Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

[GrizzlyAdams]

Some Guy's 12:32 post is:

(1) A direct violation of the rule against calling people trolls.

(2) An attempt at outing.

If you can't engage in productive discussion, then leave the discussion.

Joe Williams' recent post is a great explanation as to why it's career suicide for deskers to keep butting their heads against stubborn editors. After all, they're taking on internal subjects within their own organizations.

And Tim's points about anonymity have all been correct. Too bad people are so intent on remaining hidden that they can't see the obvious.

 

[broadway joe]

You're against anonymity on this board? So your name is really GrizzlyAdams, then?

And I'll ask you again, what would you have done if you had been on the Register's desk that night and handled Whicker's story? If you think the desk was blameless, that must mean you wouldn't have made any effort to bring it to a senior editor's attention or call Whicker either, right?

 

[SF_Express]

Joe Williams' recent post is a great explanation as to why it's career suicide for deskers to keep butting their heads against stubborn editors. After all, they're taking on internal subjects within their own organizations.

And Tim's points about anonymity have all been correct. Too bad people are so intent on remaining hidden that they can't see the obvious.

Grizzly: If Joe Williams' post was great, then Tim's points about anonymity haven't all been correct. Pretty basic.

 

[Living visalia thru you]

Some Guy's 12:32 post is:

(1) A direct violation of the rule against calling people trolls.

(2) An attempt at outing.

If you can't engage in productive discussion, then leave the discussion.

Joe Williams' recent post is a great explanation as to why it's career suicide for deskers to keep butting their heads against stubborn editors. After all, they're taking on internal subjects within their own organizations.

And Tim's points about anonymity have all been correct. Too bad people are so intent on remaining hidden that they can't see the obvious.

Hmmm ... whining about anonymity, a Carlos Zambrano reference, taking up the cause of deskers ... is that you, DyePack?

 

[Ace]

Some Guy's 12:32 post is:

(1) A direct violation of the rule against calling people trolls.

(2) An attempt at outing.

If you can't engage in productive discussion, then leave the discussion.

Joe Williams' recent post is a great explanation as to why it's career suicide for deskers to keep butting their heads against stubborn editors. After all, they're taking on internal subjects within their own organizations.

And Tim's points about anonymity have all been correct. Too bad people are so intent on remaining hidden that they can't see the obvious.

If you refuse to "butt heads" against stubborn editors, you must not be much of a desk man.

 

[Screwball]

To this point, at least, Whicker's column has appeared without interruption.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sections/sports/columns/markwhicker/

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I sort of agree, Dooley, but a holiday weekend, and in general -- the sports editor isn't going to see every column every time. Whoever's in charge that day had to make a judgment.

I don't think the SE necessarily has to read the lead columnist if he's off. But I do think he has to glance at the budget line even if he's poolside in Tahiti. Just, you know, to fill a minimum daily intellectual curiousity requirement (MDICR) by, like, knowing what's going on in his coverage area each day because he, like, gives a shirt. Or at least pretends to. I mean, how would such an editor be able to insist staffers keep up with the news by reading their own newspaper each day? I am all for SEs delegating work to assistants for getting each t crossed and not doing any hard editing on a day off, but knowing what's going in your section each day really shouldn't be treated like a chore -- an instinctual need for news ought to be a minimum requirement for any kind of editing position. It's why most of us got started in journalism in the first place, we crave being in the loop. I don't see how someone can successfully run a breaking-news department without that natural inclination.

 

[SF_Express]

I don't think the SE necessarily has to read the lead columnist if he's off. But I do think he has to glance at the budget line even if he's poolside in Tahiti.

Frank: Not to lead this conversation too far astray, but there's not a sports editor I've known, from Anger on down, who would be looking at budget lines for the daily paper "by the poolside in Tahiti." That's what the top assistants -- presumably trusted to handle such things -- are for.

 

[Ace]

I don't think the SE necessarily has to read the lead columnist if he's off. But I do think he has to glance at the budget line even if he's poolside in Tahiti.

Frank: Not to lead this conversation too far astray, but there's not a sports editor I've known, from Anger on down, who would be looking at budget lines for the daily paper "by the poolside in Tahiti." That's what the top assistants -- presumably trusted to handle such things -- are for.

Presumably, you would have budgeted ahead for the holiday weekend and would have know what the plans were.

But it's very likely that all you knew before boarding the Tahiti tramp steamer was that Whicker was going to write a column Monday and would come up with something. Or that he was maybe going to write about the Chargers or Padres or Fullerton State, depending on what happened over the weekend.

And, you know what, the last worry you had probably had was that he was going to throw a stinker in there.

 

[SF_Express]

I don't think the SE necessarily has to read the lead columnist if he's off. But I do think he has to glance at the budget line even if he's poolside in Tahiti.

Frank: Not to lead this conversation too far astray, but there's not a sports editor I've known, from Anger on down, who would be looking at budget lines for the daily paper "by the poolside in Tahiti." That's what the top assistants -- presumably trusted to handle such things -- are for.

Presumably, you would have budgeted ahead for the holiday weekend and would have know what the plans were.

But it's very likely that all you knew before boarding the Tahiti tramp steamer was that Whicker was going to write a column Monday and would come up with something. Or that he was maybe going to write about the Chargers or Padres or Fullerton State, depending on what happened over the weekend.

And, you know what, the last worry you had probably had was that he was going to throw a stinker in there.

Well, particularly who's involved. As mentioned many, many, many times, this was out of left field.

 

[WriteThinking]

Joe Williams' recent post is a great explanation as to why it's career suicide for deskers to keep butting their heads against stubborn editors. After all, they're taking on internal subjects within their own organizations.

And Tim's points about anonymity have all been correct. Too bad people are so intent on remaining hidden that they can't see the obvious.

Except that in a desk person's or editor's case, it is their job to take on internal subjects, to whatever extent is deemed necessary in order to best benefit the paper and its readers. Don't twist Joe Williams' attempt to explain something to you for your own purposes.

Why do you feel you have to defend what you must know to have been a poor job done, by all involved, in this case?

 

[GrizzlyAdams]

If it is the desk's job to take on those subjects, then a lot of people under the roof of the paper often prevent the desk from doing its job.

You could take the Joe Williams post, sub in the clear parallel that people are missing, and not a beat would be lost.

That's not an argument for anonymity, though. It might be a good thing in this thread, but it's unnecessary in many of the other threads. That's where Tim Sullivan is right.

Ace, feel free to give an example of when you did something noble for the cause. Only a couple of people have said they tried to spike columns or get them revised, and they're the only ones who aren't speaking out of ignorance so far.