nick sylvester = maker upper

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1398 of them)

yeah maybe it was strauss, like "come with me kid. . .to the dark side"

― noizem duke (noize duke), Thursday, 2 March 2006 04:17 (twenty years ago)

Just another example of the lines being blurred between journalism and "creative nonfiction"; you'd think a Harvard-educated journalist would be aware of the distinction and that he was writing for a newspaper, not some personal blog. But perhaps his hubris overshadowed his journalistic integrity. I don't feel sorry for him because what he did, even if it seems superfluous, is entirely inexcusable, but he is a good writer and will rebound somewhere.

― harold, Thursday, 2 March 2006 04:27 (twenty years ago)

"perhaps nick was making a statement about the new management (i.e. "burning down my masters house"?)"

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?

― veronica moser (veronica moser), Thursday, 2 March 2006 04:34 (twenty years ago)

xpost

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

― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Thursday, 2 March 2006 04:54 (twenty years ago)

Not rubbing anything in. Just saying I'd be scared shitless to try something like that.

― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Thursday, 2 March 2006 04:55 (twenty years ago)

no lookner, no credibility

― lil' flipper (eman), Thursday, 2 March 2006 04:56 (twenty years ago)

ha!

― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 2 March 2006 04:58 (twenty years ago)

aaaaand....scene

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

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Thursday, 2 March 2006 05:35 (twenty years ago)

blount, you do realize that the more you neg nick, the more it turns him on, right?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 2 March 2006 05:38 (twenty years ago)

how much is that wallaby in the window?

― lil' flipper (eman), Thursday, 2 March 2006 05:43 (twenty years ago)

hmmm

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

― lil' flipper (eman), Thursday, 2 March 2006 05:44 (twenty years ago)

aaaaand....scene

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

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

― Autonomous University of Zacatecas (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 2 March 2006 05:52 (twenty years ago)

(i've heard it used in theater too, but mostly film/tv.)

― Autonomous University of Zacatecas (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 2 March 2006 05:53 (twenty years ago)

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/pg2/2002/0313/photo/crossrichter_sp.jpg

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

― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Thursday, 2 March 2006 05:59 (twenty years ago)

has everyone grandstanding here actually read the article? I enjoyed it - and the fact that a story on running covert vs overt game was itself running game on everyone is kinda clever - but it was just a pickup artist lifestyle piece: never took it for serious. I'll bet a lot more people read The Voice this week... (even without knowing about 'the scandal')

OK, I know, it smacks of Vice

― Paul (scifisoul), Thursday, 2 March 2006 06:06 (twenty years ago)

does this mean there's no such book?

please tell me it's not real.

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 2 March 2006 06:12 (twenty years ago)

The Village Vice

― lil' flipper (eman), Thursday, 2 March 2006 06:12 (twenty years ago)

hit on it in the end . . . then back . . . God is love . . . tender mercies . . . LOCK THREAD

― Roque Strew (RoqueStrew), Thursday, 2 March 2006 06:36 (twenty years ago)

perhaps nick was making a statement about the new management (i.e. "burning down my masters house"?)

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

― Da Na Not! (donut), Thursday, 2 March 2006 06:44 (twenty years ago)

Have any of you actually read the Strauss book? I read a large chunk of it in Barnes & Noble a couple months ago, and one thing that was immediately clear to me while reading Nick's article was that he was writing it in the same style as the book, ie things vaguely rooted in reality, but highly stylized/fabricated in a way that is fairly obvious to anyone who is remotely skeptical/not gullible. As an idea, this isn't so bad, but someone at the Voice really should have noticed that this would not fly as proper journalism before they okayed the story for print. I don't really see Nick as the problem here - the people at the Voice are fully aware of his style and humor. He's definitely taking the fall for their poor editorial decision and apparent lack of fact-checkers.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:09 (twenty years ago)

... then why not mention something about that in the apology letter? It's not that tough to say "It was a misunderstanding - what I was trying to do was ..." and "sorry for the confusion."

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.

― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:16 (twenty years ago)

Well, it's understandable that Nick would not be defensive in the apology letter that he was forced to write! That's really not the best place for that sort of thing since what he was doing there was face-saving for himself and the publication, plain and simple.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:18 (twenty years ago)

i've been on several sides of the editor-reporter relationship but i don't see how presenting things as if you'd seen them when you hadn't even been there is a fault of the editors. editors aren't there to watch every single thing a reporter does, and they have to be able to trust that the reporter's doing a decent job -- maybe they'll need a little spellchecking, maybe they'll get a date off by a month or a year, but still, you have to be able to trust that they're doing the work. when editors find out they can't trust that, they get pissed off.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:19 (twenty years ago)

there was a big cover article on strauss a few weeks ago in san jose's local weekly. scooped! maybe someone should check for plagiarism?

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:24 (twenty years ago)

I agree with what you're saying, Gypsy Mothra, but my point is basically that hiring Nick to do a piece that would be understood as journalism (and not as some warped postmodern variation) and making it the cover story of the publication is kind of a flawed decision on the part of the editor since there's no question that they weren't already familiar with the sort of thing Nick has done for the paper in the past.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:28 (twenty years ago)

"i've been on several sides of the editor-reporter relationship but i don't see how presenting things as if you'd seen them when you hadn't even been there is a fault of the editors."

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.

― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:28 (twenty years ago)

I don't really see Nick as the problem here - the people at the Voice are fully aware of his style and humor. He's definitely taking the fall for their poor editorial decision and apparent lack of fact-checkers.

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.

― ghimper, Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:31 (twenty years ago)

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.08.06/nlp-0606.html

― James (D.J.), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:34 (twenty years ago)

My defense of the piece is basically that Nick Sylvester is a comedian/satirist/critic working in a faux-journalistic voice, and the Voice editors made the mistake of putting his writing in the context of straight journalism, and they kinda got what was coming to them for making that mistake. It'd be like if you started airing Daily Show reports in the middle of a national news broadcast without explicitly pointing out to the viewers that what they are seeing isn't really journalism, even if it looks and sounds a little like journalism.

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.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:36 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, why would VV sabotage a writer whom they felt could be a great writer for them in the future ... UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW.

― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:37 (twenty years ago)

Harvard grad in learned behavior shockah

― Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:37 (twenty years ago)

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.

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.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:38 (twenty years ago)

He lied and got caught. Stop defending him.

― Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:39 (twenty years ago)

and start enjoying the trainwreck, people!

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:41 (twenty years ago)

I don't think a magazine that was recently bought out by a huge corporation would use its most valuable pages on a piece of situationist satire about a dating book.

― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:41 (twenty years ago)

"I don't think a magazine that was recently bought out by a huge corporation would use its most valuable pages on a piece of situationist satire about a dating book."

OTM.

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

― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:45 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, but it's what they did, Chris!

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:51 (twenty years ago)

To put it another way: if he admits to quote-fluffing, he's still a fine writer, just not a trustworthy journalist; if he defends the piece as performance/satire, journalistic ethics remain intact, but damn he needs to stay in his soft, comfy world of music-crit and leave the tough stuff to more able, professional writers.

― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:52 (twenty years ago)

I still think that the editors should have had qualms about the presentation of Nick as a proper journalist to begin with.

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.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:57 (twenty years ago)

VV blew it as well by not giving him the support, not fully checking the facts, etc.

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

― Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:01 (twenty years ago)

"VV blew it as well by not giving him the support, not fully checking the facts, etc."

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.

― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:03 (twenty years ago)

(where's my fucking ILM copy-editor to change my 'that' to 'who' and to catch my dangling modifiers? My grammar's a mess this time of night.)

― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:05 (twenty years ago)

It sounds like Nick fucked up, which makes me sad, because I really love his stuff.

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

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:07 (twenty years ago)

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

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

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:07 (twenty years ago)

This may be endemic of a bigger issue: It used to be that most critics came from a journalism background and knew the basic ethics and procedures, whereas nowadays things often happen backwards -- amateur blogger becomes professional critic becomes professional journalist, and doesn't really know what he or she is doing or what constitues crossing ethical lines.

― jaye, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:10 (twenty years ago)

The average middle schooler knows that saying that something happened when you know it didn't is "crossing ethical lines"

― Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:15 (twenty years ago)

Not if he has a warped view of what real journalism really is.

― jaye, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:19 (twenty years ago)

So seriously though, will that wallaby shit work for me?

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:20 (twenty years ago)

OMG! YOU MEAN HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SIT DOWN WITH SOME FRIENDS AND DISCUSS THE GAME?! HOLY SHIT!!!

Cut the guy some slack. Like this affects anyone.

― darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:23 (twenty years ago)

OMG! YOU MEAN HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SIT DOWN WITH SOME FRIENDS AND DISCUSS THE GAME?! HOLY SHIT!!!

Cut the guy some slack. Like this affects anyone.

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

― hjkh, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:27 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 1298 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.