"Leon Carter is The Laughing Stock ...........

Oh, I don't think Kriegel and a few others would feel quite so forgiving, put to the test.

This is a bad business in terms of office politics, that's certain.

 

Dont forget, Boom, Francesa picked the Pats to whip the Giants, 35-7.

 

Well, did Lupica screw with Lisa and make her look bad in GB?

Did that lead to her not being on the list for the Super Bowl?

Did the sports edtior allow this to happen and thus lose a person, who by all accounts on this board, is a tremendous writer and co-worker?

Has Carter enabled Lupica by allowing him to do as he pleases?

If all is true, how are the two dorks that far off the mark?

Just asking...

 

So you're saying that even two blind dorks can find an acorn now and then?

Since Lisa has nothing negative to say about Leon, I'll take her version over the windbags.

 

Name a paper where the lead columnist doesn't have dibs on whatever topic he/she wants. Some handle it with more finesse than others, but bottom line is if the lead columnist wants to switch gears, everyone else has to adjust, whether it's other writers who have to take a different tack or editors who have to tear up three pages and pick different photos so stuff is packaged in a logical way. No one's happy about it, but it's better than the alternatives of a.) having everyone writing the same topic or b.) the lead guy sticking to something he decided at halftime that has since been rendered meaningless by more recent action. It's just life. What always got me was when you had someone calling in to tell the desk he/she was "writing big picture." Well, no shit. We'll run a "big picture" as art. But a columnist saying "that topic is mine" is the way it's supposed to work. It's in the best interests of the readers and the paper no matter how many people it inconveniences.

 

Not disagreeing with you.

But...

First, we don't know whether the late change was legit, do we?

Second, even if it was legit, if the lateness of change adversly affected Lisa's performance and that hurt her ability to make deadline/turn in her usual starndard of work, is that a legit reason to keep her from Zona?

I would think -- based on the comments of foks here -- she should be included in the Super Bowl working party.

And if the "incident" in GB prevented her from contributing yesterday, that's wrong.

 

I haven't read all the commentary on the matter and don't know what, if anything, Lisa has said.

But it would not surprise me if, even if she is upset about how the situation was handled, she chose to take the high road. Sounds as if she is being professional.

 

You're right, we don't know. But there seems to be no shortage of people who want to make certain assumptions. All I'm saying is whatever else happened, the original action of saying "no, that's my topic" is and should be SOP. It's not necessarily a matter of "big-timing," but of wanting your highest-profile writer covering the highest-profile topic.

 

Assumptions are the life blood of this board, sadly. No better than a lot of fan boards in that regard.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a full-time beat guy so I understand the pecking order involving columnists and their choices.

However, I've seen far too many examples when assignments are agreed to, everyone is happy and then, in the midst of friggin' interviews, one columnist changes his/her mind and everyone has to adjust.

At some point you have to stick to the plan of attack and roll with it.

I would have loved to have been a fly in that huddle to know why the change of mind was made, when it was made and how it affected the operation that night.

 

Lisa's response on the other thread:

 

Yup, at some point you have to lock in. But nowhere I've been has there been an iron-clad rule about when that point is. That results in people getting bent out of shape, sometimes displays of tempers and sometimes blown deadlines and sloppy execution. But we have to accept all of that as the price of trying to put out the best product -- not the cleanest product, but the one that has the angles right -- and then we have to move on and forget the hissy fits that sometimes occur when people are working under extreme pressure.

 

Lisa cleared the air on the original post in the original thread. That post wrongly implied that life at the paper was hostile for females. Both women have refuted that implication.

Here is what I noted in Lisa's comments: She works with the best BEAT WRITERS and REPORTERS and that her decision has nothing to do with GENDER issues.

Bottom line: Something moved Lisa to quit and walk away from a job/paper she appeared to love.

I hope for her she left on her terms and whatever allegedly happened in GB had nothing to do with her decision.