More from J. Todd Foster

[cranberry]

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.

Couple points:

1. The kid's talent and hard work made him a good football player. The ****ing newspaper just reports about it.

2. Holding a high school kid to a different standard because he's a star athlete is just as wrong as pandering to a high school kid because he's a star athlete.

3. J. Todd Foster is a petty and tedious wannabe who's been exposed by his newspaper's award.

 

[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.

Couple points:

1. The kid's talent and hard work made him a good football player. The ****ing newspaper just reports about it.

2. Holding a high school kid to a different standard because he's a star athlete is just as wrong as pandering to a high school kid because he's a star athlete.

3. J. Todd Foster is a petty and tedious wannabe who's been exposed by his newspaper's award.

And my point is, I wonder if parents got nearly as upset about the kid urinating, on purpose, in public, in the middle of the national anthem, as they did about this kid's name being mentioned in the paper when it should have been mentioned.

I highly doubt it, which, frankly, ought to bring into the question the credibility of the complaining parties.

A superintendent of a school district should know that when he calls the editor of a newspaper, he's on the record unless he says, in preface, that he's not.

Because it was a phone message, I would have called the guy back in order to make sure it was him in the voicemail and/or to give him a chance to say that, no, it wasn't him, and please don't use it (or else I'll be suing the daylights out of you).

But, we don't know that the super wasn't called back. Maybe then, he realized he should've said he wanted his stuff off the record, and did so at that time, and so, no additional information or update was used. Now, I don't know about this, I'm just raising a possibility.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased because I've been on the receiving end of some very good, clear, decisive, fair, encouraging and much-appreciated feedback about my work from Foster in the past, and I know, from personal experience, that, even as hard as he sometimes may be for sources, or the public, to like or understand, he is not one to throw journalists under the bus.

That goes a very long way with me these days, and I'd work for the guy in a minute because of it.

 

[Drip]

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.

Couple points:

1. The kid's talent and hard work made him a good football player. The ****ing newspaper just reports about it.

2. Holding a high school kid to a different standard because he's a star athlete is just as wrong as pandering to a high school kid because he's a star athlete.

3. J. Todd Foster is a petty and tedious wannabe who's been exposed by his newspaper's award.

And my point is, I wonder if parents got nearly as upset about the kid urinating, on purpose, in public, in the middle of the national anthem, as they did about this kid's name being mentioned in the paper when it should have been mentioned.

I highly doubt it, which, frankly, ought to bring into the question the credibility of the complaining parties.

A superintendent of a school district should know that when he calls the editor of a newspaper, he's on the record unless he says, in preface, that he's not.

Because it was a phone message, I would have called the guy back in order to make sure it was him in the voicemail and/or to give him a chance to say that, no, it wasn't him, and please don't use it (or else I'll be suing the daylights out of you).

But, we don't know that the super wasn't called back. Maybe then, he realized he should've said he wanted his stuff off the record, and did so at that time, and so, no additional information or update was used. Now, I don't know about this, I'm just raising a possibility.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased because I've been on the receiving end of some very good, clear, decisive, fair, encouraging and much-appreciated feedback about my work from Foster in the past, and I know, from personal experience, that, even as hard as he sometimes may be for sources, or the public, to like or understand, he is not one to throw journalists under the bus.

That goes a very long way with me these days, and I'd work for the guy in a minute because of it.

I'm sorry, I can't see defending this J. Toddd action.

 

[spnited]

At no point does Jackass Todd say he spoke to the super or even tried to call him, he merely quotes his voice mail.

Unprofessional, unethical bull****.

Nice that his paper won a Pulitzer. I guess that makes Jackass Todd a ****ing star. But his methods make him look like a pompous ass and his 15 minutes have more than expired.

 

[Drip]

At no point does Jackass Todd say he spoke to the super or even tried to call him, he merely quotes his voice mail.

Unprofessional, unethical bull****.

Nice that his paper won a Pulitzer. I guess that makes Jackass Todd a ****ing star. But his methods make him look like a pompous ass and his 15 minutes have more than expired.

Excellent points spnited. You have truly pinned the tail on the jackass!!!

 

[Jim_Sacco]

Sigh ... seriously guys? Seriously? J. Todd Foster (total disclosure, I'm his sports editor who has had a great working relationship with this guy for about seven years ... give or take) did what I would hope every ME would do in this situation. What situation?

Well, he knew that despite EVERY editor in this building agreeing to run the kid's name, that everybody but him might be getting phone calls and nasty e-mails. So, like a good manager (or coach in any sport) he deflects the vile toward him. Guess what? Holy freakin' crap, it worked. Let us not mention that, and I'm only counting the phone calls I've gotten, it's at least 4-to-1 in favor of naming the kid from the general public. You know, the people we freakin' serve and report the news to. You know, readers.

But, alas, here we are behind hidden names with hidden agendas. People who never met the guy and don't realize what he does for people on his staff who work their asses off. Or people who worked for him, didn't get along with him and come on here to rail against him. And then those mindless saps who form an opinion of somebody despite never having met the person.

Hey, I was fired from a newspaper once many moons ago. You know what I did? Nothing. I never spoke an ill word toward the paper and used it as motivation the rest of my career. It seemed to work pretty well for little old me. Maybe some people would do well to follow in those footsteps. (Sorry, didn't mean to get egotistical which, lo-and-behold, is suddenly a point of contention with us sports writers … the most egotistical bunch of them all.)

 

[Ace]

Sigh ... seriously guys? Seriously? J. Todd Foster (total disclosure, I'm his sports editor who has had a great working relationship with this guy for about seven years ... give or take) did what I would hope every ME would do in this situation. What situation?

Well, he knew that despite EVERY editor in this building agreeing to run the kid's name, that everybody but him might be getting phone calls and nasty e-mails. So, like a good manager (or coach in any sport) he deflects the vile toward him. Guess what? Holy freakin' crap, it worked. Let us not mention that, and I'm only counting the phone calls I've gotten, it's at least 4-to-1 in favor of naming the kid from the general public. You know, the people we freakin' serve and report the news to. You know, readers.

But, alas, here we are behind hidden names with hidden agendas. People who never met the guy and don't realize what he does for people on his staff who work their asses off. Or people who worked for him, didn't get along with him and come on here to rail against him. And then those mindless saps who form an opinion of somebody despite never having met the person.

Hey, I was fired from a newspaper once many moons ago. You know what I did? Nothing. I never spoke an ill word toward the paper and used it as motivation the rest of my career. It seemed to work pretty well for little old me. Maybe some people would do well to follow in those footsteps. (Sorry, didn't mean to get egotistical which, lo-and-behold, is suddenly a point of contention with us sports writers … the most egotistical bunch of them all.)

So J. Todd Foster talked to the staff and everyone wanted to run the kid's name. He agreed and also said that he would run a holier-than-though column where he'd come off as a a condescending know-it-all to make sure that none of his staffers would be bothered by irate readers?

Good for him. Sounds like a gem to work for.

 

[WriteThinking]

He wants and encourages hard-nosed, thorough reporting, he admires, believes in and understands the importance of quality enterprise work, he promotes and takes pride in his staff and his paper; he's passionate about journalism; he's willing to take a stand; he's unafraid of public ire and to take risks; he's willing to back his staff and others he knows and believes in; and he is unlikely to throw any good journalist under the bus...

Seems like a pretty good person to work for to me...

 

[Ace]

He wants and encourages hard-nosed, thorough reporting, he admires, believes in and understands the importance of quality enterprise work, he promotes and takes pride in his staff and his paper; he's passionate about journalism; he's willing to take a stand; he's unafraid of public ire and to take risks; he's willing to back his staff and others he knows and believes in; and he is unlikely to throw any good journalist under the bus...

Seems like a pretty good person to work for to me...

He does. If he'd stop writing editorials, he'd be perfect.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Sigh ... seriously guys? Seriously? J. Todd Foster (total disclosure, I'm his sports editor who has had a great working relationship with this guy for about seven years ... give or take) did what I would hope every ME would do in this situation. What situation?

Well, he knew that despite EVERY editor in this building agreeing to run the kid's name, that everybody but him might be getting phone calls and nasty e-mails. So, like a good manager (or coach in any sport) he deflects the vile toward him. Guess what? Holy freakin' crap, it worked. Let us not mention that, and I'm only counting the phone calls I've gotten, it's at least 4-to-1 in favor of naming the kid from the general public. You know, the people we freakin' serve and report the news to. You know, readers.

But, alas, here we are behind hidden names with hidden agendas. People who never met the guy and don't realize what he does for people on his staff who work their asses off. Or people who worked for him, didn't get along with him and come on here to rail against him. And then those mindless saps who form an opinion of somebody despite never having met the person.

Hey, I was fired from a newspaper once many moons ago. You know what I did? Nothing. I never spoke an ill word toward the paper and used it as motivation the rest of my career. It seemed to work pretty well for little old me. Maybe some people would do well to follow in those footsteps. (Sorry, didn't mean to get egotistical which, lo-and-behold, is suddenly a point of contention with us sports writers … the most egotistical bunch of them all.)

Jim, if you've read my posts, I haven't insulted J. Todd for anything. What I have done is question his judgment in writing the follow-up column.

Truth be told, I'm torn on whether he should have written about the kid in the first place. If it had been an adult, absolutely write about it. A teenager, you have to be a little more careful. You can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of behavior as an adult. Still, you guys wrote about it and were supposedly prepared to deal with the consequences. So be it. You're professional journalists, and you're trained to deal with those consequences.

But in the follow-up column, not only did he do something that could be viewed as unethical (quoting a phone message without verifying if it was on the record) but he also wrote about some very sensitive information (the teen being potentially suicidal) without any verification from anyone other than two phone messages.

He didn't do a fundamental tenet of journalism, which is get the other person's side of the story. He didn't call the teen, or his parents, and ask them to comment for the column, or to ask them how the story has affected their lives.

Did you guys even stop to think, while writing about the rumor, that maybe the kid doesn't want his mental health status known to the outside world? Instead he rumor-mongered that the kid was suicidal. I would hope for everyone's sake that nothing horrible comes to fruitition.

All he had to do in the column was write a version of "Yeah, we know we may have upset a lot of people, but we stand by our story." Simple, and to the point (and used quite strongly by the Washington Post during the Watergate reporting).

 

[playthrough]

Sigh ... seriously guys? Seriously? J. Todd Foster (total disclosure, I'm his sports editor who has had a great working relationship with this guy for about seven years ... give or take) did what I would hope every ME would do in this situation. What situation?

Well, he knew that despite EVERY editor in this building agreeing to run the kid's name, that everybody but him might be getting phone calls and nasty e-mails. So, like a good manager (or coach in any sport) he deflects the vile toward him. Guess what? Holy freakin' crap, it worked. Let us not mention that, and I'm only counting the phone calls I've gotten, it's at least 4-to-1 in favor of naming the kid from the general public. You know, the people we freakin' serve and report the news to. You know, readers.

But, alas, here we are behind hidden names with hidden agendas. People who never met the guy and don't realize what he does for people on his staff who work their asses off. Or people who worked for him, didn't get along with him and come on here to rail against him. And then those mindless saps who form an opinion of somebody despite never having met the person.

Hey, I was fired from a newspaper once many moons ago. You know what I did? Nothing. I never spoke an ill word toward the paper and used it as motivation the rest of my career. It seemed to work pretty well for little old me. Maybe some people would do well to follow in those footsteps. (Sorry, didn't mean to get egotistical which, lo-and-behold, is suddenly a point of contention with us sports writers … the most egotistical bunch of them all.)

Jim, if you've read my posts, I haven't insulted J. Todd for anything. What I have done is question his judgment in writing the follow-up column.

Truth be told, I'm torn on whether he should have written about the kid in the first place. If it had been an adult, absolutely write about it. A teenager, you have to be a little more careful. You can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of behavior as an adult. Still, you guys wrote about it and were supposedly prepared to deal with the consequences. So be it. You're professional journalists, and you're trained to deal with those consequences.

But in the follow-up column, not only did he do something that could be viewed as unethical (quoting a phone message without verifying if it was on the record) but he also wrote about some very sensitive information (the teen being potentially suicidal) without any verification from anyone other than two phone messages.

He didn't do a fundamental tenet of journalism, which is get the other person's side of the story. He didn't call the teen, or his parents, and ask them to comment for the column, or to ask them how the story has affected their lives.

Did you guys even stop to think, while writing about the rumor, that maybe the kid doesn't want his mental health status known to the outside world? Instead he rumor-mongered that the kid was suicidal. I would hope for everyone's sake that nothing horrible comes to fruitition.

All he had to do in the column was write a version of "Yeah, we know we may have upset a lot of people, but we stand by our story." Simple, and to the point (and used quite strongly by the Washington Post during the Watergate reporting).

When my kids are 16, I'll expect them not to take a whiz during the national anthem. Somehow I don't think that's setting a ridiculous standard for youth behavior.

 

[Ace]

Sigh ... seriously guys? Seriously? J. Todd Foster (total disclosure, I'm his sports editor who has had a great working relationship with this guy for about seven years ... give or take) did what I would hope every ME would do in this situation. What situation?

Well, he knew that despite EVERY editor in this building agreeing to run the kid's name, that everybody but him might be getting phone calls and nasty e-mails. So, like a good manager (or coach in any sport) he deflects the vile toward him. Guess what? Holy freakin' crap, it worked. Let us not mention that, and I'm only counting the phone calls I've gotten, it's at least 4-to-1 in favor of naming the kid from the general public. You know, the people we freakin' serve and report the news to. You know, readers.

But, alas, here we are behind hidden names with hidden agendas. People who never met the guy and don't realize what he does for people on his staff who work their asses off. Or people who worked for him, didn't get along with him and come on here to rail against him. And then those mindless saps who form an opinion of somebody despite never having met the person.

Hey, I was fired from a newspaper once many moons ago. You know what I did? Nothing. I never spoke an ill word toward the paper and used it as motivation the rest of my career. It seemed to work pretty well for little old me. Maybe some people would do well to follow in those footsteps. (Sorry, didn't mean to get egotistical which, lo-and-behold, is suddenly a point of contention with us sports writers … the most egotistical bunch of them all.)

Jim, if you've read my posts, I haven't insulted J. Todd for anything. What I have done is question his judgment in writing the follow-up column.

Truth be told, I'm torn on whether he should have written about the kid in the first place. If it had been an adult, absolutely write about it. A teenager, you have to be a little more careful. You can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of behavior as an adult. Still, you guys wrote about it and were supposedly prepared to deal with the consequences. So be it. You're professional journalists, and you're trained to deal with those consequences.

But in the follow-up column, not only did he do something that could be viewed as unethical (quoting a phone message without verifying if it was on the record) but he also wrote about some very sensitive information (the teen being potentially suicidal) without any verification from anyone other than two phone messages.

He didn't do a fundamental tenet of journalism, which is get the other person's side of the story. He didn't call the teen, or his parents, and ask them to comment for the column, or to ask them how the story has affected their lives.

Did you guys even stop to think, while writing about the rumor, that maybe the kid doesn't want his mental health status known to the outside world? Instead he rumor-mongered that the kid was suicidal. I would hope for everyone's sake that nothing horrible comes to fruitition.

All he had to do in the column was write a version of "Yeah, we know we may have upset a lot of people, but we stand by our story." Simple, and to the point (and used quite strongly by the Washington Post during the Watergate reporting).

When my kids are 16, I'll expect them not to take a whiz during the national anthem. Somehow I don't think that's setting a ridiculous standard for youth behavior.

The kid was paid $20 to do it. So you're against your kids working for a living?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Sigh ... seriously guys? Seriously? J. Todd Foster (total disclosure, I'm his sports editor who has had a great working relationship with this guy for about seven years ... give or take) did what I would hope every ME would do in this situation. What situation?

Well, he knew that despite EVERY editor in this building agreeing to run the kid's name, that everybody but him might be getting phone calls and nasty e-mails. So, like a good manager (or coach in any sport) he deflects the vile toward him. Guess what? Holy freakin' crap, it worked. Let us not mention that, and I'm only counting the phone calls I've gotten, it's at least 4-to-1 in favor of naming the kid from the general public. You know, the people we freakin' serve and report the news to. You know, readers.

But, alas, here we are behind hidden names with hidden agendas. People who never met the guy and don't realize what he does for people on his staff who work their asses off. Or people who worked for him, didn't get along with him and come on here to rail against him. And then those mindless saps who form an opinion of somebody despite never having met the person.

Hey, I was fired from a newspaper once many moons ago. You know what I did? Nothing. I never spoke an ill word toward the paper and used it as motivation the rest of my career. It seemed to work pretty well for little old me. Maybe some people would do well to follow in those footsteps. (Sorry, didn't mean to get egotistical which, lo-and-behold, is suddenly a point of contention with us sports writers … the most egotistical bunch of them all.)

Jim, if you've read my posts, I haven't insulted J. Todd for anything. What I have done is question his judgment in writing the follow-up column.

Truth be told, I'm torn on whether he should have written about the kid in the first place. If it had been an adult, absolutely write about it. A teenager, you have to be a little more careful. You can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of behavior as an adult. Still, you guys wrote about it and were supposedly prepared to deal with the consequences. So be it. You're professional journalists, and you're trained to deal with those consequences.

But in the follow-up column, not only did he do something that could be viewed as unethical (quoting a phone message without verifying if it was on the record) but he also wrote about some very sensitive information (the teen being potentially suicidal) without any verification from anyone other than two phone messages.

He didn't do a fundamental tenet of journalism, which is get the other person's side of the story. He didn't call the teen, or his parents, and ask them to comment for the column, or to ask them how the story has affected their lives.

Did you guys even stop to think, while writing about the rumor, that maybe the kid doesn't want his mental health status known to the outside world? Instead he rumor-mongered that the kid was suicidal. I would hope for everyone's sake that nothing horrible comes to fruitition.

All he had to do in the column was write a version of "Yeah, we know we may have upset a lot of people, but we stand by our story." Simple, and to the point (and used quite strongly by the Washington Post during the Watergate reporting).

When my kids are 16, I'll expect them not to take a whiz during the national anthem. Somehow I don't think that's setting a ridiculous standard for youth behavior.

They're teenagers. Expect the worst, hope for the best.

Teens do stupid things sometimes. The kid did a stupid thing.

 

[JC]

My God, taking a **** in public. What has the world come to? Juvenille assanine prank, fine him and move on. Is it really this big a deal?

 

[Ace]

My God, taking a **** in public. What has the world come to? Juvenille assanine prank, fine him and move on. Is it really this big a deal?

Yes.

He easily could have been labeled a sex offender for exposing himself before young children and, according to the Supreme Court, could be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

 

[User 4332]

My God, taking a **** in public. What has the world come to? Juvenille assanine prank, fine him and move on. Is it really this big a deal?

Yes.

He easily could have been labeled a sex offender for exposing himself before young children and, according to the Supreme Court, could be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Hyperbole much?

 

[Ace]

My God, taking a **** in public. What has the world come to? Juvenille assanine prank, fine him and move on. Is it really this big a deal?

Yes.

He easily could have been labeled a sex offender for exposing himself before young children and, according to the Supreme Court, could be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Hyperbole much?

Actually, that would fit the legal definition most places.

If some skeevy guy came out waving his wang in front of schoolkids, and claimed he was just taking a ****, you don't think they'd lock him up a try to label him a sex offender?

 

[User 4332]

My God, taking a **** in public. What has the world come to? Juvenille assanine prank, fine him and move on. Is it really this big a deal?

Yes.

He easily could have been labeled a sex offender for exposing himself before young children and, according to the Supreme Court, could be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Hyperbole much?

Actually, that would fit the legal definition most places.

If some skeevy guy came out waving his wang in front of schoolkids, and claimed he was just taking a ****, you don't think they'd lock him up a try to label him a sex offender?

I think that indecent exposure in Virginia is a misdemeanor -- as it is most places -- and does not qualify for the sex offender label -- and in most states it would not.

Even if you were in the minority of places where indecent exposure could land you on the sex offender registry, it is not an offense that by itself would lead to post-incarceration civil commitment in any jurisdiction.

So, no. I know he wouldn't be locked up as a sex offender in Virginia. I doubt he would many other places.

 

[Ace]

My God, taking a **** in public. What has the world come to? Juvenille assanine prank, fine him and move on. Is it really this big a deal?

Yes.

He easily could have been labeled a sex offender for exposing himself before young children and, according to the Supreme Court, could be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Hyperbole much?

Actually, that would fit the legal definition most places.

If some skeevy guy came out waving his wang in front of schoolkids, and claimed he was just taking a ****, you don't think they'd lock him up a try to label him a sex offender?

I think that indecent exposure in Virginia is a misdemeanor -- as it is most places -- and does not qualify for the sex offender label -- and in most states it would not.

Even if you were in the minority of places where indecent exposure could land you on the sex offender registry, it is not an offense that by itself would lead to post-incarceration civil commitment in any jurisdiction.

So, no. I know he wouldn't be locked up as a sex offender in Virginia. I doubt he would many other places.

I would not like to test the theory that I could go to a school campus and wave my wang around in front of school children and at worst get charged with a misdemeanor, thanks all the same.

 

[User 4332]

My God, taking a **** in public. What has the world come to? Juvenille assanine prank, fine him and move on. Is it really this big a deal?

Yes.

He easily could have been labeled a sex offender for exposing himself before young children and, according to the Supreme Court, could be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Hyperbole much?

Actually, that would fit the legal definition most places.

If some skeevy guy came out waving his wang in front of schoolkids, and claimed he was just taking a ****, you don't think they'd lock him up a try to label him a sex offender?

I think that indecent exposure in Virginia is a misdemeanor -- as it is most places -- and does not qualify for the sex offender label -- and in most states it would not.

Even if you were in the minority of places where indecent exposure could land you on the sex offender registry, it is not an offense that by itself would lead to post-incarceration civil commitment in any jurisdiction.

So, no. I know he wouldn't be locked up as a sex offender in Virginia. I doubt he would many other places.

I would not like to test the theory that I could go to a school campus and wave my wang around in front of school children and at worst get charged with a misdemeanor, thanks all the same.

You're presumably an adult and not a 15-year-old who attends that school, so yes, you would be at risk for more than a misdemeanor. This child is not.