Albom's fabrication of the events is similar in the fact that his story wouldn't have lost much, if any, luster if he had written that the former MSU players planned to attend or wished to attend that game (as pointed out previously in this forum). Unfortunately, his reputation has gone the way of Sosa's corked bat. His apology was, to be kind, calculated. It was as though he was thinking what would be the acceptable minimum in the form of an apology. Americans are very forgiving people if one is forthcoming with a sincere apology. Covering those who participate in athletics, Mitch should know that as well as anyone.

There's one more link between the two. Both central figures want us to believe this was the first occasion of such a trangression. How are we supposed to believe in someone's credibility immediately after witnessing them get caught doing something with such utter disregard for their respective crafts?

No. The story's lede was a fabrication.

"But the story was otherwise right."

No, it was not. The story contained many errors of fact,as well as the fabrication.

"I would point out that columns and even straight news stories are written ALL THE TIME as if the story had already happened."

Not true.

"It's not unusual to get a story from the wire services or major newspapers written several hours before, say, a presidential speech that already has the quotes (via advance copy) of what the president will say"

True. But the story is EMBARGOED, which means that the story should not be printed until the advanced event actually takes place, and the information in the story is verifed (did the president deliver a different speech? Did he get food poisoning and cancel the speech?)

"What Albom did was not unethical, unprofessional, or unusual."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Not only was he in violation of general journalistic standards, but he violated the published standards of his own newspaper.

"Certainly, firing a man of his enormous professional stature for an offense so insignificant would be an outrage far greater than whatever offense he is supposed to have committed."

So ethical behavior is now determined by a popularity contest? Albom's "offense so insignificant" was fabrication. Otherwise known as lying.

I don't know how things work in your line of work, but in mine it's a fireable offense. As it should be.

But you can't forgive fabrication just because it wasn't the central point of the column. If one thing is made up for expediency's sake, how can you trust any of what he writes?

I do have a problem with the paper printing it in advance based on those same expectations. That is a situation that should be stopped immediately. Seems to me if someone should be slapped around, it's the editors that let it go to print, rather than wait for the event to happen and the story to be verified.

This whole story is pretty trivial, and as stated earlier, the fabricated portions were just the appetizer, not the main course of the story itself. If a newspaper's credibility hangs on such a story, that proves that either (1) the paper is at the end of its credibility rope anyway or (2) people take their sports-human-interest stories more seriously than they should.

What Albom did was write a column about an event that happened Saturday for a section that was printed Friday for insertion into the Sunday newspaper. He used very specific details about what happened in an attempt to make readers think he was there, witnessing it. Whether the players showed up or not is irrelevant because he wrote it as if it had happened. That is wrong. Plain and simple.

Newspapers have enough problems with credibility without arguably the most well-known columnist in America taking liberties with the truth.

These known shortcuts DID NOT give Mr. Albom license to elaborately fabricate first-person eye-witness accounts, filled with highly personalized detailed observations! Mr. Albom isn’t guilty of a “lapse in follow-up”. He concocted an elaborate lie, assuming the truth would become his unknowing accomplice.

Consider these questions before calling Mr. Albom's acts "minor":
Question #1, had events transpired in line with Mr. Albom’s “assumptions”, would the offending parties have revealed their transgressions?
Its evident Mr. Albom was relying on this cooperative deception/cover-up scenario to meet his ends. Unlike details in his story, I doubt he wrote his (skillfully deflecting) apology ahead of time, before the exposure became imminent.
Question #2, Given the answer to question #1, How many, other fabrications have Mr. Albom and Co. successfully passed off as truth?
One?
Ten?
None?
We’re asked to trust the Free Press’ investigation for this one.
Question#3, Will you trust the Free Press’ findings? The Genie is now out of the bottle. From now on, as long as they share an association, the credibility of all parties involved; Mr. Albom, his editor(s), and the Free Press, will be in question.

We should all give our thanks to Jason Blair and the others who have perpetrated real journalistic fraud, for fostering the atmosphere which engenders this kind of over-reaction.