1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Whitlock wronged by Playboy

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Shaggy, May 2, 2008.

Page 2 of 7
  1. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    Whitlock is not disavowing that position.
    He's saying it's wrong to make that position the focus/lure to a piece that is only tangentially about that -- that to use the black KKK title on a piece about the prison system is misleading, disingenuous and unfair to his sources. And he makes that quite clear in the KC column.
     
    Twoback, May 2, 2008
    #13
  2. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Um, telling people not to post on a thread is a no-no. Free country and all that. And Whitlock's cult of personality can certainly be argued validly as a journalism topic.

    Point is, one can always choose to ignore posts they don't like, which you should do with any from spnited on a Whitlock thread, apparently.
     
    dooley_womack1, May 2, 2008
    #14
  3. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I'm not saying the Wright comments shouldn't have been covered, but I do wonder why you still cover it when you're not adding anything more to the story than bringing on new people to rightfully rebuke the comments. Do you really think the comments were played over and over again, day after day, to do provide additional insight into the comments and the pastor? Hannity is trying to scare white people. I would have liked to know what evidence Wright had, how he came to believe these things, if he does really believe them.
     
    DanOregon, May 2, 2008
    #15
  4. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I hope that was an online only column...

    Whitlock is one of my favorite reads, but he just gave drew more attention to the column that anyone else will. If he hadn't written this, the column might have completely gone unnoticed.

    The difference between this and the Golfweek deal is they had it on the cover... I'll bet 90 percent of the Playboy readers don't even notice the Whitlock column... I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he's not on the cover...
     
    Mizzougrad96, May 2, 2008
    #16
  5. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    That column read like something that should have been sent to Poynter as a case study in the chain of command and the importance of headlines. I can't imagine this being a compelling read for the general public.
     
    dooley_womack1, May 2, 2008
    #17
  6. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I'm kind of surprised the KC Star ran it. I could maybe see running it at the bottom of a notes column... Even that might be a reach...
     
    Mizzougrad96, May 2, 2008
    #18
  7. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Fixed.
     
    TheSportsPredictor, May 2, 2008
    #19
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Playboy doesn't realize it. They are using him to boost their circulation by 40 percent.
     
    The Big Ragu, May 2, 2008
    #20
  9. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Understood, but as stated I would like to see the Playboy column to make final judgement.

    Hopefully Jason decides to join this discussion. Its always been one of the better sj features to actually here from writer directly on column background.
     
    Boom_70, May 2, 2008
    #21
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I have actually been in this position before. I had my name pulled off something I wrote a long time ago, and they ran it with a pseudonym, because of the way they edited and the slant they introduced to it. We had a pretty fierce argument about it. Luckily I had a less restrictive contract with them that is less onerous than most of the ones you often see now, and I had a relationship that went beyond what he described. I had done a lot of writing for them and knew I would do more. And my name on this relatively minor column wasn't a feature story that was going to sell the magazine. So it was different in that way.

    My guess is he is shit out of luck if he signed anything resembling a work-for-hire contract. It means he lost any rights to his piece. They can do whatever they want with it. He probably also granted them the right to use his name and likeness in connection with the work--essentially meaning they can now use him to promote something he obviously doesn't want his name attached to, because there will almost certainly be a section of the contract that allows them to edit or modify his work as much as they want and at their sole discretion. They can even introduce errors or slants you disagree with, attach your name to it. If I am right about that, his only recourses are a column like the one he wrote -- which I agree is self-aggrandizing; it serves Whitlock's needs right now, but not his readers, and to disagree to do any media or TV promotion, provided his contract doesn't say he has to.
     
    The Big Ragu, May 2, 2008
    #22
  11. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    If someone pays me $10K to write an article, which is probably a low estimate of what he was paid, they can put whatever headline they want on it... :D
     
    Mizzougrad96, May 2, 2008
    #23
  12. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Hard to judge wothout reading the story, but does it seem that he wants it both ways? Okay to use the 'black kkk' to advance his point, but become outraged when someone else uses it to sell his work?
     
    21, May 2, 2008
    #24
Page 2 of 7
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page