nick sylvester = maker upper

I'm willing to overlook the douchebaggery on this thread when the offense is so serious. That's not to say that we should all be rubbing it in though.

xpost

But my heart goes out to poor, poor Sylverster. All he did was fabricate quotes - when did that become such a crime?

xpost - "mistake"

also, i just read that piece today and was thinkinga posting here about it, or on ile rather. it does have the "too-good-to-be-true" shattered glass vibe, but less in a set-piece sort of way and more in a "naah he's blowing everything waaay out of proportion" sorta way.

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

And who the hell says Neil Strauss made stuff up?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I know, it smacks of Vice

please tell me it's not real.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.