Poynter article on Everett - insulting?

Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but the content, particularly combined with her lede, makes it feel like this is a news person believing she must swoop in and help the incapable, insensitive "toy department" deal with a "real" news event.

There are some good points here, it just feels condescending to me when combined with the "I ignore the sports editor in meetings" and the "He's a nice guy" bit:

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=58&aid=134759

 

I had the exact reaction you did.

If you are are running the editorial side of a newspaper, you need to be fully aware of all your departments.

I saw condescension, yes.

 

What an idiotic, condescending piece of shit she is.

If Ms. LoTempio, the alleged AME/Readership, were to pay attention for a moment, she'd know how vital the sports section is to the success of Mr. Buffett's Daily Miracle.

Sports is about all that a lot of Western New Yorkers have to hang their hat on these days. They'll debate the substance of the most recent columns on the Bills or Sabres for days on end, and they have an appreciation for their minor-league baseball and D-I basketball teams.

Tell the stupid fuck to start paying attention to her sports editor. She might actually learn something.

 

I agree with the comments posted so far and I agree Susan needs to climb off that horse.

But I think her biggest gaffe involves her criticism of the headlines and how disabled athletes are portrayed compared to non-athletes.

I know disabled people who were able to return to the their chosen profession after their accidents and live a "normal" life (her words).

I don't think Everett or Utley or Byrd or Stingley had that opportunity.

All such accidents are tragic. But there are degrees of tragedy.

Susan: Leave this stuff to the professionals, OK?

 

What pisses me off even more are all the comments on there lauding her for such a tremendous service.

 

Well looking at her archive, all she seems to write about on Poynter are disability issues.

But if you're an AME for a newspaper, admitting you don't really pay attention when one of your sections heads is talking sounds to me completely unprofessional.

 

She has lived what she writes.
***
http://nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/07lotempio.html?ex=1286337600&en=8c9e7d744dec562f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

Fine, I think she comes off as an idiot, too. But let's be honest -- there are lots of sports people who don't read their own paper, thus "tuning out" other departments.

 

Which isn't right, either.

 

And I'm sure that's why she is Poynter's specialist when it comes to disability issues, and how journalists can better deal with them.

But it's a weak lede for an AME to say that she zones out during the sports report during Page 1 meetings. Shouldn't you be concerned with everything that goes into your paper, not just the stories that pique your interest?

 

She's a low-life...

 

Quite a difference between a sportswriter who ignores the Life section and an AME -- a supervisory position with considerable authority -- who turns his or her nose up at any portion of the newspaper, thereby suggesting its irrelevance. Management arrogance at work again.