Hacker News Reader

I couldn't agree more that this editor's fate is deserved and that this is an "apology" only in the traditional meaning of that word (an attempted defense and not a mea culpa), and a poor one at that. I also have been critical of her unbelievably tone-deaf approach to the subject of handling the complaint of an innocent person whom she had wronged (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1870300).

Yet, at some level, I do feel sorry for this person in a sense that I can best describe through an anecdote.

I once had to fire one of my employees (an attorney) who had been with me no more than a few weeks and who produced atrociously bad work when measured by the standards that apply to legal work in the startup area (which must technically meet high standards or else). This employee was a very nice person but, as I saw her work in various contexts, I realized that she was basically in way over her head. The details are not important, except to note the following: as I was explaining the reasons for having to fire her, she had this astonished look in her eyes, as if, all through her schooling and prior work experiences, no one had ever been straight with her about her shortcomings. In essence, she truly didn't have what it took ever to be good in this field (I did not put it to her that bluntly, of course). As I talked with her and tried to encourage her in any way I could about her future, I was literally grieved to realize that this young lady had essentially been coddled all the way through the school system in a way that left her to hit a cold wall of reality only after having likely wasted all kinds of time and money in pursuing a career for which she was not at all suited. This was one of the saddest encounters I have ever had. Though I was the one who had been short-changed in the relationship, and hurt financially owing to incompetent work, I could not help but feel profoundly sorry for that young lady.

I would say that this editor too is a sadly misplaced person for her chosen field and that this whole episode has essentially exposed that fact in a very public way. There is something quite tragic in all this, even as it is hard to sympathize either with her position taken in this fiasco or with her clumsy (and unwise) attempts to defend the indefensible. Above all, this must have been a severe embarrassment and humiliation for this editor, whether or not deserved, and at a human level I am truly sorry for her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Is there a Dunning-Kruger effect for people's musical taste?

Good point, I agree.

It reminds me of fixed mindset people, which Ron Burk describes in this 5-minute Ignite presentation, The Psychology of Incompetence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vcy7I0zIM

* Over-estimate their own abilities

* Hide, minimize, and blame away failures

* Solutions shouldn't require hard work (effort is for less talented folks)

* Avoid seeking help/training

* Are easily frustrated by setbacks

Ouch! Now imagine living in a country where at least 50% of people (and about 80% in business management) have that mindset... :/

Sounds like you handled it as well as possible. I remember one time had to let someone go that I'd recruited away from another pretty decent job - that was one of the most gut-wrenching things I've had to do in business.

I actually kept him on and let it drag out three months without him producing anything because I couldn't get up the nerve to face the fact I'd made a mistake. Not just a mistake, but a mistake that would screw someone else's life up that I respected and liked.

It all worked out well - he's becoming a doctor at one of the top English schools now, so I wish I'd done it earlier so he could have gotten on with his life, and I'd have had a lot less stress and my business would have done better. Wavering on it made him dead man walking for three months, and cost me personally $10,000+, more if you count opportunity cost, much more if you count stress. So I gotta say you handled that the best possible way, even though that situation is always hard and always sucks. Someone who hasn't managed people probably can't understand how hard it is to let someone go and do it decently. Sounds like you did right by her in the best way for that situation.

People who appear to be coddled through their education may just have taken the easy way out and cheated:

http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/125329/

I had a reply filled with disbelief about the ability to successfully cheat through law school, but after reading that article I'm truly blown away.

It's beyond pitiful - in the literal, not pejorative sense - how many people manage to get through our so-called higher education without so much as the ability to communicate on a sixth-grade level. I guess all I can do is teach my kids the value of what it means to love learning, and how to communicate their thoughts and ideas well. The system obviously hasn't figured out how to make that happen yet.

But if they couldn't do the work in school (needing to turn to someone else to do their assignments), then why would they be flabbergasted that they couldn't do the work on their own outside of school?

You, as always, make good points. I have great sympathy for the editor on a human level, and I too have wound up in over my head in the past.

And yet, it is far better for a failing business to be forced to close and for someone that cannot handle the job to be removed from the position than for them to continue to be coddled by employers or society.

I must respectfully disagree with one statement you made though. You said, "she truly didn't have what it took ever to be good in this field". Clearly, I have not met this lady, but I am a great believer in people's ability to change. Perhaps success in the field would have required that she learn more, work harder, and perhaps even alter her personality, but I suspect all of those things would have been possible if she truly wanted it. Such drastic changes are likely rare, but they can be done.

She also could have taken the negative and turned it around. If a restaurant gets closed for violating health codes (which is not usually permanent, from my understanding), that's a perfect time to put big glass windows on the kitchen, issue a sincere mea culpa, and say "look guys, we learned our lesson and are the cleanest restaurant in town now!". It worked for Jack in the Box after the e. coli scare.

While this obviously created a huge furor, I'd say at least 100x more people know about Cooks Source than did before. Instead of figuring out a way to relaunch the site, she basically committed suicide with a "they'll be sorry when I'm gone", poor-me kind of letter.

This is especially insightful. To the talented marketer, there is no such thing as bad press. Being thrust into the limelight to be mocked and laughed at is a really great opportunity to take one on the chin and own up to your mistakes, and then to turn that around into positive press about how you screwed up and how you're fixing it moving forward. Cook's Source has visibility easily several orders of magnitude greater than it did before this whole debacle, and all you need is to convert a small number of those to your product to make some mighty tasty lemonade out of those lemons.

Instead, the editor took the opportunity to further expose the traits that caused the uproar in the first place - self-importance, arrogance, and ignorance. The "apology" is no more than a half-hearted attempt at deflection and a misplaced plea for pity. It will both fail to deflect the bad press, and will not garner any pity.

This is an excellent lesson in how to not handle customer relationships, management of negative press, and fixing your mistakes. Entrepreneurs, take note - look at what Cook's Source did, and don't do that. Always assume you are at fault first. When you are at fault, go the extra mile to make it right. If you get caught with your pants down, join the chorus laughing at your embarrassment and use it as an opportunity to market your underwear.

"If you get caught with your pants down, join the chorus laughing at your embarrassment and use it as an opportunity to market your underwear."

Brilliant line. I might just quote that at some point.

Plus, if I remember correctly, the editor thought Monica should rather compensate her for editing it. She'd been in the business for decades, she said, and Monica should feel privileged. Holy crap.

Original:

http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html

Her business is to work "with small food-oriented businesses and farms to get the word out on their works/products". The vehicle is publishing, and I get the feeling she's using the magazine the same way a lot of normal people use their computers: as a means to an end.

If I had to guess, I'd wager that's why she doesn't understand copyright. Her area of expertise (and I use that word with a HUGE grain of salt) is food and local business.

I concede that Cooks Source is a small local mag, not a publishing empire (like, say, Cooks Illustrated.) But I would counter that working "with small food-oriented businesses" is her mission, not her business. She accepts advertising for the magazine, and therefore it has become a business in the traditional sense.

"Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws."

That's fair, but the reason she's taken so much heat is that she blasted the author whose work was stolen, citing decades of experience that gave her authority on copyright law. If her area of expertise is food, then she has no business citing her business in editorial work as a viable defense.

It's similar to development and development management. They require different skills - being a good developer doesn't mean you'll be a good development manager and vice versa.

Similarly being a journalist (which is about research and writing) is very different to being an editor (which is about organisation and the commercial side of things).

That said, her level of knowledge seems insufficient for either role. The basics of copyright law would seem to be a pre-requisite for anything involving writing these days.

Re: typos.

Can we just do the "put yourself in their shoes" thing for a moment, and consider that she may be heart-broken by all of this, and typed that note through tears? Have you ever attempted to write a note (typed or hand-written), under extreme stress, pain, or frustration? I know I have. It wasn't pretty.

Please, some compassion.

As much as I agree with you, if you're writing a public missive about the future of your company, it doesn't make sense to publish the draft, much less the draft you wrote through heartbroken tears. There's a professional context to consider.

Particularly when if you paste the first paragraph (all three and a bit lines of it) into Word it points out the "Id/I'd" error and two other errors (traveling [sic] and hasnt [sic]).

Zero skill, knowledge or emotional togetherness required.

> traveling [sic]

I take it you're in the Commonwealth? A US copy of Word shouldn't flag that.

Fair point but the other two count.

You Americans should get that spell checker bug fixed though. ;-)

I've written emails during emotional turmoil before, usually related to relationships. I scour those, looking for any instance where what I said could be misinterpreted.

And she's got a double-space after "sad".