Inquirer writer accused of plagiarism

Deadspin ran a link to a stalker's video of Erin Andrews, right? Or am I imagining that happened?

 

I kind of got the sense that the Deadspin dude really seems to dislike this Philly writer. Maybe I was reading too much into it, though.

 

Typical of one of those types of copy chiefs who sucks as a writer, then plays god with reporters' ledes when he gets on the desk, then to top it off goes around making fun of the writer afterward. Loser, bigtime.

 

@Ace, yes Dom has a thing against Tatum.
@Clutch, good point but I think the guy was just razing a youngster.
@Mizzou, the lede was a cliche and wasn't original. I'm sure you can see that now. The deletion probably made you become a better writer.

 

A condescending writing critique from Drip. That's gotta hurt, Mizzou.

 

I worked with a guy exactly like that. A fucking terrible writer who thought and acted like he was King Shit of Turd Island. Shit and turd do accurately represent his work, though.

 

You worked with only one guy like that? You're pretty lucky.

 

Drip,

As I said before, I didn't have a problem with the edit. Getting ragged on for two months as an intern I could have done without... It made my skin thicker. That was a good thing.

 

@Ace, it wasn't a critique. I would've killed the lead too. Everyone writes a bad lead. The editor's job is to make the copy better. Obviously, he did.
@Mizzou, glad that you didn't let that deter you in your career. Maybe that was the guy's way of trying to let you know you were OK. I recall that happening to me as well. You know sports departments are sort of like being on a team, guys tease sometimes.

 

It wasn't that. I wish it was...

I worked with a copy chief during my career who has to be one of the best of all-time. The guy could catch anything. He was also a legendary dick who lived for pointing out any mistake you made. If the columnist made a mistake, he got on the phone with the columnist and ragged on him. If the preps writer made a mistake, he called him to yell at him.

People would get defensive and try to call him on the errors "saying that something wasn't actually wrong"

In all the years I was there, I cannot think of a single instance where this copy chief was wrong.

From events when we did group or team coverage we would place bets as to whether we'd get "the call" that night.

He made us all better writers because we were all scared shitless of getting that call on deadline from this guy because he feared no one.

A lot of the writers would get defensive. After about a year, I just would say, "I apologize, and thank you for catching that." That usually kept him from ripping into me too badly.

During my time in the business I never saw another copy chief who was that feared, hated and respected at the same time.

 

King Shit of Turd Island?

 

It's hard to describe. The guy was a miserable prick. But nothing got past this guy. You could hate him, but you had to respect how good he was at his job. This will sound crazy, but it was entertaining as hell to watch him work.

I respected that he would give the lead columnist (a really big name) just as much shit as he would give me (this was early in my career) if we made mistakes.

I once sat in the office and watched his routine between editions. The first edition would roll out and he'd be getting the proofs back from the copy editors with catches or changes. I was in the office a lot early on and there were remarkably few fixes between editions, mostly because this copy chief was so good.

He'd get done proofing the section that was usually at least 12-14 pages. This was in the late 1990s when the sections that came out were something to be proud of, unlike the four pages of shit that comes out today. Then he'd usually call 3-4 people, inevitably there would be one argument in the bunch and when he would hang up, he'd laugh like a sociopath.

After the final edition would come out, he'd do the same thing, proof all of the pages that were subbed out and then call another couple writers and tell them what they did wrong. It was never a "the story sucked" or "your lead was lame" it was always, "You had this wrong, and I'm letting you know about it."