Should Jeff Pearlman have apologized for this?

[Double Down]

(I will give credit where it's due: I saw this on The Big Lead.)

Summary: Jeff Pearlman writes a compelling and moving column/story for ESPN.com about former Cowboy Clayton Holmes, who had about one of the most awful childhoods you could imagine. (Beaten by his mom, neglected, molested by his older brother). He became a drug addict, a father to several kids, and now basically wants people to learn from his mistakes, even though he's still making them. You can read it here. It's a very good piece, and I think makes a very interesting and honest choice: Holmes is not a redemptive figure in the story. He's a tragic figure, but also one of his own making. I always admire stories that have no happy ending, because I think it's much more honest.

In the story, he describes Florence, S.C., Holmes hometown, as "In a city long ago deserted by hope ... a downtrodden section of a downtrodden city littered by double-wide trailers, wayward drug dealers and the shattered Budweiser bottles, used condoms, McDonald’s wrappers and crumpled newspapers that seem to pock each dirt road and cement walkway."

As someone who has written about poverty on occassion, Pearlman's description felt true to me.

The people in Florence, though, were not happy. They raged on ESPN's comment board and emailed Pearlman, demanding an apology.

http://www.scnow.com/midatlantic/scp/sports.apx.-content-articles-FMN-2008-01-11-0018.html

So, perhaps understandably, Pearlman apologized.

Here is my question: Would you have apologized? Or is it simply your job as a reporter/columnist/feature writer to make your observations, come to a conclusion, and then stand by that conclusion no matter how many people it offends? As TBL points out, Florence was ranked as the fifth most dangerous city in the country by these rankings.

What would you have done?

[wickedwritah]

Why apologize for an honest assessment of the community?

[Ace]

He should have apologized. There aren't that many double-wides in Florence.

What does it hurt to apologize if they are offended?

[Double Down]

Why apologize for an honest assessment of the community?

That's part of the debate. Is it fair to make a sweeping statement that indicts an entire community? Or is it the writer's goal to make those kind of judgments to help put the story in context, even though you can always debate the semantics of statements like "A city abandoned by hope."

Pearlman's explanation said he was trying to characterize just Holmes neighborhood, not the entire city of Florence, and that was his mistake.

Part of what I'm wondering is: If you've hurt a lot of feelings with something you've written, are you still willing to stand by it? I'm not talking about backing down from a story because people are upset; I'm talking about apologizing for a description that might have been a bit too sweeping and generalizing, and in retrospect, you think it might have gone too far, even though it's still, argueably, true.

Is it honorable to apologize then, defusing the situation, or are you backing down because you don't like to hurt people's feelings?

Just something for discussion.  

[Ace]

If he saw the trash and crap and described it, fine.

But I have a problem with describing any place as being deserted by hope.

No. 1, it's almost a cliche in stories of this type and doesn't add much to me.

No. 2, it's such a sweeping/subjective statement that it's almost guaranteed to be wrong for some folks at least and generate criticism.

[Pete Incaviglia]

I'm sorry you live in a city long ago deserted by hope ... and that I described a downtrodden section of a downtrodden city littered by double-wide trailers, wayward drug dealers and the shattered Budweiser bottles, used condoms, McDonald’s wrappers and crumpled newspapers that seem to pock each dirt road and cement walkway. I'm sorry. But it's all true.

[OnTheRiver]

New York Times reporter came to our city a month or so ago. Called the city "unpretentious" in the article.

Really, coming from a Times writer, we had no idea whether to take it as a compliment or an insult.

[Double Down]

Like these sweeping statements:

On ever playing for a New York team: "I would retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you're [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing."

On New York City itself: "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"

I'm no thread tzar, but I'd prefer not to make this a Rocker thread. Pearlman was right then, and he remains right on that issue today. Those who would argue otherwise do not, in my humble opinion, understand perhaps the most basic principals of journalism.

[jgmacg]

The problem here is mechanical more than ethical.


"Somehow, in the drearily colored life of Clayton Holmes, this makes perfect sense. Were his bike, say, gray, Holmes would more easily slip into the backdrop of the east side of Florence, a downtrodden section of a downtrodden city littered by double-wide trailers, wayward drug dealers and the shattered Budweiser bottles, used condoms, McDonald's wrappers and crumpled newspapers that seem to pock each dirt road and cement walkway. Although as a boy Holmes was raised in a trailer at 1018 West Harmony St., the only harmonious element to Florence's poor neighborhoods is the occasional crooning from drunk and cracked-up men on particularly jovial nights."


I think what Mr. Pearlman meant to do was characterize a section of the city, the East Side. But by inserting the clause I bolded above, the rest of the sentence now most correctly describes the entire city. This is a simple mistake, and should have been corrected in draft by the writer, or caught by an editor before the piece went up.

It illustrates how important the smallest things can be, and what a stout defense a writer has in absolute precision of description.

"...deserted by hope..." too, is a very broad figurative idea to support without a couple of pieces of evidence. Once again, if he'd applied the phrase only to a specific neighborhood, or block, he might be able to pull it off.

As to the apology, I'm not sure what I'd do.

[Boom_70]

Like these sweeping statements:

On ever playing for a New York team: "I would retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you're [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing."

On New York City itself: "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"

I'm no thread tzar, but I'd prefer not to make this a Rocker thread. Pearlman was right then, and he remains right on that issue today. Those who would argue otherwise do not, in my humble opinion, understand perhaps the most basic principals of journalism.

Fair enough DD out of respect for your work here I've removed my Rocker quote posts. There is a touch of irony though now that the shoe is on the other foot with how Pearlman discribes a community.

He does monitor this site so maybe he will jump on and provide us perspective.

I agree with you on the story. It was a good one.

[Ace]

Why are the drug dealers wayward? Doesn't seem all that good for business.

[Boom_70]

The problem here is mechanical more than ethical.


"Somehow, in the drearily colored life of Clayton Holmes, this makes perfect sense. Were his bike, say, gray, Holmes would more easily slip into the backdrop of the east side of Florence, a downtrodden section of a downtrodden city littered by double-wide trailers, wayward drug dealers and the shattered Budweiser bottles, used condoms, McDonald's wrappers and crumpled newspapers that seem to pock each dirt road and cement walkway. Although as a boy Holmes was raised in a trailer at 1018 West Harmony St., the only harmonious element to Florence's poor neighborhoods is the occasional crooning from drunk and cracked-up men on particularly jovial nights."


I think what Mr. Pearlman meant to do was characterize a section of the city, the East Side. But by inserting the clause I bolded above, the rest of the sentence now most correctly describes the entire city. This is a simple mistake, and should have been corrected in draft by the writer, or caught by an editor before the piece went up.

It illustrates how important the smallest things can be, and what a stout defense a writer has in absolute precision of description.

"...deserted by hope..." too, is a very broad figurative idea to support without a couple of pieces of evidence. Once again, if he'd applied the phrase only to a specific neighborhood, or block, he might be able to pull it off.

As to the apology, I'm not sure what I'd do.

Well one thing we have learned then is that the citizens of Florence can read and have good comprehension skills. Apparently they also know how to write.  The city can't be all that bad.

[playthrough]

There was a very similar item in SI recently. Richard Hoffer wrote about Floyd Mayweather in December and referred to his hometown of Grand Rapids, Mich., as one of "the flagging cities of Michigan." In last week's SI Letters page, a letter from a former Grand Rapids mayor took polite objection, listed some of the city's attributes and invited Hoffer on a personal tour.

I agree that it's dangerous to write sweeping generalizations of towns, but this seemed to be handled as best as it can. Print the letter from the mayor. I don't think there's as easy of a solution with a dot-com story, where angry comments on a flooded comments page under mostly anonymous names are supposed to pass for meaningful feedback.     

[Mizzougrad96]

Pearlman has taken a beating (mostly unfairly) over the years... I'm guessing he just wanted it to go away... I can't say I really blame him even though I don't think he did anything wrong...

[DanOregon]

I think the argument is more akin to "you can't say that about our city, only we can say that about our city."
While on the topic where can I pick up one of those instant "close-knit" town detectors most reporters seem to have when reporting on some tragedy?

[Bob Cook]

The problem here is mechanical more than ethical.


"Somehow, in the drearily colored life of Clayton Holmes, this makes perfect sense. Were his bike, say, gray, Holmes would more easily slip into the backdrop of the east side of Florence, a downtrodden section of a downtrodden city littered by double-wide trailers, wayward drug dealers and the shattered Budweiser bottles, used condoms, McDonald's wrappers and crumpled newspapers that seem to pock each dirt road and cement walkway. Although as a boy Holmes was raised in a trailer at 1018 West Harmony St., the only harmonious element to Florence's poor neighborhoods is the occasional crooning from drunk and cracked-up men on particularly jovial nights."


I think what Mr. Pearlman meant to do was characterize a section of the city, the East Side. But by inserting the clause I bolded above, the rest of the sentence now most correctly describes the entire city. This is a simple mistake, and should have been corrected in draft by the writer, or caught by an editor before the piece went up.

It illustrates how important the smallest things can be, and what a stout defense a writer has in absolute precision of description.

"...deserted by hope..." too, is a very broad figurative idea to support without a couple of pieces of evidence. Once again, if he'd applied the phrase only to a specific neighborhood, or block, he might be able to pull it off.

As to the apology, I'm not sure what I'd do.

You make a good point about the mechanics. It doesn't seem to me, in reading the piece, that Pearlman was going out of his way to trash the city, or make some easy, offhand comment about it. He described the scene, and had quotes from Holmes and his brother to back it up. Perhaps Pearlman could have had a little more about why the city was in such rough shape, or described whether there was some kind of geographical black-white or poor-rich divide. One sentence might have covered it.

But at least he did more than throw out a cliched adjective. Judging from most news stories, even locally, I live in a tidy, inner-ring suburb with well-kept lawns. Basically, shorthand for an area filled, presumably, with older, working-class white people, not wealthy enough to keep things really spectacular, but conscientious enough not to leave their Camaros on blocks on the front lawn. Because we love our lawns.

[BYH]

I think DD should apologize for reading The Big Lead.

[Double Down]

To my readers:

It is with deep sorrow and much regret that I confess to you today a matter of great importance. During a moment of weakness this morning, I posted an item I saw on the Internet weblog, The Big Lead, a website you may not have heard of, but one I have been a vocal critic of in the past for its shameless starfucking. I cannot adequately express the sorrow and the shame this has caused me and my family, both personally and professionally. When you voted me Poster of the Year back in January, I realize that you expected more from me, and sadly I broke that bond and the trust we had built up over the course of the year. Indeed, I did have a relationship with The Big Lead that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that. But even Posters' of the Year have personal lives. I would hope we can all move on from this matter, and resist the temptation to visit this website, even to look at pictures of Adriana Lima's vagina and see who Matt Leinart is fucking this week, at least according to some girl who got it from Rick Reilly's nanny, who called from his cell phone when Reilly was passed out in a bowl of cocaine while negotiating a deal to appear on First and 10 with Skip Bayless.

And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of this thread, to repair the fabric of SJ.com's national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise the Journalism Only board.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless.

[Omar_dont_scare]

To my readers:

It is with deep sorrow and much regret that I confess to you today at matter of great importance. During a moment of weakness this morning, I posted an item I saw on the Internet weblog, The Big Lead, a website you may not have heard of, but one I have been a vocal critic of in the past for its shameless starfucking. I cannot adequately express the sorrow and the shame this has caused me and my family, both personally and professionally. When you voted me Poster of the Year back in January, I realize that you expected more from me, and sadly I broke that bond and the trust we had built up over the course of the year. Indeed, I did have a relationship with The Big Lead that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that. But even Posters' of the Year have personal lives, I would hope we can all move on from this matter, and resist the temptation to visit this website, even to look at pictures of Adriana Lima's vagina and see who Matt Leinart is fucking this week, at least according to some girl who got it from Rick Reilly's nanny, who called from his cell phone when Reilly was passed out in a bowl of cocaine while negotiating a deal to appear on First and 10 with Skip Bayless.

And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of this thread, to repair the fabric of SJ.com national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise the Journalism Only board.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless.

That's why he's the man.

[pseudo]

The problem here is mechanical more than ethical.


"Somehow, in the drearily colored life of Clayton Holmes, this makes perfect sense. Were his bike, say, gray, Holmes would more easily slip into the backdrop of the east side of Florence, a downtrodden section of a downtrodden city littered by double-wide trailers, wayward drug dealers and the shattered Budweiser bottles, used condoms, McDonald's wrappers and crumpled newspapers that seem to pock each dirt road and cement walkway. Although as a boy Holmes was raised in a trailer at 1018 West Harmony St., the only harmonious element to Florence's poor neighborhoods is the occasional crooning from drunk and cracked-up men on particularly jovial nights."


I think what Mr. Pearlman meant to do was characterize a section of the city, the East Side. But by inserting the clause I bolded above, the rest of the sentence now most correctly describes the entire city. This is a simple mistake, and should have been corrected in draft by the writer, or caught by an editor before the piece went up.

It illustrates how important the smallest things can be, and what a stout defense a writer has in absolute precision of description.

"...deserted by hope..." too, is a very broad figurative idea to support without a couple of pieces of evidence. Once again, if he'd applied the phrase only to a specific neighborhood, or block, he might be able to pull it off.

As to the apology, I'm not sure what I'd do.

A question on those mechanics, kind sir: does that offending phrase need to disappear, or would appending a comma after "city" suffice to sharpen our focus?

[BYH]

Awesome, DD. Totally awesome.

[VictoryGallop]

I suppose an apology won't hurt anyone.

It's an excellent read, with gripping detail, but I'm sorry, the pro-football-player-ruins-his-life-with-drugs-and-wants-everyone-to-learn-from-it has been done time and again.

This is why part of me cringes every time I hear a rallying cry for some fund or foundation to help indigent players. (Not those who have crippling injuries and have been screwed by the pension system, mind you, but those who simply smoked/drank/f**ed away their millions. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
 

[jgmacg]

The problem here is mechanical more than ethical.


"Somehow, in the drearily colored life of Clayton Holmes, this makes perfect sense. Were his bike, say, gray, Holmes would more easily slip into the backdrop of the east side of Florence, a downtrodden section of a downtrodden city littered by double-wide trailers, wayward drug dealers and the shattered Budweiser bottles, used condoms, McDonald's wrappers and crumpled newspapers that seem to pock each dirt road and cement walkway. Although as a boy Holmes was raised in a trailer at 1018 West Harmony St., the only harmonious element to Florence's poor neighborhoods is the occasional crooning from drunk and cracked-up men on particularly jovial nights."


I think what Mr. Pearlman meant to do was characterize a section of the city, the East Side. But by inserting the clause I bolded above, the rest of the sentence now most correctly describes the entire city. This is a simple mistake, and should have been corrected in draft by the writer, or caught by an editor before the piece went up.

It illustrates how important the smallest things can be, and what a stout defense a writer has in absolute precision of description.

"...deserted by hope..." too, is a very broad figurative idea to support without a couple of pieces of evidence. Once again, if he'd applied the phrase only to a specific neighborhood, or block, he might be able to pull it off.

As to the apology, I'm not sure what I'd do.

A question on those mechanics, kind sir: does that offending phrase need to disappear, or would appending a comma after "city" suffice to sharpen our focus?

I don't think a comma sufficient to prevent readers from taking offense. The word order in the sentence still creates the impression that the whole city is being described in the itemized list that follows.

[BillyT]

The same thing is happening on the state level in North Dakota, where people are demanding a do-over from National Geographic because of a story that they say was unfairly negative.

I think the New York Times had something recently.

[slappy4428]

(I will give credit where it's due: I saw this on The Big Lead.)

Summary: Jeff Pearlman writes a compelling and moving column/story for ESPN.com about former Cowboy Clayton Holmes, who had about one of the most awful childhoods you could imagine. (Beaten by his mom, neglected, molested by his older brother). He became a drug addict, a father to several kids, and now basically wants people to learn from his mistakes, even though he's still making them. You can read it here. It's a very good piece, and I think makes a very interesting and honest choice: Holmes is not a redemptive figure in the story. He's a tragic figure, but also one of his own making. I always admire stories that have no happy ending, because I think it's much more honest.

In the story, he describes Florence, S.C., Holmes hometown, as "In a city long ago deserted by hope ... a downtrodden section of a downtrodden city littered by double-wide trailers, wayward drug dealers and the shattered Budweiser bottles, used condoms, McDonald’s wrappers and crumpled newspapers that seem to pock each dirt road and cement walkway."

As someone who has written about poverty on occassion, Pearlman's description felt true to me.

The people in Florence, though, were not happy. They raged on ESPN's comment board and emailed Pearlman, demanding an apology.

http://www.scnow.com/midatlantic/scp/sports.apx.-content-articles-FMN-2008-01-11-0018.html

So, perhaps understandably, Pearlman apologized.

Here is my question: Would you have apologized? Or is it simply your job as a reporter/columnist/feature writer to make your observations, come to a conclusion, and then stand by that conclusion no matter how many people it offends? As TBL points out, Florence was ranked as the fifth most dangerous city in the country by these rankings.

What would you have done?

Said it could have been worse -- he could have grown inup Detroit, Birmingham, Flint or Gary.