Jay Mariotti

[Monday Morning Sportswriter]

It's funny how much coverage he got at all.

 

[RecoveringJournalist]

It's funny how much coverage he got at all.

He was a huge name for a long time. Definitely a top 10 columnist by fame, if not from talent.

So many delighted in his fall that there's going to be a lot of curiosity in how he does at at paper that is mostly irrelevant.

There was a rumor about 2-3 years ago that he was about to be hired at a decent sized paper and it was basically a done deal, but he said or did something that gave them a whiff of what a complete pain in the ass he was going to be and it fell through.

 

[Tucsondriver]

To say he's not popular among industry peers would be an understatement, so there's that. His convictions were expunged - not overturned. I don't believe it's libelous to refer to him as a "girlfriend batterer" (that's the tweet SF Chronicle Editor Audrey Cooper put out that Mariotti was referring to in his column)

1. The editor of the Chron shouldn't be tweeting that.
2. Mariotti has ripped guys like Mariotti for much less without foundation.

I assume you mean that Cooper's tweet is ethically questionable. Is it libelous? I would say no because the (since-expunged) charges and convictions are public and Mariotti is a public figure.

 

[SnarkShark]

I assume you mean that Cooper's tweet is ethically questionable. Is it libelous? I would say no because the (since-expunged) charges and convictions are public and Mariotti is a public figure.

Wouldn't a libel case drum all this stuff back up? I doubt Mariotti would me on board for rehashing that case in court.

 

[Tucsondriver]

Wouldn't a libel case drum all this stuff back up? I doubt Mariotti would me on board for rehashing that case in court.

It's all out there anyway. I'm not sure how rehashing does any more damage to Mariotti. Winning a libel case against the editor of Chronicle would vindicate him - at least in his mind. That's all predicated on the supposition that he'd actually have a case. I don't think he does.

 

[SnarkShark]

It's all out there anyway. I'm not sure how rehashing does any more damage to Mariotti. Winning a libel case against the editor of Chronicle would vindicate him - at least in his mind. That's all predicated on the supposition that he'd actually have a case. I don't think he does.

He doesn't. And I think reminding everyone again how he behaved that night would do significantly more damage.

 

[DanOregon]

I just meant that Cooper, as the editor of the Chronicle, should be above that kind of stuff. When you are "the" editor, what you say reflects on everyone beneath you. Some columnist? Fine. But what happens if a news story happens involving Mariotti? A reasonable person could say that Cooper's tweet might make the Chronicle a less that reputable source for objective reporting.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Cooper is commenting on something that is objective truth.

People are allowed to do that.

 

[Tucsondriver]

But what happens if a news story happens involving Mariotti?

That would never happen.

 

[SnarkShark]

That would never happen.

Yeah. He would never run afoul of the law.

 

[poindexter]

What happened to his gig at that Florida sports web site?

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Joe has an interesting moral compass.

Steroids in baseball? Ban those bastards for ruining the great games good name. Domestic abuse? Meh

I wonder if steroids are a worse offense in his world than applauding a dinner speaker?