Ethical quandary @ WaPo: Story spiked

Fair enough, good sir. Fair enough.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

 

Yeah, but was he in The Client?

 

How does one work on a story for two months and not have this fundamental topic hammered out with editors somewhere along the way? I obviously don't know all the specifics, but I fail to see how a supervising editor doesn't get disciplined for allowing a reporter to waste two months of time and resources like this.

 

Adding the guy's name does nothing for the story, in my opinion.

 

I couldn't agree more. This is where you draw the line on anon sources?

 

I read "The Game" last year (a male friend thought I would get a kick out of it). It was fascinating. I think I posted about it on the Books Thread, but I'm too lazy to check.

 

Ask yourself this: Had it been a seminar for women on how to get a man ... and all other circumstances are the same ... do the WaPo's editors kill the story?

I say they do not.

 

So this is a story? Geez, in 1970 there was a book published called "How To Pick Up Girls." (And while I doubt these moves were invented in 1970, at that time they certainly would have been news to me, as I'd have been 10 or 11.) In 1978 there was a cheesy made-for-TV movie based on the book, starring Desi Arnaz Jr. ("Hey, baby, wanna see my little Ricky?") And in 2005 there was the Will Smith movie, "Hitch." So the fact that women are "pursued methodically through a learned set of rules and phony pickup lines, and seen as targets in what is, essentially, a process of conquest" is news how? Why The Washington Post wasted valuable resources on this is the big question.

 

I know your last sentence is rhetorical, because you and everyone else on this board who has been paying attention to this industry understands why the Washington Post would devote resources to something like this. Too bad their only safeguard came at the back end, rather than up front when the project was pitched.

 

I also see no reason why the guy's name is relevant, especially if you let the readers know that he doesn't use his real name. It sounds like this is a story. A three-day seminar? How many guys registered for this thing? Sounds fascinating. Weird but fascinating.

It almost sounds like the editors -- while hiding behind a policy that doesn't apply to people covering the election or, I assume the Redskins coaching search -- would rather name the guy and try to nail him for what he's preaching, rather than exploring this cultural phenomenon.