Conflict of interest at APSE?

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

NOTE: I modified the topic of this thread, which has morphed into a needed discussion about whether MLB.com's Jim Jenks, a former APSE president, should be judging this week due to the inherent conflict of interest.










Is that accurate? The judges gather together this weekend and they'll start spitting out results next week?

For some reason I always thought it was in the first week of March, not the last week of February.

Glad to get them early if that's the case. Well, maybe.

[Football_Bat]

Yes, the kangaroo court convenes in Kissimmee (I believe) this Saturday. Can't make it this time.

[patchs]

Yes, the kangaroo court convenes in Kissimmee (I believe) this Saturday. Can't make it this time.

Me too.
That was one rockin place, wasn't it FB?

[Left_Coast]

Here are the judges by group.

http://apse.dallasnews.com/news/2008/021208judginggroups.html

And it's my understanding that results will not be posted as categories are completed, but only at the end of the day so judges don't keep looking at the board for results.

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

Here are the judges by group.

http://apse.dallasnews.com/news/2008/021208judginggroups.html

And it's my understanding that results will not be posted as categories are completed, but only at the end of the day so judges don't keep looking at the board for results.

The real reason: So they don't show up on here first.

[Football_Bat]

Yes, the kangaroo court convenes in Kissimmee (I believe) this Saturday. Can't make it this time.

Me too.
That was one rockin place, wasn't it FB?

If you mean rockin' chairs, yes indeedy.

It took us young pups to jazz it up.

[FreddiePatek]

You may already be a winner!

[EE94]

Interesting that they are posting the groups ahead of time.
Having done it - and this category - if I knew that I was in this group I would cancel my flight.

Are judges still required to do critiques?
Year I did this I barely saw anything of California. Was pretty much morning to Sunday through Tuesday and we were last to finish Wednesday.

Wasn't cuz we were at the pool. Had more to do with reading and critiqueing what I think was close to 350 Sunday papers (four per entrant)

SUNDAY

■ Under 40,000/Final game stories 40,000-100,000 and 100,000-250,000

Chair: Holly Lawton, Kansas City Star
Drew van Esselstyn, Newark Star-Ledger
Allison Cotsonika, Detroit Free Press
Justin Breen, Times of Northwest Indiana *
Paul Skrbina, Sauk Valley Newspapers

[GB-Hack]

Here are the judges by group.

http://apse.dallasnews.com/news/2008/021208judginggroups.html

And it's my understanding that results will not be posted as categories are completed, but only at the end of the day so judges don't keep looking at the board for results.

I find it interesting, and pretty cool, that there are representitives from Yahoo and mlb.com on the judging panels.

[Billy Pritchard]

Yeah, but what the hell do dot-commers know about quality writing?

[everybody duck]

Jim Jenks from MLB.com? that's gotta be Jim Banks

[Moderator1]

It's Jenks.

[ballcoach]

With the state of the industry as it is, gotta believe that attendance at APSE conventions will see a noticeable and steady drop.

[Fenian_Bastard]

MLB.com?
Not only a website, but a website run by one of the institutions these guys are supposed to be covering.
Give me a large freaking break here.

[JerryMicco]

The APSE bylaws state that past presidents, of which Jim was one, are lifetime members of the organization. I don't believe we've ever had this situation, but it's not lost on the membership that Jim's employer is someone we all cover. As someone who had Jim as one of his officers (for a short time) and has worked with him for a few years, I can tell you Jim knows the separation between church and state. And he's a bright guy whose ideas make the organization better. The vast majority of APSE members also know this is a bit of a sticky wicket for us. It's a legitimate point to bring up and bears watching. But unless we change the bylaws and make it retroactive to a certain date, Jim will stay in the organization as a member of the executive committee.

[Moderator1]

And I'm not trying to hum a judge - not sure if he has my former sections or not - but I'm quite comfortable with Jim and Jim's standards judging my stuff, his current employer notwithstanding.    I don't see him saying, "Hmmm, these mo-fos don't do enough with MLB *** into the shitcan with them!"

Last year I have a stake in this, so I am watching.  May need a line on the resume if I decide to return.

[Fenian_Bastard]

The APSE bylaws state that past presidents, of which Jim was one, are lifetime members of the organization. I don't believe we've ever had this situation, but it's not lost on the membership that Jim's employer is someone we all cover. As someone who had Jim as one of his officers (for a short time) and has worked with him for a few years, I can tell you Jim knows the separation between church and state. And he's a bright guy whose ideas make the organization better. The vast majority of APSE members also know this is a bit of a sticky wicket for us. It's a legitimate point to bring up and bears watching. But unless we change the bylaws and make it retroactive to a certain date, Jim will stay in the organization as a member of the executive committee.

Holy god.
You can't be serious.
Why not just have David Petraeus hand out the Pulitzers?
I'm updating because I didn't want anyone to think I was being harsh on this guy personally. I don't even know him. I think he's probably a swell feller. But he works for an institution that we cover now. I don't care about the by-laws; that ought to be an automatic disqualification from any position with a journalists' organization. I don't see this as a tough call at all.

[old_tony]

It's kind of a sad state of the business that good people like Jim Jenks get out of newspapers and feel better working for something like MLB.com. And as an aside, I'd make the jump in a second, too, if a job I wanted opened up.

[Fenian_Bastard]

It's kind of a sad state of the business that good people like Jim Jenks get out of newspapers and feel better working for something like MLB.com. And as an aside, I'd make the jump in a second, too, if a job I wanted opened up.

Agreed -- except for the last part.
But once you're out, you're out. If this were a reporter who took a part-time job with the team he's covering, there wouldn;t even be an argument.

[Ace]

It's kind of a sad state of the business that good people like Jim Jenks get out of newspapers and feel better working for something like MLB.com. And as an aside, I'd make the jump in a second, too, if a job I wanted opened up.

Agreed -- except for the last part.
But once you're out, you're out. If this were a reporter who took a part-time job with the team he's covering, there wouldn;t even be an argument.

Wrong, F_B. Once you think you're out, they pull you back in.

[Fenian_Bastard]

No fair quoting the worst Godfather movie.

[patchs]

Jim is just one person in a judging group, his opinion will count the same as anyone else's.
That said, from having known Jim from a few APSE gatherings, he can be trusted to do the right thing.
If a guy who was a top-notch SE leaves for a dotcom and wants to help judge, especially when getting judges is tough, I say let him judge.

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

Jim is just one person in a judging group, his opinion will count the same as anyone else's.
That said, from having known Jim from a few APSE gatherings, he can be trusted to do the right thing.

That's irrelevant. It's the appearance of a conflict of interest. It's not something you judge on a case-by-case basis. I'm sorry, I don't know the guy from Adam, but he shouldn't be judging this contest. There should be no wiggle room.

[Fenian_Bastard]

Absolutely.
Who signs his checks?
This isn't even close.

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

He should withdraw.