nick sylvester = maker upper

many posters here may have more insight re: this, but if so, then why bother writing the apology? why not just say "fuck y'all new times douches" and take off?

Did he go to Harvard for journalism? I thought he studied Latin or some shit.

I know that when I studied journalism at a football school in Florida, they made me take classes on journalism ethics and journalism law before they handed me a degree.

One factual error = C
Two factual errors = F

I always thought they were saying "end...scene", no?

No pages were found containing "cache:pERKO8MDWugJ:www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0609,sylvester,72342,15.html PUA".

I always thought they were saying "end...scene", no?

not usually. "scene" means the take of the scene is completed.

NOOOO!!! Can I use this chair?..

OK, I know, it smacks of Vice

please tell me it's not real.

Actually it was the new management making a statement about the new management... which makes this even more tragic/funny.

Is the cached version gone? I got through half of it and then lost interest; went back to finish it and now I'm not seeing anything.

Same here, and maybe that's why I'm so non-plussed. MattCPerp, are you defending the piece as a piece of performance-writing that the editors just didn't pick up on? It seems kinda cavalier and silly for the writer not to tip at least someone off about that, maybe run it past someone, etc., before it hits the galley.

Just strikes me as a pretty lame/false defense.

If this piece was clearly meant as satire, was presented to his editor as such, and his editor was ok with that before it ran, then maybe he is a "fall guy." But if it was assigned/assumed as a piece of reportage journalism, then he clearly violated journalistic ethics. I tend to think it's the latter. I don't think his editor told him to write (or approved of his writing) a satire cover story, then pulled it for fabrication reasons. I think Sylvester was well aware he was supposed to be writing this piece with a reporters' hat on and either got lazy or simply couldn't break out of his usual "creative" writing approach.

Given the pieces that Nick has written for the Voice in the (very recent) past, I just don't buy for a moment that the editor who okayed this Strauss piece was not aware of Nick's style.

This is also a very likely scenario, but I still think that the editors should have had qualms about the presentation of Nick as a proper journalist to begin with.

OTM.

And if it is satire, it's weak satire.

Every good writer deserves an opportunity to grow and write in different styles. A popular pomo stylist like Nick deserves a chance to do straight journalism. Maybe it's a risk to give him a cover story, but then again, I'm sure there are thousands of examples of first-time journalists pitching a solid story concept and getting a cover based on the results of that work.

Nick received an awesome opportunity, and it sounds like he blew it. VV blew it as well by not giving him the support, not fully checking the facts, etc. Especially since the story wasn't time specific, and could have easily been the cover story the following week if they needed the time to get it right.

"Guys, help me out and make sure I don't lie this time. Thanks."

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FACT-CHECK HIM FABRICATING QUOTES!!!! As someone that started out as a fact-checker (and had the unpleasant task of finding fabbed quotes), the fact-checker's job should be to, as someone mentioned above, check dates, times, amounts, etc., etc. Yeah, they should've caught these quotes if they'd been doing their job, but that shouldn't be an issue. The only people the fact-checkers let down were the editors and readers; Sylvester is the last person they should feel sorry for.

Nick, if you're reading - I really love your stuff. Good luck and things. Also: don't do this again.

I don't mean for his sake, I mean for their own sake.

Cut the guy some slack. Like this affects anyone.

Cut the guy some slack. Like this affects anyone.

way to discredit the entire notion of "journalism." thanks.