The Kansas City Star is getting the ass-kicking it deserves for publishing an Illinois man’s letter to the editor criticizing Patrick Mahomes.
To refresh you on what happened, on Sept. 30 The Star ran a letter to the editor from a man named John Geimer of Glen Carbon, IL, which is in southern Illinois, about 14 miles northeast of St. Louis.
Geimer wrote…
After watching the Kansas City Chiefs for the past two years, I think it is clear that Patrick Mahomes is not a team player. He doesn’t care if his team wins or loses. All he cares about is how he looks. It’s beginning to look very obvious. He’s a good quarterback but really doesn’t care about his team as a whole.
Now, why The Star decided to run such a letter, especially from a person who lives 250 miles from Kansas City, is a mystery. Maybe the editor who decided to run it — probably Derek Donovan, who has been with the paper 27 years — simply wanted to create outrage. I have no idea. Whatever the reason for the decision, it was a horrid mistake. The writer, Geimer, cites no rationale or evidence for his assertion; it’s just a flip opinion he pulled out of his ass.
Whoever made the decision should have dismissed the letter out of hand. But he or she didn’t…And then things got worse. Compounding the error, The Star tweeted the letter out in such a way that it appeared the content represented The Star’s opinion of Mahomes.
I don’t have a Twitter account, but I’m told the tweet generated more than 1,000 responses. Among those responding were Mayor Quinton Lucas and former U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill.
McCaskill wrote: “Someone needs to fire the person who decided this tweet was a good idea. They got clicks but paid a very steep price. Dumb.”
Today, The Star published a reader reaction piece consisting of six letters to the editor either lambasting Geimer and the newspaper or praising Mahomes.
Here are excerpts from five of the letters…
Jim Wooten of Springfield, MO: “He (Mahomes) is a great teammate. There is nobody I’d prefer at the podium after a win or a loss than him. In victory, he praises coaches and teammates. In defeat, he takes the blame.”
Craig Prentiss, Kansas City: “That Mr. Geimer’s wisdom would be the first letter alongside three thoughtful perspectives on gun violence, funding the library system and tax abatement for major development projects debases The Star and the paper’s role. Save this section for opinions of community import.”
Blake Isern of Phoenix: “Publishing this behind the guise of just posting someone’s opinion is weak-spined and destroys what little credibility you might’ve still possessed.”
George Franklin Anderson, Kansas City: “As a child, I recall reading the words of columnist Joe Posnanski, so I am truly disappointed to see what The Star has become.”
Kim Ewing, also of Springfield: “All it (The Star) cares about is clickbait on social media. It’s very obvious.”
**
What happened here reflects the perils of having a very thin staff. There are far fewer eyes on material being published and too people involved in critical decision making. I suspect that Donovan — or whoever made the decision to run the letter — did not consult anyone before running Geimer’s letter. And whoever made the decision to post the letter on Twitter also probably acted alone…Because the staff has been decimated at every level, editorial redundancy is severely lacking.
The only thing good I can say about The Star on this is that it featured those six critical letters prominently. But my God, the overall result is that The Star’s already diminished reputation has sunk to its lowest point yet.
As of March 31, The Star had about 33,000 digital subscribers. That’s extremely low for a metro area this size. I would expect this incident to slow down whatever rise there has been in online subscriptions. This will be a hard nut for The Star to swallow.
Note: A member of The Star’s editorial board, Toriano Porter, posted a tweet on Oct. 1, saying Derek Donovan was on vacation when Geimer’s letter was approved for publication. So Donovan apparently is in the clear. Porter did not say who approved the letter, but it probably would have been another board member, maybe Porter.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Jimmy, it wasn’t just presented that way on Twitter. It was posted in the same half-assed manner on the paper’s own website. You had to scroll to the bottom of the post (once you clicked on it) to even discover it was, in fact, a letter to the editor. Thanks for raising this.
Thanks for that additional information, 120.
Derek Donovan has been an incompetent, unethical buffoon at every job he’s had. He’s thin skinned, deceitful and vindictive making him ill suited for any task having to do with contact with the public, and yet, where do the idiots in management put him, in jobs where he has daily contact with the public. One has to wonder what he has over Fannin to keep his job when so many others have lost theirs.
I’ve seen the thin-skinned part; don’t know about the other adjectives. Also, I don’t agree there are “idiots” in management, just not enough reporters, editors, photographers and graphic artists. “Thin” everywhere.
FWIW, there’s this:
I’m glad you inquired, Mark. Thanks.
FWIW, Part 2:
This doesn’t rise to that level, Mark…You won’t see any apology for the Mahomes letter. But they might institute tighter controls over — and add some redundancy to — the letters to the editor section.
Toriano Porter’s defense on twitter made it worse, acting as though shouting ‘letter to the editor’ absolves him and other leadership from accountability for their processes.
The problem isn’t that they ran the letter; it’s that they promoted it like a regular piece of news coverage, attempting to capitalize on having Mahomes’s name in the title.
I’ve kept a digital sub since they were invented mostly out of respect for a couple of Star alums who gave me opportunities in the 90’s. I’ve only occasionally logged on in recent years to read Sam Mellinger on big events, but when the renewal comes up I’ll find an independent pub to support instead.
I deliberately said there are “similarities,” not that the situations are identical. Clearly, addressing how society deals with allegations of rape is a more societally significant issue than whether a letter criticizing a star athlete should have been published.
Nevertheless, even with their stardom, athletes are as deserving as the rest of us to receive a minimum standard of fairness. Legitimate questions exist as to whether the letter should have been published without any specific basis for the criticism. If The Star believes that it was justified in publishing the letter, then giving a 500 or 600 word explanation of its justification would at least help readers better understand their position.
Three final points: 1) I don’t think the letter should have been published without some specific details as to what the writer perceives as Mahomes’ faults. 2) Nevertheless, if I were The Star, I wouldn’t apologize or withdraw it from their website. In all but the most extreme situations, I come down on the side of protecting free expression. 3) We agree on one thing: I doubt The Star thinks an apology is needed.
I think far too much attention is being paid to this fellow’s letter to the editor, The Star’s handling of the letter, the other letters and even Patrick Mahomes when there are so many more important things going on in KC, the rest of America and around the world at this time. It’s all a sad commentary on the current state of affairs.