nick sylvester = maker upper

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1389 of them)
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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

"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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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

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

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

Harvard grad in learned behavior shockah

Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:37 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

He lied and got caught. Stop defending him.

Reggie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:39 (eighteen years ago) link

and start enjoying the trainwreck, people!

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Thursday, 2 March 2006 07:41 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

"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 (eighteen years ago) link

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

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

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

"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 (eighteen years ago) link

(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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

"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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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

jaye, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:19 (eighteen years ago) link

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

polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:20 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

so if nobody gets hurt, "journalists" should just make shit up. Love your thinking, mate!

timmy tannin (pompous), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:27 (eighteen years ago) link

Jesus fucking christ. Not every printed word in the English language is "journalism".

darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:28 (eighteen years ago) link

Jesus fucking christ. Not every printed word in the English language is "journalism".

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

pissing off that lookner dude is not quite like failing to assess or challenge the case for invading a country, true.

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

Editor's note: he's been suspended

http://villagevoice.com/news/0610,news,72372,2.html

StanM (StanM), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:35 (eighteen years ago) link

OK so what happens now? He got suspended, there's no way the Voice can let him come back, right? What about Pitchfork? Do you think this guy screwed himself out of a career because of this? Obviously it doesn't rise to Jayson Blair levels of importance, but is this guy ruined now?

frank e., Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:37 (eighteen years ago) link

All I'm saying is that whenever shit like this happens, it just always happens to be the peers of the "guy in question" who always freak the fuck out. Like any normal person gives a rat's ass about some fluff designed to placate them on the way to work. I applaud your consistency, but get some perspective.

darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:38 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.mixotheque.com/blog/sylvester.JPG

naturemorte, Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:42 (eighteen years ago) link

Jousnalist ("writer" / "satirist", "critic", whatever) in "making shit up" shocker. Nick looked very fetching the other week when he was on BBC 6'o'clock news in some hipster hat talking about the Super Bowl show.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:42 (eighteen years ago) link

All I'm saying is that whenever shit like this happens, it just always happens to be the peers of the "guy in question" who always freak the fuck out. Like any normal person gives a rat's ass about some fluff designed to placate them on the way to work. I applaud your consistency, but get some perspective.

-- 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

Oh I dunno. Why would April Fools Day or Jeremy Beadle exist otherwise.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:50 (eighteen years ago) link

peers freak the fuck out because this is a profession with its own professional codes, which are mostly there for a reason. there's a lot of diagreement about a lot of things within the profession, but making things up is a universally recognized red-letter offense.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 2 March 2006 08:53 (eighteen years ago) link

Fair enough. I need to go to bed.

But I still think you guys underestimate the audience sometimes...

darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:12 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean we can tell the difference between "information" and "entertainment".

darin (darin), Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:26 (eighteen years ago) link

always?

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:32 (eighteen years ago) link

um, no, on the whole we can't. fox news, celebrity culture, star weekly, etc. i mean the readers of the village voice hopefully can. but you seem to be sidestepping the main issue of journalistic integrity. sylvester was quoting real individuals whom he never talked to. if you can tell the difference between entertainment and information then you can understand why that's a problem apart from the readers.

naturemorte, Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:34 (eighteen years ago) link

xposted from elsewhere. I am not speaking for Nick - I've only met him three or four times, and we barely crossed paths at Pitchfork - but this is infuriating. And one of the many reasons I refuse to get my financial well-being tied up in writing.

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 Ott
Editor in Chief
SPIN Magazine

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Thursday, 2 March 2006 13:05 (eighteen years ago) link

lol

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thursday, 2 March 2006 13:11 (eighteen years ago) link

maybe stay on ur own instead of 'fratboy' cheap shots & playing captain save-a-hack?

,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thursday, 2 March 2006 13:17 (eighteen years ago) link

classic that nick only got suspended. very impressive, Voice!

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 2 March 2006 13:58 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh my god I don't believe we just brought up Brent's piece as a comparison to this.

Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 2 March 2006 14:13 (eighteen years ago) link

personally, I defend the right of anyone to get pissed off if they have quotes attributed to them that they did not say, no matter how lame the person is, unless it's clearly a joke, which this wasn't. But I do think it's silly to think this will hurt his career, I mean, maybe if he wanted to write for The New York Times or something, but like Pitchfork could care? Or any number of outlets. The New Yorker Shouts and Murmors section would be a perfect home for him. If they can have Sasha Frere Jones talking about Mariah Carey, they can have Nick's trash talking. Better then jokes about old books I ain't ever read.

Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Thursday, 2 March 2006 14:19 (eighteen years ago) link


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