Have to fault Giffen on this- Dixon didn't go out of his way to name names, in fact he went out of his way to do the opposite, and let's face it, a bit of whistleblowing keeps a company honest.

"“I still think Didio gave me the “Reign In Hell” assignment so he could tell me to “go to Hell” on a regular basis and leave me helpless to respond in kind.” (Keith Giffen)

Helpless to respond in kind. Well, he did respond, by writing about it on the internet. Spare me indeed."

Giffen is best known for JLI, a series where outrageous humor was part of the story. He often writes about comic book life in humorous ways. To suggest that he was offended by DiDio and was getting public revenge is just looking for a chance to be offended by SOMEthing. The folks at DC do a LOT of bantering back and forth. It happens at a lot of businesses.

Do lawyers do this when they have a flare-up in their firm? Doctors? Librarians? Yeah, I know the film / TV / general entertainment business is rife with this kind of public square yowling but do we really want to lumped in with a bunch of narcissistic crybabies?

Geez, Giffen's column is quite remarkable in that his logic seems to be consistently faulty and his metaphors and examples never, ever work. Do lawyers have hundreds of thousands of people judging their job performance and looking over their shoulder and dissecting the reasons for their departure on the internet the way entertainers do? Are librarians often the subject of blog posts, gossip columns or widespread fan speculation whenever they have problems the way comic book creators are? Do librarians have every mistake they make on the job analyzed at length in message boards, forums, on talk radio shows, on ESPN and in sports bars across the world the way sports stars have their job performance analyzed?

I mean, seriously, I understand Giffen wants to carry water for his employer, that's fine, but GEEZ! use a better analogy. If you can't think of a good defense, wait until you can and write a column then. Entertainment jobs like film, TV, music and sports are rife with public square yowling because they are rife with public square condemnations due to the fact that the general public is fascinated with those jobs and discusses them at length. If librarian, lawyer or doctor on-the-job performance and office politics were widely discussed by the public at large the way they're discussed for entertainment figures, you'd also see them doing the same public square yowling that entertainment figures do. NOBODY wants to risk their reputation being ruined, especially when they think it's unfair. However, in the case of librarians, doctors, or lawyers, the average person really doesn't care about them because they think they're jobs are boring, hence the public doesn't bother gossiping about them and scrutinizing their job performance, which as a result keeps them from ever having to air out dirty laundry. First off, no one would care. Second, where would they do it? Is there a doctorbuzz.com blog where doctor groupies gather around and discuss the latest firings and hirings and people discuss a hot up and coming new doctor's latest surgeries?

Try again, Keith. Fail.

Do lawyers do this when they have a flare-up in their firm? Doctors?--Keith Giffen

The short answer... YES!

Lawyers, Auditors and even Doctors gossip, bad mouth and air dirty laundry all the time! They may not use the internet, but they basically do it all the time... over coffee, on phone coversations, "power lunches" and happy hours. Anyone who's ever been "a client" or handled a corporate account knows this. That's how "professionals" manage the flow of information and either... keep an existing client when they leave the firm/partnership; or steal an existing client from one of the partners!

Come on, Keith! Are you this naive? ...or are you trying to score some brownie points with Didio? Maybe get to be one of his... Boys!

In any case, this is a no contest.

I mean... government agencies (state or federal)? Is this too easy, or is there somebody out there that believes Government Agencies are free of gossip and bad blood? Let's just say there is a reason they all know the exact date & time they are eligible for retirement.

Colleges & Universities? Please. It's part of the curriculum. In fact, a lot of times you get more bitching and complaining than actual "teaching".

Hospitals? Again, another gimmie. Ask any Nurse if "this place" is anything like "Grey's Anatomy" and they'll tell you who's showed up drunk for surgery, who's screwed who, and in my particular case... who's Doctor has an illegitimate child.

Who else? ...Priests?

You are kidding, right? Some of the Priests at my old high-school haven't spoken to each other in ages! And whenever they had to, because of a school event; you can bet your life it was going to turn into a snarkfest!

As far as Librarians go, I only know the one from my high-school. She was very old. She had worked over 50 years without receiving any sort of recognition for it;

...and she kept a bottle of Scotch in her office, in plain sight. at a private high-school. Trust me. I just didn't have the stamina to talk to her.

Whether it was OK for Dixon to talk, even the bits he did, is debatable. More importantly, it was *his* choice, not ours. He's the one who will suffer the consequences, if any.

And it IS very ironic that someone like Giffen, who post complaints in his column all the time, is criticizing someone else for doing the same thing.

He decided to be snarky and single out everyone he liked or wasn’t responsilbe and then proceeded to make lots of snide remarks aobut the direction of the company without specifically naming DiDio, but definitely making it known that it was him. It was like a child or teenager upset over something isntead of a professional.

Actually, any details Dixon gave he seemed to give reluctantly, and usually to put out a rumour started by someone else.
Remember, all he said was that he was no longer employed by DC - it was only once the net went rife with speculation (there are several threads of it here), that he started going into detail, and it only indricetly came out who he had a disagreement with, as Dixon would say who it wasn't, because people were getting into frenzies over who it may be. (ie. People saying Paul Levitz is an arsehole for what he did, Dixon responded with 'It's not Paul, I like Paul' etc).
Children or teenagers aren't usually reluctant to talk about who they have a problem with, so the term doesn't fit for Dixon.

In fact, can I ask, did you actually see any of Dixon's posts on the matter? It sounds like you've heard people talking about them, without actually seeing them - in which post was he childish?

I'd prefer reliable, impartial comic book reporting.As it is,I'll take what I can get.

Or as someone with a colossal ego who will throw public temper tantrums when they don't get their way.

And that's a bad thing.

Which isn't to say that sometimes even personal laundry shouldn't be aired when its part of a problem in the industry. People are going to have different opinions over what constitutes a problem. Is a company deciding that the superstar creator gets priority over other people a problem? Not really, though the editorial communication that the situation demonstrates is. That communication breakdown could have been illuminated without the bridge burning and ego stroking that has occurred which makes me feel that Dixon did cross the line.

There's two sides to every story and usually the publisher has to be more cautious about what they present due to having to manage relationships with a few hundred creators.

As someone who they shouldn't treat poorly, for fear of public condemnation.

And that's a good thing.

I guess I didn't express myself very well because that was pretty much the point I wanted to make. I think people like to complain when they're treated unfairly, the difference between me and Chuck Dixon is that if I get fired there are about 10 people who will care.