― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:28 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
― James (D.J.), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:34 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:37 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
― Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:41 (eighteen years ago) link
OTM.
And if it is satire, it's weak satire.
― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:51 (eighteen years ago) link
― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:52 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
"Guys, help me out and make sure I don't lie this time. Thanks."
― Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:01 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
― Suzy Creemcheese (SuzyCreemcheese), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:05 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
I don't mean for his sake, I mean for their own sake.
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaye, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:10 (eighteen years ago) link
― Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaye, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:20 (eighteen years ago) link
Cut the guy some slack. Like this affects anyone.
― darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:23 (eighteen years ago) link
way to discredit the entire notion of "journalism." thanks.
― hjkh, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― timmy tannin (pompous), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:28 (eighteen years ago) link
yes, certainly not a cover article posited as such in a major metropolitan newspaper.
― dfdf, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:31 (eighteen years ago) link
but it's a public profession. so our fuck-ups are public too.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:33 (eighteen years ago) link
http://villagevoice.com/news/0610,news,72372,2.html
― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― frank e., Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― naturemorte, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:42 (eighteen years ago) link
-- darin (darin...), March 2nd, 2006.
Most people (even "normal" ones) don't like being bullshitted, regardless of the relative level of importance.
― gdfgdfg, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:53 (eighteen years ago) link
But I still think you guys underestimate the audience sometimes...
― darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― naturemorte, Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:34 (eighteen years ago) link
This is exactly the scenario that played out when Steve Martin (Nasty Little Man) went after Brent DiCrescenzo's Beastie Boys review at Pitchfork: an established (and aging) industry peer sees a young cub juggling knives - which we all do to get people to look at us - but instead of smiling knowingly at the bravado - "Hey, I'm on this kid's radar, cute" - Lookner grabs one by the handle and jabs it into his forehead Munich-style.
Lookner is a fellow Harvard alum, and a tiring L.A. comedy writer from the dire MAD TV/mid-90s SNL eras. He was a big part of The Man Show. You will find him falling off the edge of a bar with Jay Mohr on most Wednesday nights. Check out Mohr's Gasping for Airtime insight into this meathead frat-boy clique's pathetic insubstantiality.
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Chris OttEditor in ChiefSPIN Magazine
― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Thursday, 2 March 2006 13:05 (eighteen years ago) link
― ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thursday, 2 March 2006 13:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thursday, 2 March 2006 13:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 2 March 2006 13:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 2 March 2006 14:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Thursday, 2 March 2006 14:19 (eighteen years ago) link