Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

[Joe Williams]

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.

What he said.

 

[GrizzlyAdams]

There was nothing to twist. Joe Williams did a great job of presenting a perfect parallel without even realizing it.

I was going to ignore an earlier post, but as it mentioned whining, I did some checking. If I were the guy mentioned, this thread probably would be locked by now.

I guess the Zambrano reference got under someone's skin. It still seems like the perfect analogy for a writer who lets his ego get in the way of any good sense he might have had.

Judging by some of the reactions here, he has company.

 

[Ace]

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.

I once spiked a column, as I have said twice, and had to go through the ME to do it.

Many, many, many times I have told my bosses I disagree with a plan or decision or have an issue with something going in the paper. Most of the time I am told that's the way it is, tough. A few times people agree. Sometimes you can do an end run.

Who wants a department filled with yes men?

 

[Drip]

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.

I agree. If a guy is off, he's off. That's what the assistant is paid for, to take over when the boss is away. If he can't do that, he shouldn't be an assistant.

 

[GrizzlyAdams]

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

Well, except for the other time he did it.

 

[Ace]

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

Well, except for the other time he did it.

I thought you were trying to make good points and not throw crap on the wall.

 

[GrizzlyAdams]

A prior record of doing the same thing isn't relevant?

You must live in a different world. Please tell us more about it.

 

[Ace]

A prior record of doing the same thing isn't relevant?

You must live in a different world. Please tell us more about it.

A column about what sporting events hostage Terry Anderson missed while held captive I can see as an OK gimmick.

The guy was a reporter. Everyone knew he was being held. I don't know if he was a big sports fan or what. But I can see using his release to put in perspective all the things he missed in the sports world and how things had changed.

Unless Whicker tried to do the same thing every time someone was held up in traffic or late for a bus, I doubt the editor left instructions saying that if Whicker tries that Terry Anderson crap again like he did in '91, spike it.

 

[SF_Express]

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

Well, except for the other time he did it.

Grizz, I'm already way tired of this, not that you won't turn that into some kind of character fault on my part.

Two columns in 22 years is NOT A forkING TREND! Given the gap between them, whatever editors were involved might not even been around for the first one. In fact, they almost certainly weren't. And I seriously doubt the damn Anderson column was hanging on the wall with a big red circle and a cross mark through it as a reference.

OK?

As for this discussion, I've said all that I've got that's worth saying, I think.

 

[Some Guy]

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.

You have got to be kidding me.

 

[GrizzlyAdams]

Nope. Read the rules. It's covered.

 

[spaceman]

the old board was shut down for less than this.