I got into a yelling match tonight, am I wrong?

To be honest, I consider those two questions worth asking.
I know most will say they are no big deal, but I just think we need to examine more of what we do and question whether it's right.
I think part of the problem with this business is that we don't spend enough time discussing/pondering ethics. Too often we just do whatever's convenient (practical).
That leads to giving readers the low-brow they want when sometimes we should be trying to raise their level of discourse. After all, we are supposed to be the ones to tell them what to think about.
This is part of the reason we have an industry that spent more time covering the death of Anna Nicole Smith than Gerald Ford, James Brown and Pope John Paul II.

 

How old are you, Okie, 22? 19? 16? You sound awfully green, not to mention altruistic to the extreme. The editor didn't tell GV to make something up, falsify something, stretch the truth, whatever. To compare this to Jayson Blair is ridiculous. The editor asked GV to help him save some time. This happens all the time, in every line of work, everywhere. Oh, I know, you'll say: But that doesn't make it right. What the editor was doing wasn't wrong, for Christ's sake.

How about this: I've been asked by editors to write letters that they can sign so I can obtain a credential to cover an event. Why do they do this? Because they don't have time to come up with the proper contacts, fax numbers, etc. Because they didn't write the letter, does that mean I shouldn't really cover the event, because I obtained the credential "unethically?"

To say, "we don't spend enough time discussing/pondering ethics" is flat-out untrue. I know a lot of people in this business who have flagellated themselves and their colleagues over ethical issues. This isn't an ethical issue. And to say we spend too much time covering Anna Nicole Smith because we don't have ethics is such a stretch it doesn't even deserve a response.

 

Well, I'm older than 22 and I've been doing this for eight years.
I know I'm making extreme arguments. I recognize that. That's the point. I think you have to hash out the minor issues when it comes to ethics, because each step in the wrong direction can be a big deal.
Maybe where you are ethics are discussed. Where I am, unfortunately, they're not. That's a problem.
Are you saying it's right for the media to spend more time on Anna Nicole than on Ford or a pope?
Finally, I'll say this for the last time -- my point is, GDV THOUGHT it was wrong. This discussion should be about that.
If you want to say it wasn't wrong, fine, but his editor should have sat down with him and explained why it wasn't wrong. He should have calmly explained why it made him uncomfortable.
I am altruistic. I hope I never lose my youthful optimism. There are far too many in this business who has simply been beaten down over the years.

 

I got into a shouting match with my SE one time.
I had been on the road for almost two weeks for a college football preseason skywriters tour that happened to end in my city with the team I covered. I spent the afternoon at the school then came into the office to check the mail and write my final story on the tour. About 5 p.m., I noticed the only people there were me and the SE and I discovered that the work sked he posted while I was on the road had me working the slot that night. Nice way to end a road trip, eh?
So we got into it, me blaming him for not doing the sked right and he blaming me for not knowing what my work sked was.
Final result: My next yearly performance evaluation said that I had a bad attitude and my merit raise was delayed for a month.
Moral(s) of the story: The boss is right even if he's wrong, and don't get into a shouting match with your boss.

 

Nothing wrong with that. However, a little piece of advice from somebody who probably IS older than you:

One way to not get beaten down over the years is, again, picking your battles. And (yes, in my opinion), getting into a big deal over who will author and sign a cover letter for a contest -- nothing for publication, mind you -- isn't one to pick.

And if GDV felt it was wrong, he was (yes, in my opinion) wrong. His comfort level is (yes, in my opinion) out of whack.

 

You were in the wrong. Regardless of the reason for the lateness, you should have pitched in. If he'd come to you in the beginning, you could express your discomfort then and you and he could discuss the stories you felt deserved awards and then you could work around your morality play.

However, what you did was the equivalent of telling your boss to go to hell when he asked you to pick up a major story on deadline. That's not good. No way you should have gotten into a shouting match with your news editor no matter how much of an idiot he is. You should have sucked it up, written the letter to help him out, THEN when the submissions were sent out, that's when you address yoru concerns.

 

Bottom line.

Period.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

And if you don't think a news editor or a managing editor can make life miserable for you, a sports reporter ... buh-rother.

 

GDV thought it was wrong not because it was unethical but because he didn't feel it was his problem or his job. Big difference. Maybe you could try to stay on topic rather than twist things around to make it seem like the rest of us are corrupt because we're smart enough to know the consequences of a fight with a supervisor.

Congratulations if you actually feel that way. But what you consider to be altruism and optimism, I call naivete.

 

You're assuming he didn't have an ethical problem but he wrote he was not comfortable and he called it near plagarism.
That sounds like he has an ethical problem to me.
I'm not trying to twist anything. I didn't say anyone was unethical. I said generally editors should not ask for unethical work.
I also didn't say to fight bosses. I said calm discussions about 15 times.
And I'll tell you, you can call me naieve. I have no problem with that. I've always been an idealist. That's a big part of the reason I got into journalism.
The day I lose that and decide the small battles are no longer worth fighting is the day I get out of this business.
To me, it doesn't pay nearly enough to do it for any reason other than you believe in what it stands for and are willing to fight for that.

 

This is not a major ethical question. This is a fucking cover leter for a contest. It is not worth turning it into a major blowout.

Again, my opinion is if you're this concerned about a contest entry instead of what best serves your readers, you've got major problems.

 

Preaching. To. The. Choir.