Mitch Albom

I've never read "Tuesdays with Morrie." Haven't seen the movie, either -- there is a movie, right?

I did see the fairly interminable "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" on video a few months ago. Not a bad story, just too much of it, and the movie could have been half as long.

And I had never read a Mitch Albom column before today. He's said to be one of the best newspaper writers around, a great sports columnist for the Detroit Free Press and Knight Ridder, but I've never read one of his columns top to bottom.

I do know, however, that he's rabidly disliked and dismissed by a lot of colleagues in the journalism world. Whether because of his phenomenal success beyond newspapers, his reputedly saccharine material and style, his religious faith, his personality or what, a lot of journalists just hate the guy. There's plenty of evidence of this online. (One example here.)

Which is why I've been intrigued, from a distance, by the disproportionate angst about Albom's recent journalistic screwup. Albom wrote a column during the NCAA's March Madness (copyrighted term) in which he said a couple of athletes attended a game; the column was written as if the guys were there. In fact, Albom was told the athletes would attend but they didn't. As I understand it, he or editors were supposed to verify that events transpired as planned; that didn't happen, and the column turned out being erroneous and misleading in that way.

Albom was appropriately criticized and suspended while editors reviewed the problem and looked at his other work, to determine whether this was part of a bigger ethics problem. Apparently they found it to be an isolated incident, and he's now back at work.

This morning I read his column published in Saturday's Free Press, talking about lessons learned from this incident.

Did he deserve to be suspended? Absolutely. It was a rookie error. But all of us in the news businesss know how this type of error can occur. In fact, the city editor just walked in and told me the cops reporter has filed a court story for today, in advance of sentencing late this morning. We need to confirm before press time that the hearing went ahead as scheduled and confirm the details.

That happens every day -- we prepare stories and confirm details by deadline. Albom's mistake was more egregious than this, but at bottom, as a matter of pure accuracy, it was a failure to confirm facts.

He deserved the suspension and the embarrassment that came with it.

But it's incredible how pious -- and poisonous -- many people in the press have been about Albom. They compare his screwup to the vastly different ethical problems of the New York Times' Jayson Blair, USA Today's Jack Kelley and others. The plagiarism and fabrications that Blair and Kelley engaged in are incomparable. By all accounts, Albom made a serious but venial error, one time. Blair and others in the Journalism Hall of Shame repeatedly and deliberately lied, invented and plagiarized.

There's no comparison. What's revealing in the criticism that's been heaped on Albom is the degree to which his journalism colleagues intensely dislike him and his work.

Why? Because he's so popular, which is to say, readers love his work?

We need more writers like Albom in newspapers, and we should be grateful that readers not only appreciate good writing, but can forgive.

Comments

[Dave Collier]

While there is certainly always reason to suspect professional jealousy in cases of disproportionate success such as that of Mitch Albom, and it's concommitant sour grapes response from some colleagues, it seems to me that the journalism and media communities have shown remarkable restraint in their treatment of Albom.

If you've picked up on a strong anti-Albom vibe from other writers and broadcasters it has less to do with envy and a lot more to do with Albom's arogance and chronic discourtesy. As a former media veteran here in Detroit nothing pleases me more than to see one of our own attain the level of recognition that Albom has. Unfortunately, and obviously to anyone who's as much as met the guy for more than five minutes, it's recognition founded on the illusion that this is someone with a sense of the warm,the human, the intimate, a regular guy with the best interests of the readers/listeners/viewers at heart. Those who've worked with him, or spent any appreciable time in his presence, however, know a much different Mitch. Surly, insensitive, rude, abusive...not only to people in whom he has no stake, but to the coworkers upon whom he depends to make his various ventures happen day in and day out.

During the time we worked together I was never the target of this behavior, having operated in a capacity that kept me mercifully insulated from much direct contact with him at all. But I observed daily abuses of coworkers, interview subjects, guests. In fact it would be difficult to recall a single person who's ever offered an impression of Albom that conflicts with the one shared by virtually all those I've talked to: that this is a uniformly unpleasant, arrogant, insensitive, mean spirited individual. If I had a dollar for every dismayed "I can't believe that's the same person whose column I've been reading for years" reaction I've heard, I'd have a bunch of dollars.

A fellow colleague of mine and Mitch's once observed that, "...(Albom) practically owns the national sports writer of the year award, but he can't buy a nomination for the local award. What does that tell you?" The point being that only those who don't know the person are comfortable heaping praise on the writer.

History is full of great writers who were raging jackasses behind the page. That Albom's popular contributions to literature don't necessarily guarantee him a place in the pantheon of more substantial authors should make it no less objectionable that the sentiment behind his columns and books is more clever craft than genuine brilliance or, at his work's hollow center, any real humanity. Even more disturbing is the possibility that the work is actually a glimpse of a warm, sensitive, if mawkish, person trapped in the persona that can't connect on a human level in any real or personal way.

How grand to be revered and read and respected worldwide on the strength of your work. How sad to have worked equally hard, or so it appears, to be reviled by those who've known you. There may be many sour grapes journalists who envy the adulation and privelege Albom enjoys, but it's certain there are few, if any, who would want to be him.

[Pete]

Jay,
You're right, lumping Albom's goof with Jayson Blair's is nonsense. Apples & oranges. Guess I chalked up all the outrage directed at Albom to our society's sick tendency to build up, then tear down. When you're on top is when you should be the most cautious. I read Jacquelyn's M. piece blasting Mitch. Over the top. Definitely professional jealousy involved with all the critisism. Albom's been on ESPN sports writer shows for years, a writer who's good on TV. Then he writes "Tuesdays", Oprah plugs it and he's a mega star. Only way to go is down. At least in our culture I guess. Incidentally, I've read Albom for years. Put him with SI's Rick Reilly as the day's best sports columnist in my book.

[Dick]

You really should read and/or see "Tuesdays with Morrie". I thought this was an excellent story, so I was anxious to read "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" when it came out. What a disappointment! There is absolutely no comparison of the two.