Posted 7:55 AM by Martin
Hey, Brian, change the name of this blog to "Jon-O = Douchebag." It will be a bubbling cauldron if dissent in a world gone mad...

Posted 8:23 AM by Martin
Alright, Kristen, I apologize. I really had no idea at all you felt this way. I always thought you enjoyed our playful, if somewhat malicious, banter. Yes, yes: I give you a hard time on production nights. I always thought that you were a person who, like Brian or I, thrives on controversy in the newsroom. That's the impression I had. I don;t think this was an unreasonable reading given that you're a generally vocal person who, as you stated below, "kept [your] mouth shut" about this matter. I guess I was wrong.

What you call "tension" and "restentment" some people call "being on your toes" and "having a goal." I was under the mistaken impression that you were a person who could appreciate a spirited disagreement and use it to fuel your creative energies. I don't know how you tried to indicate that you felt you were being treated improperly, but I missed the message. Now that I know how you feel I'll change my behavior towards you. I'll put on the kid gloves and treat you the same way I treat Ben or Stephanie...

That aside, I DID say exactly what I wrote I said. You were sitting at the Opinion desk and I was standing next to the wall by A&E. You pointed it out and, contrary to what you seem to be saying now, I DID NOT question whether you understood the joke and try to explain it to you. I'm sure you're well versed in Bushisms and anythign else that might help you formulate arguments attacking Bush. Here is exactly how the conversation went:

Kristen: "Misunderestimation?"
Martin: "Yes, it's a well known Bushism."
Kristen: "There is no way Beth is going to let this go."
Martin: "It needs to stay. If she has a problem with it like that then we can put it in quotes or italics or something."

You say that "I can hardly be blamed for not predicting that someone down the road would have issue with your word." The problem is that you DID predict that Beth would have an issue with it. I really thought she would get it on first read. Since you anticipated the problem you should have dealt with it properly. I hardly think there was a burden on me to engage in pre-emptive lobbying. You (plural) made a mistake and my story suffered from it. I was planning to use that piece as a clip and now it's ruined.

You talk about "immaturity," "CLASS," "decorum" but you REFUSE to admit your mistake. Like I said, I understand why it happened given how "hectic" the night was. It's understandable. Still, you need to admit the mistake before we can steps to keep it from happening again.

On the side notes:

The Opinion page has been excellent since Ben and I took the helm. Considering I couldn't plan in advance for Tuesday's paper I don't even blame myself for using one piece of wire. Also, since its too late in the semester to establish a real "system" I wouldn't even blame myself for doing it again. Thursday's page was solid. Don't even think about deriding my Opinion Editor skills unless you can point to a problem. You suggest I devote "time and attention to it" but the only problem I see was out of my control.

I think Bob was encouraging comments by wearing a button bearing a political message. It's not like we brought it up out of the blue. He made a statement and we had a right to reply.

Also, I never asked you to re-write the lede or conclusion, but you could have said what you did and didn't like about it so I could have some idea what direction to go...

Posted 5:37 AM by Martin
I just wrote a huge thing then accidently hit the "Back" button and lost it all. I finally know the horrors of blogger. Argggh.

Posted 7:36 PM by Martin
I decided to do this on the OP/ED blog because I thought it was a more appropriate venue than the office. I would never curse about this sort of thing in the office (although I am sure I would say something in a mean tone) and I don't really think it is out of line to do it here, on a fairly un-public forum.

In response to Beth:

1. When Kristen pointed it out to start with I said: "Well then put in quotes or itlaics or something." If that was the appropriate thing to do, then she should have done it then. I personally thought the quotes would have been a bit over the top, but certainly better than the alternative. Bottom line: I DID say somethign about it.

2. I was standing right next to you while you edited that story. You might not remember (I understand it was a hectic night -- like I said, overall, you guys and everyone else did a heck of a job) but you ASKED me to stand beside you while you edited it, and I did. I was there the whole time. Right next to you. After you were done reading it I said "I'm gonna go now, if that's all." Bottom line: I DID stay while you edited it.

So, as you can see, I already did BOTH of the things you suggested. Clearly the system broke down somewhere alogn the line...

Quotes would have been fine. It might have even drawn more attention to the somewhat subtle humor of it... My problem is that once something is out of a story it's lost forever. I can never get my beautiful, beautiful word back and it kills me...

I think it is productive to point out LOUDLY problems people see with the paper. I do this to EVERYONE because I think it's the best way to learn. I have done it to pretty much everyone at some tiem or another, (ask: Brian, Jay, Chris) and I would appreciate it if they would do it to me. This is how we get good.

Also, while for me this horrible little incident ruined the paper, I don't think it obscured the greatness for everyone else. You should all be commended. Still, this was a gross error and as long as things like this happen we will never be better than second-rate.

Kristen:

If this had been the first time something like this happened it would be one thing, but since the copy desk has delibertly and willfully destroyed my work ("kitschy" comes to mind) and others' work -- ask about the "Nirvana" incident -- this really set me off.

I really felt as though that sentence was the key to the whole story, and that word was the key to the sentence. It's as though you plucked the cherry from atop the sundae and cast it into the wastebin...

I talked with YOU about "misunderestimation" and I thought YOU could handle it from then on. I was wrong. Perhaps the fact that the night was so "hectic" is a reasonable excuse when cooler heads prevail, but I can hardly be blamed for my angry outburst... I was counting on you and you let me down.

Hey, guess what, I never said (or intended) not to still run the opinion desk. I just won't write anything.

Also, Bob was given a hard time for about 7.3 seconds. Now who's being melodramatic?

I never said that I didn't often appreciate the work of the copy desk. I like having my work polished by a "objective" source. You can point fingers at me about this all you want, but it all comes down to the fact that YOU screwed up and MY STORY suffered from it.

I ASKED for someone to help me with my lede and conclusion, both in person and on here... that's how much I appreciate your work... and NO ONE DID! You read the thing early and neglected to offer even a bit of constructive criticism. Don't give me this "we work so hard and you don't give us an once of respect" nonsense. I asked for your help and you didn't give it, instead electing to ruin another part of the piece...

The problem: You often read my stories with the deliberate intention of criticizing my word choices and often changes are made against my will. Honestly, how often does anyone at that desk crack a dictonary when they're reading other people's copy? This is a feud I didn't start. As part of your vendetta, you refuse to ever me give an inch in the name of creativity. This si the result. You wanna talk about unprofessionalism?!? I hate the fact that you over edit the good writers and allow the bad writers to slop on through. This is all a part of that wider problem.

Anyways, bottom line: It was a great paper, you all did good work, but this slip up ruined it for me. These are the sorts of things that make me really bitter and it should have been avoided.

Also, Kristen, they're called "Paragraph Breaks." Please hit the enter key twice after each paragraph.

Posted 7:22 AM by Martin
OK, in a general note, that was the best paper of the semester and among the best we have ever done since I've been here... Just solid front to back.

The Opionion section was good too... except for one thing:

WHY THE FUCK WAS "MINUNDERESTIMATION" CHANGED TO "UNDERESTIMATION" ?!?!?!

Those Goddamned idiots fucked my story the fuck up. Ruined the entire fucking thing. The tone, the flow... all of it. I am insanely angry.

"Misunderestimation" is a well-known "Bushism" and it was used perfectly. It was funny, it was poingnant, it was golden. Seriously, our fucking copy editors need to read a REAL motherfucking newspaper from time to time. There is no way the New York Times or Washington Post or Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune would have taken that out. NO CHANCE! I told Kristen how I felt about that, and she should have called my attention to it if anyone other than her was stupid enough to want it gone. I can't believe some moron unceremoniously removed it.... I cannot believe how fucking stupid some people are... ARRRGH!

I may not write any more Opinion pieces this semester... After this humiliating ordeal I just don't think I can bring myself to slave over an article for three hours only to have it butchered with one stroke of the green pen.

The Copy Desk can rot in hell for this! ROT..... IN..... HELL.....

Posted 9:02 AM by Martin
Ok my Nader piece is done, but I think it could be better... I like a lot of the article, but I feel like the lede and the conclusion could both use some work. Also, the arguments all flow well to me, but if they don't work for other people I might need to splice a few more things in...
-------------------------------------------------------------
It's all Nader's fault... An opinion piece by Martin

In a widely publicized incident last week, several dozen fans left a Pearl Jam concert in Denver after the band’s lead singer, Eddie Vedder, destroyed an effigy of George W. Bush onstage in the middle of an extended anti-war commentary.

In addition to being an avid opponent of the war on Iraq, Vedder has supported a slew of other causes. His most political visible role has been as pitchman for Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Remember him? This war is all his fault.

While Vedder, and other Nader supporters, have the right to express their misgivings about the war, its about time they owned up to the fact that this war was caused by their own misunderestimation of Bush.

After the 2000 election Ralph Nader and the Green Party publicly celebrated the success of their campaign. While the Greens didn’t come close to winning, they did draw a lot attention to issues he believed to be important and generated a lot of positive press is the process.

Nader wanted to make waves and he didn’t care who’s boat he rocked. As a result of Nader’s dynamic campaign a significant number of voters in swing states drifted away from Gore. The dangling chads might have sealed the deal, but Gore was in trouble all along as a result of Nader’s attempts to whittle away his support base.
After the election, Nader and his supporters even tried to justify his interference in the election by arguing that having a Republican president would be to their benefit in the long run. Their strategy was to make disenchanted Democrats seek salvation in the Greens. From a tactical standpoint, they argued, it would be better for potential-Greens to see the horrors of the far right so they might flee further left of center.

Well, the Greens have gotten their way. President Bush has done everything they could have imagined: cut taxes for the richest few, attacked affirmative action, set up a system of funding for faith-based charities – he even threw in an unprovoked war.

And, after all this, its clear that the Green’s gambit has failed miserably. President Bush’s approval ratings are sky high and show no sign of sinking. Bush is terribly unpopular in the eyes of the rest of the world, but, since they don’t cast ballots, that doesn’t much matter.

It’s easy to imagine Al Gore chuckling quietly to himself while mending fences at his farm in Tennessee. Ostensibly, the Greens have gotten exactly what they want: Bush has been only slightly to the left of Rush Limbaugh. The problem is that the country has reacted by rallying around our president, not turning on him.
Nader, Vedder and the Green gang are found of the phrase “No Blood for Oil.” Before Nader kicks off his 2004 campaign, he might want to consider if blood for votes is a fair trade.

Like it or not, America has a two-party system. You support the lesser of two evils or you can count on getting the greater. The Greens have already cost this country a fair fight for the Presidency once, and, if they use the same tactics, we can expect more of the same.

The Democratic party’s support base is in shambles. Centrist Democrats have supported the war while more liberal Democrats have come out against it. Considering how much this issue has polarized people, it is likely to be a hot issue when the next Presidential election rolls around in 19 months. Heck, if we’re in the middle of a serious war (Syria, Iran: keep your heads up) Bush might be able to pull a Franky D. and not even bother to run a campaign. If this happens, the blood of Iraq is as much on the hands of Ralph Nader as anyone else.

The way it looks now, either a pro-war democrat like Senator Joseph Lieberman will win the primary, causing the far left to defect to the Greens, or the far left will muster a majority within the Democratic party only to see their candidate trounced by a center-supported Bush. In either event, the Democrats would do well to start prepping for 2008.

Still, there is a lot Nader could do to make the fight fair.

If Ralph Nader is not, in fact, a self-absorbed egomaniac too caught up in his own delusions of grandeur to care about the massive collateral damage he’s caused, he’ll run in the Democratic primary. With his national name recognition and very devoted, well-organized support base, Nader would have a huge leg up on gaggle of bozos currently vying for the nomination.

If Nader won the Democratic primary he’d have resources beyond his wildest imagination. If not, he would be able to make a fiery, nationally-televised speech on the floor of the convention, humbly toss his support behind the winner and slink off to the talk show circuit early.

I’m betting Nader is too selfish to do the right thing and run as a Democrat. I sure hope he proves me wrong.

Posted 4:38 PM by McJangles
Hey, I've been fired, so you'll all have to run A3 on your own.