nick sylvester = maker upper

“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?

oh come on. if you're publishing a paper on new year's day, your first-edition deadline is probably even earlier than usual - 9pm on new year's eve? 10pm at the latest. so what do you do? you've got a planned event that was 99% certain to take place, so you ... extemporise. and then you very swiftly change it for second and third editions (if indeed you're lucky enough to get 'em on NYE).

hstencil, whether knowingly or not, makes the same point more simply. daily papers have edition deadlines. sometimes you have to make a call and run with it. this is not the same as fabricating quotes.

Why not gut the paper for publishing a dumb feature?

if you mean "what a dreadful idea for a feature", i agree. if that's what passes for a cover story at the VV, it needs to have a good ol' look at itself.

if you mean "they should have known it was all made up" - as some people have suggested - then, er, how? you really think the fact-checkers should ring up every person ever quoted in a newspaper to be sure they've not been misquoted? holy fuck.

you know that in the UK we don't have fact-checkers, right? that we poor beleaguered subs have to do that too? sure, i'm going to check the facts where possible, but come on: the onus is on the writer not to make up quotes.

nice caveat. i don't remember how it all went down but i'm not sure if the post screw-up was attributable to deadline, tho that could be right. of course, the voice ain't a daily...

??? what does this mean?

I thought one was either an assistant editor, associate editor, or a senior editor.

b-b-b-but the only alternative would be if it were down to, i dunno, sheer fucking insanity or something.

mind, as we know, sheer fucking insanity and journalism often go hand in hand :)

Honestly, no. It's a lifestyle piece, and I'm far more interested in seeing what the writer does with the piece than I am the fact value.

Early retirement seems like a regular ol' journalism piece to me.

Teen abstinence and hipsters in gyms? Don't need lifestyle writers to tell me that.

Lifestyle writers are there to entertain. They are funny or interesting, and that's all I expect.

xpost

And get fired, seconded. Or sometimes they resign first. How many other people have managed to write features, cover stories and straight reporting pieces without fabricating? What do you think their opinion is when they hear someone among them has just done it?

it's the kind of thing that happens to you when you demand a pay rise and they don't give you one. "let's see ... you're overpaid enough as it is ... how about 'deputy chief senior executive assistant managing associate editor'?"

"great. i'll be at lunch if you need me."

"we won't."

That's your liberal media outlet for you.

No wonder we have a bunch of right-wing idiots running our country....