|
nrr posted:I can't decide whether this thread has made me think that being a decent journalist is either really, really easy, or incredibly, out of control hard. To me it seems that it is possible in theory, but no one has done it yet.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Chichevache posted:To me it seems that it is possible in theory, but no one has done it yet. I think what is super hard is actually becomming a high profile sports journalist to begin with. Then from there, the ridiculously insanely hard part is still being a decent, respectable journalist while you're paid no matter what tripe you put out. It's like being told pants are optional and showing up to work in pants every day anyway. It's gotta be tough to continue to adhere to a standard while the majority of your target market is either drunk and/or doesn't know poo poo about what you're talking about anyway. Without knowing a single journalist or having any real knowledge on the field, to me, the real problem here is the inherant target market of recreational journalism. Not that major "serious" news companies put out a decent product overall, but there still remains quality journalism within their ranks. When you look at recreational journalism like sport and video games though, (and to a lesser extent, tourism,) trying to find a well written, well sourced article without bias or spin is way more of a challenge than it should be. At least looking at it from a journalism perspective. I'm starting to think a lot of these guys don't really think of themselves as "journalists" any more though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
There's always going to be the line to walk between writing a solid, quality piece, and writing poo poo you might not really believe to stir up emotions, get page views, sell papers, etc. Living in a world where we're constantly bombarded by breaking news 24/7 from TV, radio, and internet has only exacerbated the problem. The "pace" of news has increased exponentially over the last 20 years, and with the looming death of print media, it's only going to get faster. It might still be easier to write a weekly column recapping something like the weekend of the Masters, or the week leading up to the Super Bowl, but basic news articles are being cranked out at a breakneck pace now and I think it gets harder and harder for reporters to keep up with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
nrr posted:I think what is super hard is actually becomming a high profile sports journalist to begin with. Then from there, the ridiculously insanely hard part is still being a decent, respectable journalist while you're paid no matter what tripe you put out. It's like being told pants are optional and showing up to work in pants every day anyway. It's gotta be tough to continue to adhere to a standard while the majority of your target market is either drunk and/or doesn't know poo poo about what you're talking about anyway. If Al-Jazeera put together a good sports page, I'd be overjoyed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
GonadTheBallbarian posted:If Al-Jazeera put together a good sports page, I'd be overjoyed. Al-Jazeera just bought the TV rights to Serie A and La Liga and are creating two sports channels to air sports stuff. Problem is getting cable companies to host them because Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera Sports is closer than you think and will hopefully be a very good thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
nrr posted:I think what is super hard is actually becomming a high profile sports journalist to begin with. Then from there, the ridiculously insanely hard part is still being a decent, respectable journalist while you're paid no matter what tripe you put out. It's like being told pants are optional and showing up to work in pants every day anyway. It's gotta be tough to continue to adhere to a standard while the majority of your target market is either drunk and/or doesn't know poo poo about what you're talking about anyway. Yeah actually you're completely right. I think in truth I (and the Plain Dealer in my example) am holding sports "journalists" to a level almost none of them give a gently caress about. Peter King's out there going to dinner with Robert Kraft or Tom Brady or Brett Favre or Roger Goodell every night, then trying to report on them. He just doesn't give a gently caress what ethics are. Outside of sports it's a lot better. A reporter would get scrutinized much more closely. You're not going to catch them palling around with the governor and then trying to report on what he/she is doing. Just remember, MSNBC suspended and then fired Keith Olbermann when they found out he had donated to Democratic candidates. So I think outside of sports there's still hope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
Rap posted:
I think a more accurate term would be "evenly" instead of "fairly"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
FeedingHam2Cats posted:I think a more accurate term would be "evenly" instead of "fairly" Either that or "without bias."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Really you guys don't think reporters should strive to be fair to all sides
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Rap posted:Really you guys don't think reporters should strive to be fair to all sides I dunno. What is that imaginary universe like? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Rap posted:Really you guys don't think reporters should strive to be fair to all sides I don't think him having an opinion disqualifies him from covering an issue fairly. If that were so, journalism would be completely impossible. The crux of the matter is if his opinion of the owner unfairly slanted his reports. Did he omit information in the owner's favor? Was he unnecessarily critical about the owner? If so, it's a problem. If not, he's doing what every journalist on the planet does - quoting someone he thinks is an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Rap posted:Really you guys don't think reporters should strive to be fair to all sides They already strive to be fair to all sides.......of their paychecks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
midwat posted:I don't think him having an opinion disqualifies him from covering an issue fairly. If that were so, journalism would be completely impossible. Once again, I know reporters form opinions on their sources, as I said with the Sara Ganim example. But if she had said on Twitter, dang, Joe Amendola creeps the poo poo out of me, then the rest of her reporting is tainted because of that. You really can't openly criticize someone and then claim you can be unbiased later. That is not ethically possible. As soon as you reveal a bias it automatically "unfairly slants your reports." Imagine if Bill O'Reilly tried to deliver a straight news story on a policy of the federal government. Any chance you'd believe him, no matter how unbiased the story actually was?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Rap posted:Once again, I know reporters form opinions on their sources, as I said with the Sara Ganim example. But if she had said on Twitter, dang, Joe Amendola creeps the poo poo out of me, then the rest of her reporting is tainted because of that. You asked if reporters strive for fairness. The answer is that this guy probably strives for fairness as much as any other reporter. Rap posted:As soon as you reveal a bias it automatically "unfairly slants your reports." I disagree. The product is the product - if it's sound, the reporter has acted professionally. A report can't be biased retroactively - it's either fair or it's not. Certainly, this guy committed a faux pas - he said something stupid about someone he covers in public. I don't think, though, that he committed a grievous ethical violation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Rap posted:Really you guys don't think reporters should strive to be fair to all sides I don't think it's possible to be fair to all sides at all times. Even in something ultimately meaningless like a contract dispute. In 99% of cases, both sides are negotiating diligently and any sort of holdout or fine or whatever is posturing and both sides are both at fault and said/did some dumb stuff in the name of publicity or getting the better of the deal. But maybe 1% of the time [The Player/The Agent/The Team] is truly being a douche and whoever the unbiased journalist is is reporting 100% of the hosed up drama about the contract dispute, but all of it is coming from one side. I dunno, maybe that is fair? I know you have pointed to Sara Ganim as unbiased and unopinionated in her coverage of the Sandusky stuff, but was she fair? What would you describe as fair coverage of the defense's side, for a man guilty of 45 counts of horrible things? Sometimes facts aren't fair. This feels a little bit like a semantic discussion, but I'm genuinely curious because you seem to have strong opinions about it and they are at least somewhat different from mine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
You fairly represent all sides in a story. You don't have to make everyone look good, you just give them the chance to do it themselves if they can manage to. Here's how you be unfair: - Fail to contact one or more very important parties to let them give quotes - Even if you do get quotes, dedicate a disproportionate amount of space to one side over the other - Misrepresent the ideas or arguments of one side - Editorialize, i.e. give your opinion on something (this happens a lot more than you might think. Stories on wildfires here in Colorado are loving awful for this, so much cheerleading for firefighters) - Uhh there's got to be more. Anyway Sara Ganim doesn't have to make everyone a hero or even likeable. They aren't. But she was fair to everyone because her stories avoided all of the above. And again she's my model in particular for number 4, "you don't know what she thinks of anyone involved," which is key to fairness. One more angle to consider on the Grossi thing: Will he ever have a positive conversation with Lerner again? Okay, Lerner doesn't talk to the press, but generally speaking that's an important point. Your sources suspect you won't be fair with how you handle their material (always drawing out the worst quotes or underquoting). In this aspect Sarah Palin is actually right for once: It's so obvious most media thinks she's stupid--which she is--that she barely gives them time. Why would she? It's never going to be fair to her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Half of this thread is the reason (sports) journalism is dead. It isn't the half claiming objectivity is important.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Rap posted:Here's how you be unfair: This is bullshit. Asking one side "what do you say," asking the other side "what do you say," and then writing it down, is stenography, not journalism. Similarly, if you've done an investigation, and you don't tell me what you think the actual truth is, there's no point in not just reading each side's press releases. Doing the above leads to stories that read "Opinions on the shape of the earth differ." If one side says the earth is flat, and the other says the earth is round, it is a disservice to the readers (viewers, listeners, etc.) to not actually say "and the flat side is completely wrong."
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 14:22
|
|
|
ulmont posted:This is bullshit. Asking one side "what do you say," asking the other side "what do you say," and then writing it down, is stenography, not journalism. Is that what I was saying dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Let's say I get a tip that several employees at the Denver library are accusing a supervisor of sexual harassment. One of their lawyers talks to me, one of the alleged victims talks to me, three or four others choose not to. From there, to write a fair story, I have to make an effort to contact: - the supervisor who's accused - whoever's above him, the library's CEO or whatever title it would be If I don't make that effort, the story has no chance of being unbiased. If I do get to talk to them, I ask them about the accusations. I include their answers, whether they deny or whatever they say. Then the story is fair. If, for example, the supervisors have no explanation for parts of the accusations, I write "Jones had no explanation, however, for missing surveillance footage during the time the attacks allegedly occurred." As for your example, I don't think there are often news stories about bare and well-established facts. Did the sexual assaults in my example occur? If you were the reporter, would you know? And would you sit down and write a story acting like you knew one way or the other?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
I'm not a journalist, but I think saying someone is an idiot doesn't mean you can't cover him if you have a basis for it. For example, I'm pretty sure the Browns are poorly run and that can be traced to ownership. Now, if instead of twitter the guy had wrote an article saying "Randy Lerner is an idiot, look how poorly his team is run, blablabla" and listed the avalanche of horrible things which have happened since that team started, would you be so upset about it? Because he just said it in one tweet it is a big deal? Half the problem with journalism is blogs, sports radio, and twitter are the only places you can find a negative thing written about ownership/management these days (errr, I guess in 1950 you couldn't find negative things anywhere, I didn't read papers then).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Really don't see why this one got under your skin so bad, Ham. It certainly means everything he writes from here out is taken with a grain of salt, but it largely just means he was dumb enough not to understand how to be discrete about his opinions. Weigh his case against: a) The overwhelming number of beat reporters that commit offenses just as bad by gargling their team owner's ballsacks b) The ones that utter opinions like Grossi's, except instead of in a misdirected DM, they actually write them in their loving columns and come back to those opinions in future columns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
GD_American posted:Really don't see why this one got under your skin so bad, Ham. It certainly means everything he writes from here out is taken with a grain of salt, but it largely just means he was dumb enough not to understand how to be discrete about his opinions. The real irritation for me is that ESPN stepped in into the middle of another publication's discipline/time to decide and lured him away. I think it says a lot about their ethics that they snatched away another reporter and put him straight on the beat while a real news medium was making up its mind. poo poo just spiraled from there
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
I just don't see that one, either. If they thought Grossi was a valuable reporter and saw that the Plains Dealer was either gonna reassign, demote or fire him, that's the perfect time to swoop in with an offer and get him on the cheap. Moneyball bitch
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Just hanging out reading Twitter. Let's see what's going on... Omar Kelly says the Packers are not a Super Bowl contender and that they "captured lightning in a bottle" Oh and he said Peter King is the best in the business the other day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
The second half of his twitter quote about the Ravens is incredible as well.quote:RT @MBrave13: No Packers, Ravens in there?» I think the Packers caught lightning in a bottle, & I'd tired of the Ravens letting me down. Yes. Drama is what will derail the Ravens, not a fluke injury to to their best pass rusher. HE IS TIRED OF HIS ADOPTED TEAM LETTING HIM DOWN! quote:Oh and he said Peter King is the best in the business the other day. Even PK looks like a golden god next to the standard of poo poo that is Omar Kelly's writing. I seriously hope he just meant that PK has good contacts and can write good stories, but that is expecting far too much. superaielman fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
superaielman posted:PK has good contacts and can write good stories. Yeah, I was on the edge of my seat for the Colonoscopy saga.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
@OmarKelly: For those who are new to following me...I don't sugar coat anything. I'm like a straight shot of Hennessy. Either you like it or you don't. lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Ehud posted:@OmarKelly: For those who are new to following me...I don't sugar coat anything. I'm like a straight shot of Hennessy. Either you like it or you don't. Well that's certainly a way to introduce yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
you don't do shots of hennessy god drat omar kelly
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
It's gonna own when Omar Kelly has a Twitter meltdown
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:you don't do shots of hennessy god drat omar kelly stealing this for Twitter
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
oh yeah then why's MF DOOM rap "reminisce / back when I was very broke / shots of henny straight / couldn't afford to cop the cherry coke?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
GD_American posted:I just don't see that one, either. If they thought Grossi was a valuable reporter and saw that the Plains Dealer was either gonna reassign, demote or fire him, that's the perfect time to swoop in with an offer and get him on the cheap. Apologies for necroposting. I think he's just an employee of Good Karma Broadcasting, not of the WWL itself. At least, that's how I believe WKNR works. It was a wise hire on their part, it brings a bit more of legitimacy towards their radio station. You get a guy who's covered the Browns since the mid-80's, has had a column in the city's biggest newspaper, and is generally well-known by Joe Brownsfan as the face of Sports Media in this town (not being named Terry Pluto.). You not only get this guy to write columns on your station's website, but you can get him to pop in and out of whatever sports talk show you have on the air. For him, it's a good move. The PD's sports coverage has been really dropping as of late, and to jump off that sinking ship was probably for the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Isaac Bruce Bowen posted:It's gonna own when Omar Kelly has a Twitter meltdown He's had a few where he's blocked like 10-15 people at once when people start mocking him openly. He's a gem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19596819/welker-learns-harsh-lesson-as-pats-answer-peace-gesture-with-no-contract I get that it's written by an African-American, but since when can you call someone a "black"? quote:Like many in the NFL, he worked hard. While it has always been juvenile and simple minded to portray Welker as this scrappy little white dude playing a position mostly populated by blacks, utilizing only grit, mental acuity and duct tape -- Welker is straight up talented, period -- he has indeed been one of those men who made the most of his abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Ehh it reads funny but i've seen it before. It works a lot better in the plural like he has it for some reason. The way you phrase it does sound weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
I see it used really frequently among black Republicans for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Because they know if they say "us" black people will know they mean "Republicans"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
I always use black, not African American. But I say black people or black players, not blacks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 02:49
|
|