John Brisker Lives

Oh beacon of journalistic rectitude,

Again the very close reading of my comment answers your question. Close reading is not a specialty I guess. I spoke to Fred Cranwell two years ago. He gave me the same stories that appeared in Loose Balls. Breaking no ground there. No direct quotes. Mark Brisker has been in touch with me and wants copies of the documents I dug up. When I interviewed these and others I had no assignment. I was just curious. Looking to see if there was enough to pitch. Research for who knows what. Wasn't thinking about short fiction but was thinking about a screenplay. Said I wanted to do a story, which when you get down to it is exactly what I did. A story in which John Brisker's history is laid out though he is not the protagonist. Did Don Dellilo bounce Libra off the Kennedy or Oswald families? No. The question is not whether I misrepresented myself. I was straight up with them. I told them I was doing research, that I'm a writer. Not a sportswriter. Not working for ESPN The Magazine. Something I was doing of my own accord. The question is whether I misrepresented any of them. Which I didn't. Everything attributed to Mark Brisker is in the documents as well.

Yawn, etc

 

BOJR,

You do get that John Brisker is not in the story, right? The guy in the dashiki is never (ever) named as such. He's looking for the guy he met in the apartment when he looks at the pictures of Charles Taylor. That's not a small nuance. You have previously seemed like a smart guy. I can't get over you not getting that John Brisker in the story lives in the files and in memories but not in the story.

YHS, etc

 

So your answer, then, is that none of these people were told this was a work of fiction. They operated under traditional interview boundaries, then you changed the rules whithout asking them if it was OK to change the rules. You just went ahead and did it without giving your sources any say in it.


I don't think you were within the bounds of ethics for journalism -- you just did what was convenient for your personal good.

 

Mr R

Yeah, but it's fiction. You're allowed and even encouraged to do research for fiction. I was well within the bounds of ethics for fiction. And you do know that John Brisker is not in the story, right? Did you miss that? The gent, never named, wears a dashiki that's the color of Condors unis, but in fact doesn't match the physical description of Brisker. If you can't get your mind around that and you can't get your mind around "the bounds of ethics for journalism" not applying to fiction, then I give up. I figured you were smarter than Boom.

Sigh, etc

 

Yes. And any bit of criticism so well-crafted and thoughtfully offered deserves our most serious consideration.

 

Bounds of ethics for fiction? Well, I hope ESPN editors, and more importantly real-life sources, no longer consider you a journalist anymore. I certainly won't.

You seem to be trying to make an issue of whether Brisker actually is or isn't in the story. I do not really care if you had Brisker having high tea with Mel Daniels and Louis Dampier. Not the issue. The issue is whether you pulled a fast one on real-life sources. And you did. Not ethical.

 

What do you have against Billy Paultz?

 

It is a whopper of a story.

 

FFR,

 

Gare Joyce, huh? No wonder it was listed under "fiction." {/the_usual_haters}

 

A death match without command of the quote function is the ugliest death match of all.