More from J. Todd Foster

[spnited]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not becasuse of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and beleive it is off the record.

Orville, Do you really believe that the super's (or anyone else's) voice mail message is meant for publication without calling him back and talking to him "on the record"?

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

 

[Tarheel316]

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

Considering it's Jackass, not surprising.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not because of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and believe it is off the record.

Orville, Do you really believe that the super's (or anyone else's) voice mail message is meant for publication without calling him back and talking to him "on the record"?

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

No, but I believe if I call a newspaper editor or reporter and leave a voicemail, offering (nasty) comments on a subject of a story I should not be surprised if it shows up in an article or column. Not. Smart.


Our education reporter brought up a good point this morning.
If the paper felt they had to name the kid, because everybody in community knew it did they put the story on the Internet?
Yes they did.
So now the kid's name is not only all over the community it is a WWW event. What if some patriotic whack job gets it in his head this kid is a terrorist or an unAmerican assclown who needs a lesson, which could lead to death threats against the kid and his family.
But putting this story on the internet, this story goes viral. And kid's infamy spreads well beyond the community.


I can see both sides of the argument, but I am starting to come around to the idea that discretion might have been the better path.

 

[writingump]

Isn't it ironic that we have twice as much talk about this guy as there is in the thread about Ray Melick, who actually is/was well-respected by just about everyone in the field? In a way, it's sad we're giving this guy all this attention because that's all he's about -- no matter what damage it does to his newspaper's reputation.

 

[JJHHI]

Isn't it ironic that we have twice as much talk about this guy as there is in the thread about Ray Melick, who actually is/was well-respected by just about everyone in the field? In a way, it's sad we're giving this guy all this attention because that's all he's about -- no matter what damage it does to his newspaper's reputation.

To be fair, his newspaper has had a pretty awful reputation in recent years, and now it has a Pulitzer. Say what you will about the guy -- and I don't know him a bit, so I won't say anything -- but I certainly don't think it's fair or accurate to say he has damaged his newspaper's reputation.

 

[Drip]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not becasuse of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and beleive it is off the record.

Orville, Do you really believe that the super's (or anyone else's) voice mail message is meant for publication without calling him back and talking to him "on the record"?

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

This guy is fast becoming EVERYTHING that is wrong about this business. I've talked to a few folks who knew of him prior to Bristol. They thought highly of him. Now, he's letting his ego make a fool out him.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

Based on the content of said message -- the suicidal reference -- yes.
As a matter of philosophy, no. No one leaving a message on a newsroom voice mail should ever assume it won't be published. A school superintendent, who presumably deals with the media on at least a semi-regular basis, should know that.

 

[armageddon]

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

Based on the content of said message -- the suicidal reference -- yes.
As a matter of philosophy, no. No one leaving a message on a newsroom voice mail should ever assume it won't be published. A school superintendent, who presumably deals with the media on at least a semi-regular basis, should know that.

I'd never just take a phone message and run with it in any story. I'd call the person/source back to discuss the matter and also verify it was indeed the person who left the message.

I'm assuming Foster recognized the voice of the super but wouldn't it have been a hoot if Foster ran with the comment and the super wasn't the one who left the msg?

 

[novelist_wannabe]

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

Based on the content of said message -- the suicidal reference -- yes.
As a matter of philosophy, no. No one leaving a message on a newsroom voice mail should ever assume it won't be published. A school superintendent, who presumably deals with the media on at least a semi-regular basis, should know that.

I'd never just take a phone message and run with it in any story. I'd call the person/source back to discuss the matter and also verify it was indeed the person who left the message.

Of course not. That wouldn't be professional. But from the other side -- the side of the superintendent -- operating on the assumption you would should be a matter of enlightened self interest. Once he leaves that message, he's abdicated control over his own words.

 

[spnited]

No freaking way do you run someone's phone message without talking to that person first. Totally unprofessional and unethical.
A phone message is not public comment for print until you call the person, verify that it actually was him and tell him he's now fair game.
Anything less is inexcusable.

 

[playthrough]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not becasuse of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and beleive it is off the record.

Orville, Do you really believe that the super's (or anyone else's) voice mail message is meant for publication without calling him back and talking to him "on the record"?

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

This guy is fast becoming EVERYTHING that is wrong about this business. I've talked to a few folks who knew of him prior to Bristol. They thought highly of him. Now, he's letting his ego make a fool out him.

*Everything* that is wrong about this business? Foster is laying off people, shipping the copy editing duties to China and cashing huge bonus checks? Please.

This small paper won a Pulitzer under his watch, and he's making gutsy calls and sticking up for them. For people who say newspapers aren't relevant anymore, this is a breath of fresh air. Agreeing or disagreeing with his methods is fair game. And his ego is obvious. But he sounds like a damn interesting guy to work for in a biz where, sadly, there aren't many of his kind left--many have either jumped ship, been pushed or have been rendered vanilla by corporate morons.

 

[Drip]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not becasuse of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and beleive it is off the record.

Orville, Do you really believe that the super's (or anyone else's) voice mail message is meant for publication without calling him back and talking to him "on the record"?

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

This guy is fast becoming EVERYTHING that is wrong about this business. I've talked to a few folks who knew of him prior to Bristol. They thought highly of him. Now, he's letting his ego make a fool out him.

*Everything* that is wrong about this business? Foster is laying off people, shipping the copy editing duties to China and cashing huge bonus checks? Please.

This small paper won a Pulitzer under his watch, and he's making gutsy calls and sticking up for them. For people who say newspapers aren't relevant anymore, this is a breath of fresh air. Agreeing or disagreeing with his methods is fair game. And his ego is obvious. But he sounds like a damn interesting guy to work for in a biz where, sadly, there aren't many of his kind left--many have either jumped ship, been pushed or have been rendered vanilla by corporate morons.

Play, in my opinion, there is no way you can honestly defend what he did with a straight face. There wasn't anything gutsy about this move. He needs to check his ego at the door.

 

[armageddon]

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

Based on the content of said message -- the suicidal reference -- yes.
As a matter of philosophy, no. No one leaving a message on a newsroom voice mail should ever assume it won't be published. A school superintendent, who presumably deals with the media on at least a semi-regular basis, should know that.

I'd never just take a phone message and run with it in any story. I'd call the person/source back to discuss the matter and also verify it was indeed the person who left the message.

Of course not. That wouldn't be professional. But from the other side -- the side of the superintendent -- operating on the assumption you would should be a matter of enlightened self interest. Once he leaves that message, he's abdicated control over his own words.

Novelist, not trying at all to get into a pissing match. But I suspect if we took 100 members of the public -- superintendents, cops, teachers, parents, etc. -- and asked them if they anticipated a reporter would take such a message and publish the contents w/out calling back we'd get a high number of folks who would say NO WAY.

I can understand why such folks, even those who interact with the media, would think the only way their words get into print is when a reporter interviews them. Right or wrong, I suspect that would be the view of many.

Yet if you take 100 reporters/editors, I would hope every damn one of them would realize doing what this tool did was unprofessional and instead would choose to call the subject back and attempt to interview them.

I don't put the onus on the public. It's on us to do the right thing, not what we just what we have a "right" to do.

Not angry with you or anyone else here. It's just that more I think of what this guy did the more pissed off I get and I'm venting.

It's like this guy is practicing gotcha journalism. Leave a nasty msg? We get the last word and last laugh.

 

[playthrough]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not becasuse of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and beleive it is off the record.

Orville, Do you really believe that the super's (or anyone else's) voice mail message is meant for publication without calling him back and talking to him "on the record"?

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

This guy is fast becoming EVERYTHING that is wrong about this business. I've talked to a few folks who knew of him prior to Bristol. They thought highly of him. Now, he's letting his ego make a fool out him.

*Everything* that is wrong about this business? Foster is laying off people, shipping the copy editing duties to China and cashing huge bonus checks? Please.

This small paper won a Pulitzer under his watch, and he's making gutsy calls and sticking up for them. For people who say newspapers aren't relevant anymore, this is a breath of fresh air. Agreeing or disagreeing with his methods is fair game. And his ego is obvious. But he sounds like a damn interesting guy to work for in a biz where, sadly, there aren't many of his kind left--many have either jumped ship, been pushed or have been rendered vanilla by corporate morons.

Play, in my opinion, there is no way you can honestly defend what he did with a straight face. There wasn't anything gutsy about this move. He needs to check his ego at the door.

Eye of the beholder. But saying he represents everything that is wrong with this business is a ridiculous blanket statement.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

Based on the content of said message -- the suicidal reference -- yes.
As a matter of philosophy, no. No one leaving a message on a newsroom voice mail should ever assume it won't be published. A school superintendent, who presumably deals with the media on at least a semi-regular basis, should know that.

I'd never just take a phone message and run with it in any story. I'd call the person/source back to discuss the matter and also verify it was indeed the person who left the message.

Of course not. That wouldn't be professional. But from the other side -- the side of the superintendent -- operating on the assumption you would should be a matter of enlightened self interest. Once he leaves that message, he's abdicated control over his own words.

Novelist, not trying at all to get into a pissing match. But I suspect if we took 100 members of the public -- superintendents, cops, teachers, parents, etc. -- and asked them if they anticipated a reporter would take such a message and publish the contents w/out calling back we'd get a high number of folks who would say NO WAY.

I can understand why such folks, even those who interact with the media, would think the only way their words get into print is when a reporter interviews them. Right or wrong, I suspect that would be the view of many.

Yet if you take 100 reporters/editors, I would hope every damn one of them would realize doing what this tool did was unprofessional and instead would choose to call the subject back and attempt to interview them.

I don't put the onus on the public. It's on us to do the right thing, not what we just what we have a "right" to do.

Not angry with you or anyone else here. It's just that more I think of what this guy did the more pissed off I get and I'm venting.

It's like this guy is practicing gotcha journalism. Leave a nasty msg? We get the last word and last laugh.

Don't argue with a man who buys ink by the gallon and paper by the ton.

 

[Drip]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not becasuse of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and beleive it is off the record.

Orville, Do you really believe that the super's (or anyone else's) voice mail message is meant for publication without calling him back and talking to him "on the record"?

Jackass Todd Foster is way off base for publishing a phone message without calling the super back.

This guy is fast becoming EVERYTHING that is wrong about this business. I've talked to a few folks who knew of him prior to Bristol. They thought highly of him. Now, he's letting his ego make a fool out him.

*Everything* that is wrong about this business? Foster is laying off people, shipping the copy editing duties to China and cashing huge bonus checks? Please.

This small paper won a Pulitzer under his watch, and he's making gutsy calls and sticking up for them. For people who say newspapers aren't relevant anymore, this is a breath of fresh air. Agreeing or disagreeing with his methods is fair game. And his ego is obvious. But he sounds like a damn interesting guy to work for in a biz where, sadly, there aren't many of his kind left--many have either jumped ship, been pushed or have been rendered vanilla by corporate morons.

Play, in my opinion, there is no way you can honestly defend what he did with a straight face. There wasn't anything gutsy about this move. He needs to check his ego at the door.

Eye of the beholder. But saying he represents everything that is wrong with this business is a ridiculous blanket statement.

You're right, he's not everything wrong with the business. But his actions don't endear many people to sympathize with the plight of the industry.

 

[WriteThinking]

I wonder if parents or the public ever minded or got upset that the star quarterback was made "notorious" by the paper for his football exploits.

I wonder if the kid was ever felt "suicidal" over his football exploits being splashed all over the paper.

No?

Well, then, they shouldn't mind the kid's name being mentioned when he takes a leak, on purpose, in public, during the national anthem.

Hello...

People make such a big deal about the kid being "a minor." That is nothing but a technicality in this case. A teenager -- especially one involved in sports who pays respects to the flag and stands through a national anthem at every game -- ought to know not to be urinating, in public, during the national anthem.

And if he didn't, well...I guess he does now. Geez, the excuses people make for kids are ridiculous.

As for whether or not Foster called the superintendent back, and asked if he could use his "suicide" quote, or told him he was going to do so, I hope he did so. I think I would have. But, how do we know he didn't?

The superintendent probably was engaging in hyperbole, and he probably knew it, if he was asked or confronted about his message, or the issue.

Foster tends to try to educate the public, through his columns, regarding inner workings of a newspaper, and let people in on them. In short, like a lot of us, he likes to talk shop, and will engage anyone about it.

I applaud his putting this type of stuff out there. Whether it gets put up for debate, or ridicule, is really beside the point.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

No freaking way do you run someone's phone message without talking to that person first. Totally unprofessional and unethical.
A phone message is not public comment for print until you call the person, verify that it actually was him and tell him he's now fair game.
Anything less is inexcusable.

Yes, yes, and yes. Nonetheless, Super's got to be smarter than to leave that voicemail.

Novelist, not trying at all to get into a pissing match. But I suspect if we took 100 members of the public -- superintendents, cops, teachers, parents, etc. -- and asked them if they anticipated a reporter would take such a message and publish the contents w/out calling back we'd get a high number of folks who would say NO WAY.

Maybe they wouldn't. And your average truck driver or secretary or even a cop, I wouldn't expect that they would. A school superintendent, though, really should know better. This is PR 101. Control the message. The person at the top of that system's PR department, not to mention the school system attorney, is likely losing substantial sleep over this. I guess my point is this situation has been poorly managed by both sides by people who should know better.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The other thing about the superintendent is, how does he know that the kid is suicidal? If the kid truly was, I would think the super is violating some sort of confidentiality law in discussing it with a reporter. And if nothing else, I would find it pretty hard to trust the superintendent with anything confidential again.

 

[Ace]

I wonder if parents or the public ever minded or got upset that the star quarterback was made "notorious" by the paper for his football exploits.

I wonder if the kid was ever felt "suicidal" over his football exploits being splashed all over the paper.

No?

Well, then, they shouldn't mind the kid's name being mentioned when he takes a leak, on purpose, in public, during the national anthem.

Hello...

People make such a big deal about the kid being "a minor." That is nothing but a technicality in this case. A teenager -- especially one involved in sports who pays respects to the flag and stands through a national anthem at every game -- ought to know not to be urinating, in public, during the national anthem.

And if he didn't, well...I guess he does now. Geez, the excuses people make for kids are ridiculous.

As for whether or not Foster called the superintendent back, and asked if he could use his "suicide" quote, or told him he was going to do so, I hope he did so. I think I would have. But, how do we know he didn't?

The superintendent probably was engaging in hyperbole, and he probably knew it, if he was asked or confronted about his message, or the issue.

Foster tends to try to educate the public, through his columns, regarding inner workings of a newspaper, and let people in on them. In short, like a lot of us, he likes to talk shop, and will engage anyone about it.

I applaud his putting this type of stuff out there. Whether it gets put up for debate, or ridicule, is really beside the point.

Sure. Put it out there. And I can defend the decision, too. But why not state the facts and maybe what concerns went into making the decision. Why come off looking like an ass?

You could easily have said that you got calls expressing concern from the super and others.

The suicidal part is bad because 1) It's true and you are mocking it 2) It's not true but you are using it apparently without having the balls to call the super first.