as a cable sports screamer anyway, right?

 

If the paper doesn't want him to be guilty, he won't be guilty. He has his plausible deniability for the ESPN story and as obvious as it is that he stole the idea for the Rickey Jackson story, it's not plagiarized as much as it's fabricated. That's just as bad, but almost impossible to prove. It was also 16 years ago, which doesn't excuse it on any level, but The Denver Post is not going to fire Woody Paige for something he may or may not have done in 1995.

I think the fabrication problem is an epidemic in sports journalism and I think the best writers are usually the most guilty of it.

You send most of us to do a man on the street interview and we come back with the crap that you usually get when you do that kind of a crap story.

Magically, when you send out the best columnists in the country out there they come back with quotes that are so perfectly crafted and thought out that it's impossible not to be suspicious.

What's so frustrating about it is it's not necessary to do. They're columnists. They don't need the quote. But they do it anyway because it's impossible to catch them.

Also, it should be mentioned that Norm Clarke and Woody Paige have a long-running feud, so take Clarke's comments with a grain of salt. That's not to say Clarke is wrong, but the SBB article never mentioned that these guys fucking hated each other and almost came to blows on more than one occasion.

 

So, Woody not only makes up sources and quotes (and bait shops), but he puts stereotypical "Stepin Fetchit" words in their mouth?

Iffin indeed. (And why does the guy in Scotland talk that way anyway?)

Fire the guy already.

 

Possible.

 

Maybe we're better off not knowing how often fabricating takes place.

I can only imagine how much it would shake the industry if they nailed 3-4 big name guys for doing that kind of shit.

Maybe that would scare people enough to cut this shit out.

 

Why would we be "not better off?" Because some big names with big paychecks who weren't doing their jobs correctly would be exposed and shamed because of it? If you think this type of activity is common place, then it's all the more reason to do some research into how often "fabricating" (i.e. "making stuff up") happens.

I can think of a dozen times where I knew exactly the quote I needed to put the button on a story - and that the subject wouldn't remember if they told me it in that way or not. But you still can't do that, prep writer or big time columnist.

 

I was being sarcastic/introspective because I know they're just going to continue to do it because the papers don't want to risk losing a signature columnist even if they're a fraud.

I know I've said this several times, but I think this is more prevalent than anyone wants to admit.

 

What I don't understand is the need to fabricate. If you're writing a column and there's a quote you're just dying to have some fan say, it's not too difficult to go around, ask a bunch of fans leading questions and get what you want. I still don't think that's genuine but at least then it's not entirely made up.

Like, if you want some Boston Bruins fan to say "I can't believe they won. I've been waiting my whole life!", go to a bunch of Bruins fans, ask them "Can you believe they won?" and "How long have you been waiting for this moment?" and you'll get what you need.

Lazy journalism is just sad to see.

 

You mean we can get rid of asshats like Woody Paige?

Yeah, we'd be a lot better off.