Why should I care about what this guy writes?

The actual mechanics of Marty's writings are atrociously bad, never mind the content. He needs to learn to write proper sentences, and always have spell/grammar check on. Any organization that hires him as a professional writer has got to have some serious, serious problems.

It was posted on pokernews.com . Other than that, I don't really think there's much reason.

you shouldn't. just enjoy the sweet schadenfreude aspect of him mouthing off like a pompous idiot and then getting fired for it

Do those screen shots match the version in op?

A spell/grammar check wouldn't change anything in the article - unless I'm missing something obvious? His use of punctuation certainly needs worked on, and his writing style doesn't particularly appeal to me, but I've come across much, much worse in the industry.

I read the original article on PokerNews when people were first flipping out and I'm pretty sure that's it.

He's right and it's unfortunate he got bullied into an apology. Stand your ground man.

I've been in Vegas for a few years and the amount of "college dropouts and failed job seekers" I've seen that run out of backing/money/credit is astounding.

So many of these guys are living a complete lie. He made the article to be inflammatory for sure, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. He's correct about a large portion of the poker world. The truth hurts sometimes.

- a five year pro that wasn't offended in the least.

doesn't it seem strange that editors allow it to be published, and then throw him under the bus?

Somebody okay'ed it. Unless he has full editorial control, which I doubt, why is PokerNews getting a free pass?

which

Why do people think that the only requirement for an acceptable article is that it be true, while that certainly always needs to be one of the requirements , i think it's reasonable to think there are certain guidelines. A site called pokernews i expect wants to publish news about poker, and promote the game in general.

This wasn't an unknown thing, fkn newsflash a % of people who gamble for a living are broke, and the people who treat it like a job and work hard are fewer than those who fail, like in most self employment situations.

everything knows there's bad in it, crap i mean pron an alcohol are "dark" for a lot of people, but in porno and alcohol aficionado magazines i would never expect to see "SOME PEOPLE ARE CHILD BEATING JERKOFF ADDICTS WHO ARE A SUCK ON SOCIETY"

it doesn't have to be a lie to be stupid to say in certain contexts, like I DUNNO A POKER MAGAZINE

From my post on page 1

"Just spotted this in James Guill's poker-update article...

'PokerNews Editor-in-Chief issued what many felt is a weak apology (I’m being generous with that wording), stating that the article was unedited and posted without his approval while he is gone. Does that mean that Derbyshire directly posted the piece without anyone looking it over for accuracy?'

This.
Yeah, agreed. I wonder if we'll hear more about this later, who/ if anyone let let this article be published. But not sure what I'm rooting for at this point. PN has been doing some other less than great stuff lately.
Yep, agreed with all of this. Was not a fan of it anyway, content aside.

I'm a former colleague of Marty's. I don't know him well, but we worked together for a summer at the WSOP. My impression of him is kind of a ball-busting know it all who has a high opinion of himself - but he's also smart and talented and has a good sense of humor. I felt like he was overly judgmental - but hey, so am I, so I kind of just put up with it as the new guy on the team.

So anyway - I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I defended him on twitter a month or so ago when I felt like he was being unnecessarily scrutinized by a bunch of overly sensitive and entitled poker players. Because seriously - what other industry doesn't have journalists who are overly critical of them? Do pro athletes lash out on twitter whenever someone whispers a criticism of them? It was pretty silly.

However - I'm super disappointed by this non-apology. The main thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that Marty essentially admits that he was just writing inflammatory stuff for the sake of it... Like, he was just taking a position because he thought it might generate some readership? Basically he was playing the Skip Bayless part if we are to believe his apology.

So anyway - I don't really care about or agree with his apology for "being too mean". I kind of wish he would have stood his ground... But I do think he owes himself an apology for wasting everyone's time and writing hacky stuff that he can't stand behind. That's a good way to ruin your career. Write with integrity and then stand behind it - even if it's critical.

it's different. if i tweet at a player that he's terrible or write a piece saying "x" is super overrated or w/e, it's a lot different than writing "truth about nfl players is that a bunch of them are broke, dumb, hoods"

- for the record i dont rlly care about the article, i just dont know why ppl are looking at is as a free speech thing when it's really a company policy/common sense kinda thing

+1. Spot on.

for 80% of pro's this is true and on point. I think this thread needs a poll. Who agrees with what was said who does not.

No respect for a man who doesn't stand by what he writes or says. A man with no integrity should not even deserve a thread to be started about him.

You mean "News" threads should only be started about honorable men and their honorable acts ?

You "stand by" that what you wrote ?

(I don't think this thread being started is any great honor for its subject).

Can somebody update the thread title and put "apologizes" in sneer quotes?

I think what he wrote is about as accurate as it gets.

this article seems like some random nvg post by an envious fishtard.

anyways who cares

lol @ poker media btw

Like to try really hard to keep an open mind to all the info across the entire spectrum of viewpoints for any given subject - because guess (1) maybe walking a mile in other peoples' shoes can lead to understanding, which may make it possible to find common ground and resolution, and (2) maybe seeing things through the eyes of someone else can lead to fresh insight, or progress?

So yeah, for sure free speech is important. But guess maybe a person's motives and delivery of a contrarian point of view can impact what becomes of it? Like maybe it can be different when a person has a larger goal in mind, and therefore takes the time to narrowly craft a criticism; whereas if the person is just looking to blow off steam and isn't careful, there might be more danger of overreach?

Like guess the writer here called people selfish and said they should be doing something else in life, and that there's lots of people who are unemployed. But then he didn't take the time to look at peoples' charitable work and other ways they might be helping the economy (paying taxes, having the money to hire people to do jobs, starting businesses, etc). And really what other jobs 'should' people be doing - because all the professions that involve complex analysis are just as hated by the public ... bankers, traders, lawyers, politicians, etc.

Guess 'real' things can be said about anything. The harshest thing have heard about journalists is that at least the people they write about are actually 'doers', while journalists merely sit on the sidelines watching the action take place - and don't they wish they could be the one getting all the attention? Guess some people might feel that too is 'true' - but since lots of people enjoy reading about what other people are up to, how else would we have a chance to hear their stories, if not for journalists ... so that's definitely not the full picture there either?

Probably wanting to feel like one's making a positive contribution to society is an important human need - so it's possible the o/p gave lots of people pause for thought with his piece ... like surely everybody thirsts to live a life of meaning? Those books about finding purpose in life seem to be big sellers - they always seem to top the Best Seller lists for non-fiction. Maybe kind of a recipe for drama though when someone writes about others being selfish, for admittedly selfish reasons of their own though ... perhaps why the ensuing dialogue appears to be more of a never-ending ping-pong match?

You mean all those people who bring you news, views, features, videos, interviews, live streams, commentary, etc? yeah, lol. Anyways, who cares, eh?

nah my problem w the so called poker "media" is similar to wcgs or whoever first made a public point about them not really being a media (and therefore strongly biased in favor of sponsors). im sure recs like to see what new promos r going on or who won some donkament or who streams some game or whatever. i obv agree that poker media brings in recs and is therefore good for the games overall, but on the other hand i just cant hold myself back from loling when i see some of the content they are putting on their sites.

personally, the only (bad) news i get are from pokerstars newsletters and forums, only videos i watch are runitonce, wcg for the lolz, sometimes joey if he has someone like sauce on and one gto guy who's name im not gonna mention.

Sure dude just keep closing your ears to the truth. Anyone with an alternative point of view to "poker is a great career" must be just an envious fish because your life grinding a card game is so fkn amazing lol

Fair enough He who pays the piper and all that, but there are plenty of good poker journalists/writers/photographers/streamers out there who don't (always) have to dance to such tunes.

I am given a lot of leeway personally as a writer, but naturally I have to produce content for sponsors and affiliates from time-to-time. I try to make it as interesting as possible, and don't hide any 'bias' on the occasions I'm a 'paid shill' to borrow a Negreanu-ism.

Biting the hand that feeds you, however, is a rather silly thing to do, as in Marty Derbyshire's case - although I don't blame him fully. Part-truth, part-stupidity, and part-bad editorial control.