Media & Accountability

[Seb]

Uh, if they don't have any personal contact with the people who actually have the first-hand experience and information where does this bloggers more transparency, better access to info and better opinions come from?

Your argument seems to be

1. journalists are old and part of the establishment== bias and poor reporting

2. Bloggers are young and free of obligation == better reporting and less bias

I still don't see the evidence for all of this bias you seem to see from the Montreal Press.

I do however see lots of bloggers like Ecklund who have nothing to say that is worthwhile

Why? and Why? Its ok for you to disagree with me but I would like to know why you find my reference to Eklund so offensive that it renders all of my other points meaningless and therefore not worthy of response.

Anyway, reply or not my assertion remains. Blogs are not inherently good or better than other media. Like all things constructed by humans some are good and some are not.

Your reference to Eklund suggests that paint all bloggers with the same brush, and that Eklund is the poster boy. At least that's how it seems with the way you posted it.

I won't begin on Eklund, but he is not a blogger. He owns a site which has blogs, but its main purpose is to sell memberships to his "inside scoops". He actually uses the blogs on his site (some are very good) to attract traffic to create a revenue through ads and potential subscriptions. He is not a blogger, and he's held in a lower esteem than almost anyone else in the blogosphere.

With that out of the way, all I'm saying is that the way sports journalists are glorified is just inappropriate, as their work (not always, but often) is inferior to the work of (some, not all) bloggers. As you mention, in everything humans have ever made, there is the good and the bad; and that goes for bloggers, and that goes for journalists as well. It just seems to me, and I think others on the boards, that the "good" journalists are becoming more and more difficult to find, while many of us have our own "go to" blogs that we like for insight and analysis.

I guess my main point is that I feel like sports journalists rely on the fact that they are sports journalists (and what comes with the position, such as access to the players, publication, etc.) for respect and seem to think that whatever they write is good, or even adequate, when in fact there are many terrible articles out there (we can all think of some); while bloggers, who do not get paid, and do not have the benefits of SJs, rely on depth, quality of thought, analysis and presentation to make a name for themselves. This difference in the competitive environments of SJs and bloggers, in my opinion, causes bloggers (the ones who survive) to maintain a higher overall quality (can be several criteria to determine quality, or even personal preference/opinion) to remain relevant among the 100s or 1000s of similar blogs on the net.

My irritation with people who write news and call it opinion, and vice versa, is an extension of the above point.

And don't get me wrong, there are some sh!t blogs out there. They just don't last. Can we say the same for poor journalists?

[Wamsley01]

Your reference to Eklund suggests that paint all bloggers with the same brush, and that Eklund is the poster boy. At least that's how it seems with the way you posted it.

I won't begin on Eklund, but he is not a blogger. He owns a site which has blogs, but its main purpose is to sell memberships to his "inside scoops". He actually uses the blogs on his site (some are very good) to attract traffic to create a revenue through ads and potential subscriptions. He is not a blogger, and he's held in a lower esteem than almost anyone else in the blogosphere.

With that out of the way, all I'm saying is that the way sports journalists are glorified is just inappropriate, as their work (not always, but often) is inferior to the work of (some, not all) bloggers. As you mention, in everything humans have ever made, there is the good and the bad; and that goes for bloggers, and that goes for journalists as well. It just seems to me, and I think others on the boards, that the "good" journalists are becoming more and more difficult to find, while many of us have our own "go to" blogs that we like for insight and analysis.

I guess my main point is that I feel like sports journalists rely on the fact that they are sports journalists (and what comes with the position, such as access to the players, publication, etc.) for respect and seem to think that whatever they write is good, or even adequate, when in fact there are many terrible articles out there (we can all think of some); while bloggers, who do not get paid, and do not have the benefits of SJs, rely on depth, quality of thought, analysis and presentation to make a name for themselves. This difference in the competitive environments of SJs and bloggers, in my opinion, causes bloggers (the ones who survive) to maintain a higher overall quality (can be several criteria to determine quality, or even personal preference/opinion) to remain relevant among the 100s or 1000s of similar blogs on the net.

My irritation with people who write news and call it opinion, and vice versa, is an extension of the above point.

And don't get me wrong, there are some sh!t blogs out there. They just don't last. Can we say the same for poor journalists?

This.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Wamsley01

[PMAC]

<br />Nothing like generalizing and putting words in my mouth.<br /><br />

I did not put words in your mouth I said that is seemed to me that this was part of your argument... i didn't mean to imply that was all you said...I was focused on BTH's response about blogging and wasn't thinking about the whole discussion.

Edited October 20, 2010 by PMAC

[PMAC]

Eklund is a rumour-mongerer. There are guys like that in print media, too (hello, Bruce Garrioch). He's a one-trick pony who's beaten that poor pony to death a million times, don't know why people bother with him but whatever. As P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute.

Beyond Eklund, there's a whole world of fan run blogs who get traffic by the quality of their work, enhanced through peer criticism. There's little money involved in the exercise, it's either got to be interesting or entertaining/funny. If you're going to get sustained attention, you have to be able to back up your arguments with evidence. Once you read a well-reasoned rant by Tyler Dellow, a left field player evaluation from Tom Benjamin, or an elegant and passionate piece of prose from Ellen Etchingham I doubt you'll hold beat writers to the same esteem. You'll demand better.

Also, you should read the Battle of California for the most eccentric, off beat fan takes you'll ever read just for good measure. Plus they have cartoons!

Thanks for a response that contains some examples of good blogs and some recommedations for reading.

BTW, I didn't say that I held most beat writers in high esteem--only a few Fisher being one of the few.

[PMAC]

Your reference to Eklund suggests that paint all bloggers with the same brush, and that Eklund is the poster boy. At least that's how it seems with the way you posted it.

I won't begin on Eklund, but he is not a blogger. He owns a site which has blogs, but its main purpose is to sell memberships to his "inside scoops". He actually uses the blogs on his site (some are very good) to attract traffic to create a revenue through ads and potential subscriptions. He is not a blogger, and he's held in a lower esteem than almost anyone else in the blogosphere.

With that out of the way, all I'm saying is that the way sports journalists are glorified is just inappropriate, as their work (not always, but often) is inferior to the work of (some, not all) bloggers. As you mention, in everything humans have ever made, there is the good and the bad; and that goes for bloggers, and that goes for journalists as well. It just seems to me, and I think others on the boards, that the "good" journalists are becoming more and more difficult to find, while many of us have our own "go to" blogs that we like for insight and analysis.

I guess my main point is that I feel like sports journalists rely on the fact that they are sports journalists (and what comes with the position, such as access to the players, publication, etc.) for respect and seem to think that whatever they write is good, or even adequate, when in fact there are many terrible articles out there (we can all think of some); while bloggers, who do not get paid, and do not have the benefits of SJs, rely on depth, quality of thought, analysis and presentation to make a name for themselves. This difference in the competitive environments of SJs and bloggers, in my opinion, causes bloggers (the ones who survive) to maintain a higher overall quality (can be several criteria to determine quality, or even personal preference/opinion) to remain relevant among the 100s or 1000s of similar blogs on the net.

My irritation with people who write news and call it opinion, and vice versa, is an extension of the above point.

And don't get me wrong, there are some sh!t blogs out there. They just don't last. Can we say the same for poor journalists?

Yes, If you are lucky you won't remember Marty York who worked for-- hate to say wrote-- for the Globe and Mail and Al Strachan got booted by the Globe and eventually CBC, but there are a few eg., as others have mentioned Bruce Garrioch, whose continued employment is a mystery to me.

[BTH]

90% of everything is crap? Well, don't tell that to your friend at work, because pretty soon you won't have many friends on your sides...

lol I didn't literally mean EVERYTHING ("90% of trees are crap, 90% of clouds are crap, ...") but then again, if I were a tree expert or a cloud expert I probably would consider 90% of trees and clouds to be substandard for whatever reason. On a side note, I've noticed that I am very likely to agree with the majority when speaking of subjects that I have absolutely no clue about. With subjects that I do know something about, however, I am much less likely to hold conventional views. We can go into that sentence and substitute the word "majority" for "mainstream media" without changing my point.

But when I said "everything," I really meant "art," generously allowing all sports criticism to be considered art. If you want to be a pain you can say "who gets to decide what goes into the Good 10% and what goes into the Bad 90%?" but that would just hijack this thread further and it's really besides the point since I was only presenting my view. But again, if I were an expert in every field of study known to man, I would probably be willing to stick with my original choice of words. I bet an elite hairdresser, for example, is of the opinion that 90% of people are walking around with really sloppy hair, while a gourmet chef thinks that 90% of the stuff I eat is barely fit for dogs.

[Seb]

Yes, If you are lucky you won't remember Marty York who worked for-- hate to say wrote-- for the Globe and Mail and Al Strachan got booted by the Globe and eventually CBC, but there are a few eg., as others have mentioned Bruce Garrioch, whose continued employment is a mystery to me.

I used to get so irritated with Strachan, because I couldn't believe anyone would allow him to talk or write for them. He was baaaad. I saw Pierre Leburn and Kelly Hrudey eat him alive a few times on the CBC hotstove. Good times.

[BlueKross]

I used to get so irritated with Strachan, because I couldn't believe anyone would allow him to talk or write for them. He was baaaad. I saw Pierre Leburn and Kelly Hrudey eat him alive a few times on the CBC hotstove. Good times.

Strachan meal ticket was clearly as the public address system for Goodeneugh and when he went down he never had the same inside track.