that's not good for business

Yeah, that putter story is something else. Lot of people are really pissed off that he outed her. Tough spot, pretty much a nothing story to begin with, any fraud that occurred didn't seem to do much harm to the investors since it seems like it was selling well, but I'm sure he never expected anything like this to happen either.

gotta say it was actually a really good article. what a story

Burning this guy by letting Christina Karl blame him wholly for Dr. V's death after they ran the piece is shameful

While I give Simba credit for taking the full brunt of the blame. His apology op-ed felt off. Seemed way more apologetic to the author versus Dr. V and the trans community, and I simply don't understand how outing a closeted human being wouldn't have come off as poor judgement for an entire editorial staff

so I actually just heard of this today and have never read grantland in the past. I unfortunately read Bill's apology first and then the actual article.

I was actually enjoying the article when it was talking about the putter with mentions of the quirkiness of the inventor. But once it turned from 'the science to the scientist', it just got weird, poorly written and in many cases just seemed spiteful.

The guy basically did exactly what she had asked him not to do. I wouldn't have had a problem with him pressing or digging into her background in an attempt to disprove the science, but he was seemingly only interested in her personal life and character.

The entire last third of the article is just wtf.

The Dr. V story:

http://grantland.com/features/a-myst...olf-club-dr-v/

One writer's well-said (IMO) opinion on what Grantland did wrong (the author is an ESPN employee, but didn't seem to hold back):

http://grantland.com/features/what-grantland-got-wrong/

Bill Simmons/Grantland Apology:

http://grantland.com/features/the-dr...om-the-editor/

As a lover of most everything Grantland, I'm sad and disappointed, I'm glad they're acknowledging their mistakes, but it's hard to give them much credit for that as they really didn't have any other choice, and the damage has already been done.

I enjoyed the Dr. V article as written and thought that the transgender portion of the story added entertainment value and explained why there was no traceable history for Dr. V. I am glad they published it even if it got backlash.

I thought this take from Maria Headley was well-expressed. It addresses the flawed idea -- which that Hannan appears to have unquestioningly bought into -- that writers have a loyalty to "The Story" above all else.

In general, I think critics have made a number of excellent points with which I agree. I appreciate the sincerity behind Simmons' apology, but, on some level, it's hard to accept a simple "we ****ed up" from an ostensibly journalistic outlet as an acceptable response to some of these mistakes.

Simmons' writing has always seemed to lack good editing, so not really surprising the Grantland/ESPN editing department failed so hard here. how many people looked at this piece (including lawyers, and over ~3 months since Dr.V committed suicide) and didn't notice the many problems that Bill is now acknowledging? yikes. Boot's post and the article he's referencing (as well as many of the others i've read) are spot on, they seemed to put "THE STORY" above all else. unfortunately the story of a transgender woman who invented a putter isn't really all that interesting. thank goodness Simmons doesn't go in for that shock value for page clicks business like everyone else!

funny, because even before this i've been thinking how little i like over there.

at the end of Simmons' "apology" he said something along the lines of hope y'all keep coming back, and yeah to the extent that it matters (basically not at all, but hey), i might use this as a reason to not.

From the boot link, it doesn't even seem the story is the biggest part, it's the journalist himself, and his place in the story.

Unrelated, but all the writers have new mug shots with the new layout. Is it too much to ask Barnwell to even try to not look like a Patton Oswalt bender gone awry?

yeah the story obviously got re-written and re-worked a million times, especially after they learned Dr.V committed suicide. once that happened i guess it made sense for them to re-write it as Scott Templeton hunting down the red-ribbon killer, so we could feel bad for him and excuses his/their mistakes.

True, too. To repeat a point that a lot of people have made: there was a glaring lack of empathy and perspective.

There have been a lot of good, thoughtful pieces written about the whole story and the conflicting issues involved, would recommend anyone interested to search and read around.


Not even time for a haircut before the photoshoot, Bill?

On the first article with the new headshots someone commented "When did Barnwell join Chatroulette?"

"Bill Barnwell will be playing the role of Friar Tuck in Appleton Community Theater's production of Robin Hood."

lol this guy. This guy. **** this guy. Jfc **** this guy.

This is the key. Granted, my "experience" of reading the article was tainted by already knowing the main points before I read it, but frankly if the most interesting part of the article is the "shocking" surprise reveal that the subject is transgender, then the article sucks.

It's possible it could have been interesting had the writer chosen different angles to investigate and expand upon. But yea, it seems like these "scientific" putters are a dime a dozen and I fail to see what's interesting about this particular one.

If everything else about the story was the same except the transgender reveal, would people be making a big deal of this at all?

When I mean the same, I mean the inventor still falsely claims to be a world-class physicist who worked on top secret stealth technology, was discovered to be a fraud, and committed suicide.

Not sure what your point is there, the handling of the transgender issue is the hot topic/what people have a problem with.

hmm this is a good question. obviously way less of a deal, but some of the ethical violations remain the same.

honestly, the author seems like an ass. the story isn't that strong to begin with and he wrote so many things I wouldn't have the heart to write. I don't care how Simmons justifies it, he comes off as incredibly callous at the end.

what's interesting is that the author had a real opportunity to turn this piece into a cautionary tale / evaluation of the plight of the transgender community (which would be news to pretty much all of us reading the article). If he was willing to take a little responsibility (not guilt) , that would have been some truly groundbreaking stuff. obviously can't expect him to write that piece, especially given the fact that what he wrote was so far from that, so really the best case for him was just not publishing it.

That story is completely uninteresting, at least as written (if we were to subtract all transgender elements from the story we got). In the hands of a better journalist perhaps it could become interesting, but this guy didn't do a good job of fleshing out the world of these scammy pseudo-scientific clubs. Amazing stories have been told out of far less interesting situations, but this wasn't close.

lol this. the article was interesting and quirky. the handling of the transgendered thing could be better but the story would stand on its own merit

To me the most interesting part of the story was that Dr. V falsified her entire technical background, not just once, but twice (she told some people she was an engineer who worked on the stealth bomber and others that she invented Bluetooth).

A story on the pseudo-scientific clubs and the hucksters that sell them could have been interesting. Agreed though that a better storyteller would have been nice.

A couple things:

1) My first reaction to the story was that it was a really good story and was interesting, both as a golf story and a story about Dr. V. I am a golfer - probably far less interesting if you're not a golfer.

2) I didn't really pick up the first time I read it that the author had outed her to some people while she was still alive. I agree that this was highly unethical.

3) I certainly didn't, and still don't, come away with the perception that Dr. V killed herself primarily because she was at risk of being outed publicly as transgender. My perception was more that a) she was generally unstable and b) she was about to outed as a pathological liar at the least, and a criminal fraud at the most. Her business (to the extent it was a legitimate business to begin with) would be ruined. Plenty of straight white males kill themselves when their businesses fail, even when their businesses are totally legitimate.

4) To me, the story could have been published without revealing that Dr. V was transgendered and would have been pretty much just as interesting. Everyone loves a good con artist expose. The author could have simply said that Dr. V used to have a different name and left it at that. As for the extent that her being transgendered was deliberately included to sensationalize it as opposed to just plain ignorance, it's hard to say.

Cliff notes: Author/Grantland definitely used very poor judgment in running the piece in that form and possibly had selfish motives in sensationalizing the piece, although that's hard to confirm. That said, Dr. V was a con artist who lied to everyone about everything, including in ways that may have been criminal, and I have only slightly more sympathy for her plight than I would have had for Bernie Madoff had he killed himself upon his fraud being discovered.

Might be understatement of the year considering "the transgendered thing" killed herself