In fact, what he wrote is not journalism. As a journalist, you are obligated to be objective, and this guy didn't even try. Ummm, opinion columnists are not supposed to be objective in any way. This is the equivalent of a Fran Blinebury column ... these guys write what they want, mixing together humor, fact, opinion, and emotion. This certainly was a classless article, but it's not at all bad journalism in terms of its fairness or objectivity. It's meant to be entertainment, and to Philly fans, maybe it is. Here's some other articles he writes for the paper: Joe Sixpack | Need a brew to go with the game? Philly 101 for visiting cheeseheads This Pack of fans is nothing but Bird feed
I can't stand Blinebury. But it's an insult to Blinebury to compare this guy to him. Blinebury's a legit journalist. This guy's just an ass who I can't believe is getting published.
I wouldn't call opinion journalism what I consider journalism anyway. I hold myself to much higher standards than Russell's article. And I know that columnists get much more leeway in how they write their pieces than regular beat writers. But still, I don't think it's right period to use your column to defame opposing teams or players character for no good reason, just because it pleases hometown fans. Pointing out Favre is in for a tough weekend, or what he might expect at the game from fans, or an Eagle fan's letter to Brett Favre, among other ideas, are easily better for this opinion column space in that paper, and accomplish the same goal. At the very least, he could have used some positive attributes(or perceived ones: like athletes and charity functions) about Favre's character juxatposed against the negative ones to create a stronger piece, and not actually defame the guy's character without presenting all the facts. But anyway you look at it I don't consider it journalism, because he told only one side of the story. And while it his his column and he has free reign over what he writes, it doesn't make it journalism by my standards.
Philly has the toughest sports fans in America. They are so tough and mean that they make it extremely rough on visiting teams. That is the main reason why the Carolina Panthers don't stand a chance against the Eagles next weekend.
As a beat writer (for the SEC) I write columns and while some people accuse me of being harsh (especially after I called on Auburn to give Tommy Tuberville the boot), I would never write something so damned negative. That was a vicious smear piece that had no point at all. The East Coast media, especially NYC and Philly, are a different world than the rest of the country. Those sort of pieces are just par for the course for them. No wonder that most NBA guys would rather play in a smaller market than in NYC or Philly.
Dork He's a clubhouse prankster who's been known to put Heet ointment in players' jockstraps and shaving cream in their helmets. Once, he doused his own roommate with a bucket of ice water while he was on a commode. That's classic... You put what??? In their what???
This is what you get when every talking head, newspaper writer, and 99.9% of the rest of the media canonizes an athlete. Someone gets sick of it and writes the other side of the story. I feel sorry for Bret, its not his fault, but I must admit, I got tired of hearing how Bret's father was looking down on the team, and was there for the games or whatever. The same thing happened to MJ with the gambling and people linking the gambling to his father's death. When 99% of the media worships at your alter, someone is going to try to prove them wrong.
It's free speech. So people can read it if they want. But I hope someone disgraces him when death hits so he can understand why the majhority of people dislike what he wrote. Speaking of tabloids, Nancy Kerrigan was looking pretty good this weekend. I was amazed at how good she looked.
Philly is a trip. My wife was there on business a few months back and she made the mistake of stopping at a stop sign. Apparently that's taboo there. For her trouble, someone rearended her.....not enough to damage the rent car, but enough give her a good jolt. After the rear-ending, they started honking and yelling at her to move. It kind of makes me respect Texas' more liberal (well...actually, more conservative) views on gun ownership. The fear that some grandma might....at any time....step out of her car and pop a cap in your ass probably keeps that **** from happening here.
wow...i'm the only one who thinks good of the article.... DVauthrin....chill. he has the right to write anything he wants..some of his superiors obviously saw nothing wrong with the article... Family tree FATHER: Irvin Favre. As a high school football coach, he helped Southern Miss violate NCAA rules to recruit his son. WIFE: Deanna. He got her pregnant when he was 18, and she was 19. Married her seven years later. BROTHER: Scott. Killed a family friend when he drove his car into a railroad crossing and got hit by a train. Jailed for DUI. SISTER: Brandi. A Mississippi beauty queen, arrested for shoplifting. OKay maybe the thing about the sister was uncalled for but the rest is true....bloody hands are hard to clean off. Man the public eats this stuff up...if you know anything about journalism a sports article does not always have to do with sports..if you know from past journalism tabloid news has always brought interest....there would be no TAbloids if there was no demand for it....ALOT of newspaper give out info on people...just cause he's a sports star does not mean he should be treated different.. anyways the guy has the right to write whatever he wants...i'm just suprised at most of the reactions from this forum..i guess its because most of the people in here are Sports fans.
what's there to think good of. you can say he has a right to do it...but just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do. disparaging a man who just lost his father by citing family history is ridiculous. it's callous. do you have any idea of the factual background behind his brother's story...or his sister's...or even his father's? I certainly don't. what's the point of just attacking a man, like that? what is there that's "good" about that? screw sports..the man is a human being. and if it weren't for sports, you wouldn't even know his name. i have a right to insult you or anyone else here....of course, Clutch has a right to then ban me and delete that post! but the point is....just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean you should do it...particularly when the sole aim is to hurt someone else.
Frankly, to be honest with you, the sports editor who okayed that piece was an irresponsible piece of garbage. So what if all those things happened? How would the writer like the negative details of his personal life lumped together into one trashy article? It was a blatant personal attack and if I were Brett Favre and I saw the guy, my cleat would be so far up his ass the water on my knee would have quenched his thirst. Damned Philly media vultures!
At the very least, he could have used some positive attributes(or perceived ones: like athletes and charity functions) about Favre's character juxatposed against the negative ones to create a stronger piece, and not actually defame the guy's character without presenting all the facts. But anyway you look at it I don't consider it journalism, because he told only one side of the story. And while it his his column and he has free reign over what he writes, it doesn't make it journalism by my standards. I think of this piece as similar to the "Houston is a hell-hole" piece in the New York paper during the 1994 finals. The only point is humor and to rile up the fans and create mock rivalry. The only difference is that this guy was classless by targetting a player and making it personal. But I don't think he had any obligation to mix in good attributes or anything like that - it would have taken away from the humor of the piece. I mean, look at the last line of the article: <I>Wuss Brett is scared of the dark. He sleeps with a light on. </I> This is just supposed to be all in good fun. The guy just doesn't know how to pull it off properly. If everything was like the end of the article talking about the pranks and stuff like that, it would have been a funny read.
I'm not going to chill, wizardball. This is my future profession I'm talking about, and those editors should be fired with him. I will be a sports writer for a paper or magazine very soon, and I'll be damned if that guy represents my profession. When you are paid to write about sports, you write about sports, not taking pot shots at the people who you have to interview to get your story. I gave plenty of similar ideas for funny, satrical columns that don't come off as bush league, one sided, slam jobs above, so there were other ways to playfully rip Favre while respecting his paper and the profession. Obviously, the guy has the freedom to write what he wants, sure, but why in the world do you think there are editors. It's to make sure writers are accurate, don't cross ethical lines, and that the piece is worth running. Opinion column or not, it isn't worth running, and it should piss me off, just like if lawyers went against the rules and put their professions in a bad light, MadMax would be angry. Journalism is unique in that anyone can do it, and you really have to police yourself, but this guy went too far. And to make matters worse, he defames Favre's immediate family as well. Plus, if you think Tabloids are journalism, then there is no point having this discussion. But, if you expect me to turn a blind eye to something that embarrasses my future profession, it just isn't going to happen. I ripped the phoenix radio host who made uncalled for comments about Darryl Kile's wife, and I have and still ripped ESPN for their recent athlete hires. But the bottom line is, the reporter embarrassed himself, his paper, and his peers, and when you do that, it affects the rest of us who work or will soon work as Journalists. And that is why this is such a big deal.
Did you see the other approaches I mentioned in going about this column. They were funny, satrical approaches to ribbing Favre. I know how he should have written this piece, if he felt this inclined to rip Favre. My suggestion about mixing in good attributes was to create a stark contrast in a humorous way, to make the piece more light hearted. Instead, the way he went about it created a serious toned piece which was entirely uncalled for. You're right, he could have gotten away with presenting only the dirty side of Favre, if he had written it as to be light hearted, but he didn't. Which is why we are having this discussion. And even though I figure it was meant to be in good fun, it doesn't mean the reporter better be severely punished, or even fired. It's similar to a drunk driver saying I'm sorry to the family of the person they killed. The damage was already done, and they have to pay the consequences, and this writer needs to do the same. This isn't even good column writing, and for him to write that and his editors to see no problem in running it, gives me bad thoughts about the standards of journalism in philadelphia one of the nation's top cities and markets. I
That is a terrible article, but someone wrote it and we read it so I guess it worked...Creating controversy always sells...
It's just shock journalism. He's just trying to push people's buttons, and it's working. Sure, it's trash. He knows it's trash. The guy dug up every bad thing he could find about Favre and his family and smeared it across the article. But Major is wrong when he says, "As a journalist, you are obligated to be objective." Nope. A journalists primary concern is one thing: sell product. Any obligations to objectivity and truth are secondary. However, Philly should be embarrassed (not proud) to have a tabloid trashy enough to publish something like this. Thankfully, Houston has no such garbage. It sends a strong statement to the rest of the world of what kind of a place Philly is. -- droxford
I was the one who said that a journalist's responsibility is to be objective, and it's damn true. There is a journalistic code of ethics built on that principle, and while the industry is more commercial than ever before, you balance the two. Sure, you write towards what your readers care about, but you do it fairly, and accurately. And fairness and accuracy are more important than selling papers, because if it wasn't, why don't all newspapers just start writing tabloid stories. You can't just break every ethical code of journalism because your readers will buy it. It doesn't work that way. Ask any journalist and they tell you almost the same thing. And to a man or woman they would say how it disgusts them how commercially driven the profession is than ever before, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Well, those rules don't really count in Philly, D.C. or NYC. Just ask Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair about that. I think that this piece was gutter slime and that it tars journalists like myself who go out of their way to be fair and impartial to the teams, personalities and games I cover. Even if I am an Alabama grad.
