Jemele apologizes

[shotglass]

You don't really want to address Mr. Melvin about this, do you?

I hear Mr. Melvin eats people for lunch.

 

[Monroe Stahr]

Seriously, is there a dictionary in the house? Conception . . . look it up. "The act of conceiving or the state of being conceived." Ergo, "Pardon Our Conception" = (loosely translated) "Excuse Us For Being Born."

 

[henryhenry]

more than a lapse of judgment. it's lack of judgment. total lack.

incredibly immature.

it will take a long long time before i would trust what she writes, if ever.

I said the same thing about John Tomase and I got vilified for it.

You shouldn't have been.

I still say the issues with Tomase were/are much worse than this. His situation should call into question practically everything he's ever done, just because we'll never really know.

This was just a dumb, overblown and out-of-context comparison that was made for effect.

I'd forgive momentary stupidity and a poor choice of words over intentionally sloppy and probably knowingly deceptive reporting/writing any day of the week.

this is more than a momentary stumble.
it's a window on her maturity.
it's stunning, really.

 

[zagoshe]

Seriously, is there a dictionary in the house? Conception . . . look it up. "The act of conceiving or the state of being conceived." Ergo, "Pardon Our Conception" = (loosely translated) "Excuse Us For Being Born."

Um, what he said...... :

Perhaps Jemele Hill and Mark Madden could sign a deal with Fox Sports Net and team up to create the most damn offensive sports show period......

 

[Dickens Cider]

I got it. I didn't see it as sexist. It's not like you said "Pardon Our Ovulation", or Menstruation, or something of that sort.

 

[shotglass]

"Pardon Our Ovulation."

Now, THAT'S ...

(never mind.)

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Good lord.

ESPN both publishes it and punishes the person who wrote.

What a gutless pack of twits.

 

[WriteThinking]

When she comes back, they'll pair her with Dana Jacobson, give 'em their own show -- the female version of Pardon the Interruption: Pardon Our Conception.

What does this even mean?

Just somebody else trying to make another, um, dumb and tasteless parallel.

The copy editor is the most woefully underappreciated entity out there right now.

I understand your point, but hasn't that ALWAYS been true of copy editors? Even before the days of BLOGS!!! or the Interwebs or even -- GASP! -- the computer?

The copy editor is the most thankless full-time job in newspapers IMO.

But they were jobs.

In the migration to the Net, they are being totally left behind.

We need a successful nine-figure libel lawsuit against a Web site to get the copy editor the respect he or she deserves.

What I really think is happening, when it comes to newspapers, anyway, is that the copy editors are focusing on the print edition, and there are no extra people and little additional time to also work on Web copy. So, while there is obviously a lot of overlap, there is some Web stuff that isn't getting read or reworked as hard or as carefully. So you're right in that, Simon.

ESPN.com, however, probably doesn't have that problem/excuse. Or so the ESPN official said when he cited the editing system in place that they're usually so proud of.

So, I'm not so sure these particular copy editors deserve much respect or appreciation. Not if this how things go. This was a basic, glaring thing for them to catch, and they didn't.

I gave my take on why they didn't do it in an earlier post. But really, the reason this awful comparison of Hill's was initially overlooked doesn't matter much. Not in this case.

It was just too obvious to be missed and terrible and too much of a stretch to let it go through. The copy editor(s) failed to make a save when someone badly needed it. If nothing else was caught/changed in that column, that one graf should have been.

For that reason, the copy editors and copy chief have some culpability, and somebody, or several somebodies, need to be held accountable, too.

 

[zagoshe]

When she comes back, they'll pair her with Dana Jacobson, give 'em their own show -- the female version of Pardon the Interruption: Pardon Our Conception.

What does this even mean?

Just somebody else trying to make another, um, dumb and tasteless parallel.

The copy editor is the most woefully underappreciated entity out there right now.

I understand your point, but hasn't that ALWAYS been true of copy editors? Even before the days of BLOGS!!! or the Interwebs or even -- GASP! -- the computer?

The copy editor is the most thankless full-time job in newspapers IMO.

But they were jobs.

In the migration to the Net, they are being totally left behind.

We need a successful nine-figure libel lawsuit against a Web site to get the copy editor the respect he or she deserves.

What I really think is happening, when it comes to newspapers, anyway, is that the copy editors are focusing on the print edition, and there are no extra people and little additional time to also work on Web copy. So, while there is obviously a lot of overlap, there is some Web stuff that isn't getting read or reworked as hard or as carefully. So you're right in that, Simon.

ESPN.com, however, probably doesn't have that problem/excuse. Or so the ESPN official said when he cited the editing system in place that they're usually so proud of.

So, I'm not so sure these particular copy editors deserve much respect or appreciation. Not if this how things go. This was a basic, glaring thing for them to catch, and they didn't.

I gave my take on why they didn't do it in an earlier post. But really, the reason this awful comparison of Hill's was initially overlooked doesn't matter much. Not in this case.

It was just too obvious to be missed and terrible and too much of a stretch to let it go through. The copy editor(s) failed to make a save when someone badly needed it. If nothing else was caught/changed in that column, that one graf should have been.

For that reason, the copy editors and copy chief have some culpability, and somebody, or several somebodies, need to be held accountable, too.

The thing that is amazing about this is any word (rape, homosexual, murdered) or name (Hitler, Bin Laden) that is potentially inflammatory if used improperly or in the wrong context -- should automatically merit a red flag by any sports copy editor worth even half of what his salary is.

 

[shotglass]

I'd still be curious to know how formal the editing process is for online copy. Because if it's sound, they are truly rare.

(Well, OBVIOUSLY it's not TOO sound.)

 

[Tom Petty]

I'd still be curious to know how formal the editing process is for online copy. Because if it's sound, they are truly rare.

(Well, OBVIOUSLY it's not TOO sound.)

damn, paul. droppin' yet another dime.

 

[shotglass]

We call a 2 of diamonds a 2 of diamonds.

 

[Tom Petty]

We call a 2 of diamonds a 2 of diamonds.

{endofthread/}

 

[Joe Williams]

Good lord.

ESPN both publishes it and punishes the person who wrote.

What a gutless pack of twits.

wfw.

Trendy hires before their time often end badly. She should have made her mistakes in the so-called minor leagues of this business, with a steady newspaper pro editing out this kind of excrement. But no, she was rushed along to the heights, and now has Interwebs editing that evidently ain't worth a dime. Fail all around.

 

[outofplace]

Has this been posted?

ESPN.com suspended Jemele Hill ....

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_18_ESPN_suspends_columnist_Hill/srvc=home&position=5

“Jemele has been relieved of her writing and on-air responsibilities for a period of time to reflect on the impact of her words,” ESPN spokesman Paul Melvin said in an e-mailed statement yesterday.

Good. Now why don't you and your bosses reflect on your decision to post the column in the first place without thinking about its potential impact, Mr. Melvin? If this episode finally gets ESPN to start thinking about some of their practices (and she by no means the only one to write something stupid or insensitive on that site seemingly without any editing), then I'm sort of glad it happened.

Yes, an editor should have caught this. You can also put some blame on Hill's bosses for putting her in the position and failing to make sure her work would be edited properly.

But these are still her words. The primary responsibility belongs to the writer. I have always appreciated it when an editor caught a mistake in my work, but I never get pissed when they didn't. It is my job to avoid the mistakes in the first place. If it's my byline, it is my responsibility. Period.

Tio respond to Zag's post above, THAT is why Hill was suspended. She should have realized it was the wrong thing to write before it even made it to an editor.

By the way, Dickins Cider, great handle. I remember listening to a comedy routine about that when I was in college with a buddy of mine and his girlfriend. My buddy and I were laughing so hard we were in tears. His girlfriend...well, she just shook her head and left the room.

 

[playthrough]

Spot on, oop. If a writer EVER thinks "yeah, my bad, but the desk should have caught it so there's blame to go around," they should be thrown out the door on their head.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Dickens Cider = Bob & Tom, right?

 

[Monroe Stahr]

I wouldn't worry about Jemele. She'll probably be delivering a commencement address somewhere soon enough. Maybe ESPN will buy a university so it can start giving its people honorary degrees.

 

[outofplace]

Dickens Cider = Bob & Tom, right?

I don't remember, but if anybody has a link to the audio, I would be forever in their debt (sorry for the threadjack, but that is a very fond memory).

 

[WaylonJennings]

Dickens Cider = Bob & Tom, right?

I don't remember, but if anybody has a link to the audio, I would be forever in their debt (sorry for the threadjack, but that is a very fond memory).