Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Criticize away. Please. And hopefully, if the >criticism is constructive, somebody on the Boulevard >will learn something. My problem with this particular >post and others I have seen is the following: some are >clearly warranted. But many others are simply >mean-spirited, wrong-headed and, often, simply wrong. >Ask anyone on the news desk about how critical I am of >myself or our product and the answer is very. That's >one way to improve -- to hold yourself, your >colleagues and your paper to a higher standard. Like I >said, criticize away. But I think people who call >others out should have the courage to put their names >to it, especially when they're being downright nasty. >What does it do to continually lash out at our >restaurant reviewer or our executive editor? Nobody is >perfect, least of all me. But there should be a more >dignified way to dis without slipping into ad hominem >attacks, don't you think? > > >>I'm with you on Dennis, Jon. On every single point >>you raised. >> >>So far as the "smart alecks and cowards who like to >>post anonymously..." bit, I love how "journalists" who >>routinely use anonymous sources seem to have a problem >>with their "anonymous critics." Also, this part of >>your response sounds a lot like what Dennis says when >>he comes over here, name-calls and otherwise vents. If >>you believe the PG should be exempt from any sort of >>criticism, including some from within your very walls, >>you're being most unrealistic. Even allowing for the >>horrible financial picture, right now the top dogs >>seem to be running the place into the ground on any >>number of levels. It may not be fun for you to see >>harsh commentary directed at the Boulevard, and if >>it's incorrect as you say, shame on the posters. But >>be advised it's no fun for people who respected the >>paper for years seeing what it is becoming. Your >>defense of Dennis is sound. He seems to be one of the >>few institutions at the paper who's not going to hell >>in a handbasket. >> >>>To the smart alecks and cowards who like to post >>>anonymously on this forum, my advice is to grow up >and >>>do your research. First off, gobsmacked -- meaning >>>astounded or flabbergasted -- appears to be entirely >>>appropriate. Secondly, as reporters we all make snap >>>judgments about people we interview, so I have no >>>problem with Dennis sharing his impressions with the >>>court even if they run contrary to a doctor's report. >>>He was asked a question, and he answered it. So what, >>>he's not allowed to say his experience did not >comport >>>with that of a doctor? Dennis has to be wrong because >>>someone with an M.D. after his name has a different >>>opinion? Finally, before you start making assumptions >>>-- or intimations, because that's how it appears to >me >>>-- about Dennis's note-retention habits, why don't >you >>>find out what Post-Gazette policy is first? The >>>problem with so many posts on this forum for supposed >>>fact-checking, accuracy-minded journalists is that >>>things are often said with complete ignorance. I >can't >>>tell you how many times I've seen people post >theories >>>on how or why the PG did or didn't do something that >>>are so completely off base and absurd it's laughable. >>>For what it's worth, I'm looking at Dennis's desk >>>right now, and it is pretty clean. But what does that >>>tell you? Dennis could have all his notes hidden in >an >>>underground bunker, right? Maybe that's fodder for >>>another "fact-based" thread here. And for the record, >>>I have had my differences with Dennis from time to >>>time, so I am not a blind apologist for him. But he >is >>>smart, tenacious and one hell of a reporter -- the >>>kind of guy you definitely want on your team. This >>>post struck me as nasty, obnoxious and ignorant >enough >>>that I thought he deserved having a colleague stick >up >>>for him. >>> >>> >>> >>>>When in doubt, overreach for an inappropriate word: >>>> >>>>"Mr. Roddy testified that Ms. Jordan was >>"gob-smacked" >>>>when he told her she gave $10,000 to judicial >>>>candidate Cheryl Allen." >>>> >>>>Paging Dr. Roddy, Dr. Roddy ... >>>> >>>>"Mr. Roddy said that his experience ran contrary to >a >>>>doctor's report that Ms. Jordan was psychotic and >her >>>>memory was very impaired." >>>> >>>>2 + 2 = 5. Just take Dennis' word for it: >>>> >>>>"Under cross-examination from defense attorney >Thomas >>>>J. Farrell, Mr. Roddy said he threw away the notes >>and >>>>deleted the tape recording of the interview." >>>> >>>>Of course, the note destruction issue is crucial to >>>>both the case and journalism in general. Here's a >>>>fairly brief story on different sides of the debate >>>> >>>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>href="http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1785">http:/ >/ >>w >>>w >>>>w.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1785</a> >>>> >>>>My practice and experience with other reporters is >>>>that we all keep stacks of full note books for a >long >>>>time. What do you do? And what have you seen of >>>>Dennis' desk and drawers? Full of papers and >>>>notebooks, or neat as a pin?

Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.