Matt Zimmer

[West-River_Jack]

Re: Matt Zimmer

My guess is Zimmer's blog may been pulled not due to the opinions expressed but due primarily to the manner in which they were expressed. For example, referring to "douche bag psychologists" was probably a little tough for Zimmer's editors to accept. His point could have been made successfully without the coarse language.

Some get away with phrases such as this and some don't. It all depends on the context, the format, and who complains about it. I recall a Stupid podcast of about sixteen months ago where the host referred to members of our high school student body as "those idiots from Sturgis". I guess I should have complained.

[EQguy]

Re: Matt Zimmer

Some get away with phrases such as this and some don't. It all depends on the context, the format, and who complains about it. I recall a Stupid podcast of about sixteen months ago where the host referred to members of our high school student body as "those idiots from Sturgis". I guess I should have complained.

If I had to speculate (and what else is there to do here) I would say it wasn't the prase that did it but more than likely some big advertiser of the Argus heard about or read something and complained. A reader or 300 doesn't have the power that 1 advertiser can in the world today. Just ask Colin Cowherd.

[MilwaukeeJacksAlum]

Re: Matt Zimmer

isn't there something inherently contradictory about a newspaper censoring one of its writers or is that just me?

[jackmd]

Re: Matt Zimmer

isn't there something inherently contradictory about a newspaper censoring one of its writers or is that just me?

The Argus editor can write and the publish a sattirical piece about Dan Scott that leads to a libel lawsuit but Zimmer can't blog about his opinion on a couple of minor issues. That seems contradictory to me, but then again, what do I know.

[boxerboy]

Re: Matt Zimmer

I may not have agreed with his article re. Tim Tebow etc. but I am a little surprised it was pulled. The article was not vulgar in my opinion just wrong.

[mango4]

Re: Matt Zimmer

Thought I should clarify myself. I didn't intend to infer that Tebow was a phony christian, I have no clue who or what he is other than a quaterback for Florida. What I took from the blog is that if you stand for something you stand for it all the time not just when it makes a splash. If Tim is truly the type of person that lives as a christian every day of the week, then good for him, and I am likely to be more of a fan. As for Zimm, I thought there were good points made in the blog. But, it was the second time this week I had read a blog of his and went "wow, he's really towing the line with this one"

ESPN.com did a feature a while back about Tebow going into prisons and preaching, so I think this was just to make a splash. He was brought up in a Christian family and I believe his parents did missionary work when he was younger.

That being said, I thought the blogs brought up some really valid points.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Matt Zimmer

isn't there something inherently contradictory about a newspaper censoring one of its writers or is that just me?

Censoring or editorial decision on what they want to print? Hard to know where you draw the line on which is which.

[AnimalHouse83]

Re: Matt Zimmer

Censoring or editorial decision on what they want to print? Hard to know where you draw the line on which is which.

Because blogs are such a relatively new thing, I think it's hard for some organizations to know exactly where they should draw that line.

If -- and none of us know for sure -- if it was an advertiser's complaint that resulted in the blog being removed ... then I guess money talks (again) and the question becomes "who's the real editor of the Argus"?

Personally, I thought Matt hit the nail on the head and expressed the opinion of many more people than even we realize.

[JackJD]

Re: Matt Zimmer

JackJD writing as the devil's advocate (that looks bad in print!):

If -- and none of us know for sure -- if it was an advertiser's complaint that resulted in the blog being removed ... then I guess money talks (again) and the question becomes "who's the real editor of the Argus"?

The parenthetical "again" is intended to imply that something is amiss in the journalism business. Maybe but maybe not.

I think there may be times when advertisers' money and subscribers' money should be heeded by the editors. An example of when money does not talk: I worked on a newspaper in which one of the top advertisers threatened to pull his advertising if the paper published the true report of his conviction for driving while under the influence. The editor moved the advertiser's name to the top of the list. I applauded. The advertiser stopped advertising...but only for about a month. It took the knucklebrain about a month to realize his business was hurt by not reaching its customers.

It's my guess the Argus has a similar policy as does every newspaper that I am aware of. Money doesn't always talk.

I generally do not read the Argus. I am not a defender of the Argus. If a reader of this post starts to think I'm a big Argus supporter, please return to this part of the post and re-read.

There are times when an advertiser has a legitimate right to make their position known with respect to issues in the paper. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. No one would be critical of an advertiser who objects to pornographic photos in the daily paper. Larry Flint could say: Money talks (again)! Okay, that's a little extreme so let's scale it back a little...how about an advertiser who disagrees with the stated editorial slant of a paper (e.g. a paper that continually endorses political candidates from one major party or the other). As an advertiser, I should be free to make some choices about what I am supporting. Want to discuss some really thorny issues like: Should a newspaper have ads selling tobacco (okay by me) or alcohol (also okay by me) or one side or the other of the abortion issue, some with graphic pictures? (not touching that one). The advertiser may call and in good faith object to something in the newspaper. The editor has a decision to make. Money talking is not always bad...sometimes it should be ignored but sometimes it should be heard.

How about a columnist who demonstrates a lack of life experience, writes using language that generally would be frowned upon in polite circles (okay, I know where the English language is going so perhaps Zimmer is just ahead of his times: a prophet?) -- I'm referring to words like "douchebag" in the Zimmer blog. What about a writer who takes the easy route and panders to the Joe Sixpack in all of us (I said us so I mean me, too: come on...picking on favorite topics like overboard soccer moms; religious hypocrisy; school administrators who give out letters for band and debate participation and academic performance; complaining about the trend to everything being "fair" -- a trend he notes as having occurred over the last 10 years...funny thing, I'm a lot older and I would have guessed the trend also started when I was 18, not when Zimmer was 18!; etc. etc.). I think I've complained about such things many times. It's pretty trivial stuff and hardly worth putting a serious pen to paper (unless there's some new wrinkle or perhaps a specific, new example of such madness).

If a writer is getting a paycheck from the Argus, the Argus has a legitimate right to exercise some control. We may not agree on what is the appropriate amount of control but in my view, I do not think there was an abuse of control in this case. Zimmer made several points, any one of which would have caused me, as an editor, to pause. The combination may have caused the editors to pull the plug on the blog.

Let me suggest that Zimmer, while showing an ability to put a sentence together, is not exactly putting out Pulitzer-prize stuff. His writing brings out in many of us the "Yeah! Damn straight!" feeling and it may make me want to crack open a cold one and raise a fist in salute to someone FINALLY saying what I've been thinking all along! Aww, come on. Those topics have been worked over for decades and will continue to be worked over for the near future, maybe forever.

It's not Pulitzer-prize writing. It's a blog appearing in conjunction with the Argus Leader's website. (A more interesting issue would be: What if Zimmer had his own blog, not connected with the Argus, but everyone knew he was an Argus writer. What if the Argus got after him for writing something on his personal blog. Hmmm...well, that's not the issue.)

I hate to throw a damp blanket on the Zimmer for Governor wagon but many would call such writing hackneyed (def: overused, trite). There's little imagination in trooping out the stories about over-board soccer moms, pop-psychologists appearing to have wigged out etc. It's all pretty cliche. (To use a cliche': If I had a dime for every time I've read the writing style that often leads to someone saying for the umpteenth time The lunatics are running the asylum! why, I'd be rich!).

The foregoing may be more of a confession than a criticism of Zimmer. You see, I have a scrapbook (a journalist's stringbook) from my summer working for a newspaper to fulfill a graduation requirement for my journalism degree. I was given nearly unlimited license to write what I wanted. I wrote stuff like Zimmer. It's pretty immature. Much of it is just plain bad. I keep the stringbook hidden.

I don't have time to read the Argus. I don't have time to read the blogs of its writers (exception: I like to read TV's blog but I confess I rely on this message board to report links to the good stuff). This time, I'm coming down on the side of the Argus for tidying up its employee's work spaces. After all, the publisher is attempting to run a business that bears some resemblance to a daily newspaper that will be read by adults.

One day, Zimmer may thank the editors because he may not have to hide his stringbook.

Time for a GO JACKS!

[JackJD]

Re: Matt Zimmer

The foregoing post begs someone to note: Yeah, well at least Zimmer is more concise than JackJD.

[filbert]

Re: Matt Zimmer

I think this is a most curious thread.

Interesting, but curious. Perhaps the two are interrelated.

Play through, all, or let it die. Your choice.

"Choose wisely!"

[Nidaros]

Re: Matt Zimmer

I going to give JackJD rep points as he has helped me understand what is going on with Mr. Zimmer. We need topics to fill in this warm summer. Nice one at that. I am sure the Argus will get this all straighten out in due time.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Matt Zimmer

I also am going to give some rep points to JD, but I have to decide first which post deserves them more.