nick sylvester = maker upper

of course this was cooked -- that's his style!

...means nothing if someone totally unfamiliar with him or his style reads the piece.

Nope. I don't get it.

A parody is "a satirical or humorous imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing." The great parodies I've read expressed points that couldn't be made through straight writing, only by outlandishly exaggerated imitation.

If I tell you your shoe's untied, and it isn't, it isn't parody.

(xpost) Tracer Hand OTM.

They're the ones who asked a music feature writer to do a social piece. They're the ones who read what amounts to coverage of guy techniques for pulling pussy and decided to run this as a cover story.

Should this outcome really be so shocking to them?

The Village Voice turned into a sad joke years ago, kind of like NYC on the whole, actually.

Nick's story is a metaphor for the turns the city took in the 90s: Self-important white pedigree man bluffs way through reality. Disempowered liberal outlets unable to stop him, so they instead sign on. Whole thing blows up in their faces.

i love the old "some people" line, because it gets you the interviewer off the hook of being directly confrontational. and it's not really disingenuous, because you as an interviewer don't necessarily share the views you're presenting, you're just acknowledging they exist and getting a response.

but nick is not a journalist! he's a features writer, plain and simple.

this is an odd statement. i know a lot of good features writers who would take exception to it.

Fuck does THAT mean?!!

this brings back memories, Giles.

fuck that, music writers aren't retards who live in self-contained bubbles that prevent them from reading and understanding 'regular' feature-type pieces. in fact, lots of them actually write exactly those types of stories except about, you know, musicians.

this isn't about someone being too out of their depth to know the rules of engagement. and devils advocate, even if it were, writers aren't slaves -- they're fully within their rights to reject or defer any assignments they're not comfortable with.

OTM, and that's all I have to say.

-- Dan Selzer (danselze...), March 2nd, 2006.

I don't post enough to catch this reference, Dan. Are you refering to Madonna?

"the pick up and seduction community"

(sorry, not really relevant to the general thrust of the thread, just thought it was funny)

“I just adore that kid,” Simmons told Gawker, reporting that his review, currently in progress, is not turning up problems beyond the fraudulent conclusion. “The thought of firing him is a painful one for me. I hope this review can bring an understanding to the paper — and to Nick — about the boundaries of journalism.”

but nick is not a journalist! he's a features writer, plain and simple

manages to be the most idiotic comment on a thread jam-packed with idiocy. "feature" != "fiction".

2) i know little about the village voice, and even less about nick sylvester. but no matter who he is and what kind of stuff he's written in the past, if he was commissioned to write a piece containing real-life interviews with real-life people and he made it up, he deserves to be sacked.

it's like the writer of my former acquaintance who once made up a meat loaf review for the scotsman because she couldn't be arsed going to the gig. (she got caught 'cos - whoops! - the gig was cancelled.) sure, it's not crime of the century. but most publications have standards, and those standards involve, y'know, not fucking making everything up because you're lazy/a twat/both.

3) if you are commissioned to write a piece based on case studies you've completely made up - which i don't think ever happens, but hey, let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt - then you should probably try to avoid using real people's names.

4) there is no 4.

jesus christ. it's not difficult. YOU DON'T MAKE SHIT UP.

unless you're the daily sport, natch.

um...

oh, i know. i'm not saying this hasn't happened before. i'm not, sadly, even saying that it doesn't happen more than we think. but that doesn't stop it being a sackable offence.

x-post: roffle etc

This reminds me of the time when the Herald -- or somebody? -- ran a New Year's Day story about fireworks exploding from the seven hills of Edinburgh as the Proclaimers rang in Hogmanay. Except none of it had happened because weather had forced them to cancel it all.

Why not gut the paper for publishing a dumb feature?

... what does it matter if what is printed is obviously satire or just commentary. it is obviously not a serious, academic article. lifestyle piece.

who cares if a writer lied in a piece that nobody was taking seriously anyway? i just have different standards for lifestyle pieces and actualy journalism.

and get fired for it

So if a piece reports on a cultural trend (let's say, early retirement, or teen abstinence, or, hell, hipsters in gyms), you don't care whether the trend actually exists?