|
Despite reporting in a field completely unrelated to football, I get to do a bunch of pieces on fantasy this year for a major newspaper  defiantgiant posted:EDIT: Every time I see this my eyes immediately glaze over.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
To be fair to Omar (and that really disgusts me to say), Evan Silvia has been making jabs all week at Omar and his newspaper, saying he has an agenda to push certain players. That makes no sense to me. And Evan Silvia does not know possession/plural. Look at his twitter. It burns my brain HE GETS PAID TO WRITE
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
The suggestion that there's something wrong with Evan Silva or aggregators is laughable. If he pays any attention at all, Silva knows more than Kelly about the depth charts and decisions of 30 or 31 teams in the league. That make's him mor'e qualifi'ed as a journal'is't tha'n you, Kel'l'y'
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Rap posted:The suggestion that there's something wrong with Evan Silva or aggregators is laughable. If he pays any attention at all, Silva knows more than Kelly about the depth charts and decisions of 30 or 31 teams in the league. That make's him mor'e qualifi'ed as a journal'is't tha'n you, Kel'l'y' You are a more qualified journalist than Omar Kelly. I am a more qualified journalist than Omar Kelly. RG3 is a more qualified journalist than Omar Kelly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:11
|
|
|
GonadTheBallbarian posted:Despite reporting in a field completely unrelated to football, I get to do a bunch of pieces on fantasy this year for a major newspaper It happen's all the time on these guy's twitter's, its so frustrating
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
Darren Rovell is leaving CNBC for ESPN. Hopefully he'll have more opportunities to put down supermodels there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
Its Miller Time posted:Darren Rovell is leaving CNBC for ESPN. Hopefully he'll have more opportunities to put down supermodels there. ESPN: edging ever closer to the douchebag singularity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
Crazy685 posted:To be fair to Omar (and that really disgusts me to say), Evan Silvia has been making jabs all week at Omar and his newspaper, saying he has an agenda to push certain players. That makes no sense to me. The thing is with Kelly, and a lot of hack writers is they pick a plausible long position and then beat it into the ground and turn around and make a big deal of it when/if it's correct for an audience that largely doesn't know better. The problem is with Kelly doing it is that he's got no idea what he's talking about, but he'll beat you over the head with it anyway. He's spent all off-season talking about how the Dolphins need a pulling guard like he just figured out what that means without realizing that it's almost certainly going to be all zone blocking with little to no pulling. Or the time he basically invested 3-gap defensive line assignments which was great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
midwat posted:ESPN: edging ever closer to the douchebag singularity. That link is for you Sash!.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48048236 His references to hot girls are creepy as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
The creepiest thing Darren Rovell ever did was beg a Playboy playmate for a picture and she wouldn't take one with him and he begged saying "not even for 100k twitter followers..." Then he laid out a series of tweets trashing the playboy party for not having hot enough models for his liking. Or maybe it was him seriously hitting on Kate Upton on live television in a 100% old creeper manner then playing it off when she shot him down, even looking at the camera and telling his wife not to worry he still loved her. Or maybe it was his 3 page article about how Kate Upton had it and you could tell he was beating off while typing it. Wait no, it was making his daughter a twitter account the very second she was born.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Statler posted:I have a friend who is an engineer, he calls me about once a month and has me write out his research notes into an actual coherent document, which he then turns in to his boss for a stupid pay raise. It's pronounced "Piss off."
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
midwat posted:ESPN: edging ever closer to the douchebag singularity. One of Google's autocomplete results for "Darren Rovell" is actually "douche."
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012-articles/july/it-was-a-rough-night-for-chris-broussard-and-his-sources.html AA has been beating the drum about ESPN being douchebags about sourcing and proper credit. This guy walked himself right into the buzzsaw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Can't believe a national reporter would quote a press release and say "X player told me..." I mean, that's just lying, plain and simple. I used to work at a two-bit community newspaper with a circulation of about 1,000 and a guy who worked there drat near got fired for doing that. The standards are so high in the newsroom I work in now (circulation 110,000) that I can't imagine anyone would even try to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Tony Grossi and the Twitter Oopsie A lesson in ESPN-style ethics by ham This is Tony Grossi:  Hey, Tony! Tony was the Browns beat reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland's only daily paper, for about 25 years. The best info I can find says "since 1984," but doesn't say what publication(s) he wrote for during that time. He definitely wrote for the PD for over 10 years. Until this: quote:Report: Accidental tweet gets Grossi removed from Browns beat That was in January, roughly the 24th. By Jan. 26: quote:Plain Dealer confirms Browns writer has been reassigned Then in March: quote:Tony Grossi Joining WKNR After Resigning From Plain Dealer WKNR is the "ESPN Cleveland" affiliate. Grossi now posts multiple articles a day to their site. Now I really think Grossi's a good writer and very intelligent about football. He's one of the Hall of Fame voters and I will always love him for keeping Art Modell's awful head out of the Hall of Fame. But it really says something about ESPN's ethics that they see no problem hiring Grossi after the PD (rightly, in my opinion) put him in limbo. How exactly is he an objective and responsible reporter for the Browns? Putting your opinion of the team owner out there like that is pretty much reason to take you off the beat permanently, objectivity's a basic tenet of journalism and I don't think sports should get a pass on that. It's just disappointing that ESPN has such lower standards than traditional media.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Rap posted:But it really says something about ESPN's ethics that they see no problem hiring Grossi after the PD (rightly, in my opinion) put him in limbo. How exactly is he an objective and responsible reporter for the Browns? Putting your opinion of the team owner out there like that is pretty much reason to take you off the beat permanently, objectivity's a basic tenet of journalism and I don't think sports should get a pass on that. It's just disappointing that ESPN has such lower standards than traditional media. People are allowed to have personal opinions, especially about the people they cover. It wasn't even a lapse in professionalism, it was a dumb Twitter mistake. The digital equivalent of whispering something too loudly to a buddy. I guarantee you every beat writer in the country has an un-objective opinion of the owners of the team they cover.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Once you reveal that opinion, though, you can't be considered objective any more. I mean what if a city news reporter posted on Twitter "I know, he's a loving jackass but what can we do but vote him out?" Would you still let him cover the mayor and just act like his stories were still fair?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
What if someone tweeted "that story really moved me" and then meant to DM "TO A BIGGER HOUSE" to someone but then actually tweeted that to all of his or her followers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Well that would own. I do realize it's natural to form opinions, but one of the problems with combination columnist/reporters is that they share opinions on something, then are expected to report on it the next day. Grossi thinks Randy Lerner sucks. So what does he think of Lerner's personal choices for the front office, like Holmgren and Heckert? If Lerner's such a bad owner he must have hired bad people, right? And it just snowballs from there. There's no way to consider Grossi objective about any of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Rap posted:Once you reveal that opinion, though, you can't be considered objective any more. I mean what if a city news reporter posted on Twitter "I know, he's a loving jackass but what can we do but vote him out?" Would you still let him cover the mayor and just act like his stories were still fair? So the problem is that he failed to maintain the charade of objectivity? It's not about actually being objective, it's about others perceiving you as objective?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Isurion posted:So the problem is that he failed to maintain the charade of objectivity? It's not about actually being objective, it's about others perceiving you as objective? Basically, yeah. Everyone has innate biases and teams they pull for and management they do or don't like. The point is to divorce yourself from your opinions and print the facts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Isurion posted:So the problem is that he failed to maintain the charade of objectivity? It's not about actually being objective, it's about others perceiving you as objective? Did you follow the trial of Jerry Sandusky? What does Sara Ganim think of any of the prosecutors, or either of the defense attorneys? Or the judge? or even Sandusky, or his wife or adopted son? P.S. Objectivity is always a "charade" because there's nothing to it but doing it. You maintain objectivity, not the charade of it, by keeping your opinions to yourself and treating all sides of a story fairly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Rap posted:I do realize it's natural to form opinions, but one of the problems with combination columnist/reporters is that they share opinions on something, then are expected to report on it the next day. Grossi thinks Randy Lerner sucks. So what does he think of Lerner's personal choices for the front office, like Holmgren and Heckert? If Lerner's such a bad owner he must have hired bad people, right? And it just snowballs from there. There's no way to consider Grossi objective about any of it. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal, outside of the owner being petty and cutting him off from being able to do his job. Are you saying when they ask him his opinion he's supposed to remain objective? That doesn't make any sense. I'm sure someone who has been a reporter for 25 years can report facts and editorialize and not mix the two up. Seems more like an embarrassing gaffe and not something that would make doing your job impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:Doesn't seem like that big of a deal, outside of the owner being petty and cutting him off from being able to do his job. Are you saying when they ask him his opinion he's supposed to remain objective? That doesn't make any sense. Good God brother did you read what I posted? The owner didn't cut him off, the Plain Dealer did. And nobody asked him his opinion, he posted it on Twitter out of nowhere, intending to send a direct message.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
What if he'd meant to talk about how Lerner is the most bestest man in the world, who spreads sunshine and unicorns to the universe? That's potentially just as unobjective but much less objectionable to say. People freely say things like that out loud on broadcast coverage and there are no repercussions, but it's the exact same thing. You would hope they could remain objective about a good man's bad decisions just like if you thought Lerner was a pile of garbage but hiring Holmgren was a great move.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
Rap posted:You maintain objectivity, not the charade of it, by keeping your opinions to yourself and treating all sides of a story fairly. This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. Why is this reporter unable to treat all sides of a story fairly since he made that tweet? He obviously held the same opinion of Lerner prior to the tweet but did anybody say he wasn't treating Lerner fairly before that? It seems like the problem is that the paper and the readers maintain a sort of fiction where the reporters don't have any actual opinions and this guy's sin was to remind people that that isn't actually true. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just really curious about this and I don't know any journalists in real life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Isurion posted:This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. Why is this reporter unable to treat all sides of a story fairly since he made that tweet? He obviously held the same opinion of Lerner prior to the tweet but did anybody say he wasn't treating Lerner fairly before that? It seems like the problem is that the paper and the readers maintain a sort of fiction where the reporters don't have any actual opinions and this guy's sin was to remind people that that isn't actually true. Well, take my example. Sara Ganim covered the Sandusky scandal/trial for months. You think she doesn't have opinions on everyone involved? Of course she does. But tell me what one of them was. And since we can't--or at least everything would be a guess, because she hasn't revealed her opinions--she has been objective. That's good reporting. She might hate Sandusky, she might pity him, she might think the prosecutors were amazing or heartless or whatever, but it clearly didn't affect the reporting she did because I don't think anyone here could find a trace of her personal opinion in her work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
And really, not to backtrack because I'm right and brilliant and correct and a good arguer and handsome, I don't think Grossi should be banned for life from covering the Browns. But I think the PD was doing the right thing, especially in the offseason, by kind of suspending him and telling him he was reassigned. A little bit of limbo time while the editorial board talks over what to do would be a good move for them. Then ESPN swoops in, snatches him away and puts him back on the Browns beat with no hesitation of any kind, and as far as I can see no public statement about it (including an apology from him most likely). That's really what I am objecting to
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
They saw a chance to snatch a high-quality reporter with a damaged name for cheap and took it? I'm sure part of his hiring was a serious mention of ESPN's Twitter policy and how many eyes are on him now because of his gaffe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Rap posted:And really, not to backtrack because I'm right and brilliant and correct and a good arguer and handsome, I don't think Grossi should be banned for life from covering the Browns. But I think the PD was doing the right thing, especially in the offseason, by kind of suspending him and telling him he was reassigned. A little bit of limbo time while the editorial board talks over what to do would be a good move for them. Exactly right. You can't publicly insult the people you cover and expect to stay on the beat. It was an accident, but the damage is still done. No reporter is a super-objective automaton, but opinions are kept private so that readers can take the coverage at face value. If they (or editors) can spot bias in the coverage, then the paper can deal with it. If Grossi ever did a negative story about the owner, then readers would just assume it's because he doesn't like him rather than taking the reporting for what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Yall heard that. Nately's my boy (and I'm his whore)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Hah, I fully endorse that reference and everything it implies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
GD_American posted:I'm sure part of his hiring was a serious mention of ESPN's Twitter policy and how many eyes are on him now because of his gaffe. "Tweet first, ask questions never, and always act like you have exclusive access?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Darrel Rovell is the only high-profile Twitter douchebag I know on ESPN, and most of that's from his CNBC time. We can blame ESPN for many, many, many, many things, but the tight leash they keep on talent on social media is something I'd actually praise them for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:What if he'd meant to talk about how Lerner is the most bestest man in the world, who spreads sunshine and unicorns to the universe? That's potentially just as unobjective but much less objectionable to say. People freely say things like that out loud on broadcast coverage and there are no repercussions, but it's the exact same thing. You would hope they could remain objective about a good man's bad decisions just like if you thought Lerner was a pile of garbage but hiring Holmgren was a great move. This is just as bad. Even though he is a columnist and not a beat reporter, Sid Hartman of the Star Tribune in Minnesota blows so much sunshine about the sports teams here that any time he does try to report anything, no one puts any stock in it. He displays such little objectivity that it has destroyed his credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 13:40
|
|
|
DangerKat posted:This is just as bad. Even though he is a columnist and not a beat reporter, Sid Hartman of the Star Tribune in Minnesota blows so much sunshine about the sports teams here that any time he does try to report anything, no one puts any stock in it. He displays such little objectivity that it has destroyed his credibility. 1) keep beating the drum about how the Cover-2 is an awful defense that the Bears will never win with 2) insert a bunch of lovely puns 3) gripe about how Lovie doesn't look mad enough on the sidelines, or how Lovie's "delusional" because he won't trash his own players to the media 4) congratulate himself for predicting that every Bears team will suck, ignoring all the times that he was wrong and they had a good season. Seriously, he's the love child of a stopped clock and a broken record, but he gets to keep his cushy job because they can just trot him out every time the Bears lose a game. I swear, Lovie could win a Super Bowl and Rosenbloom would still find something to whine about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
GD_American posted:Darrel Rovell is the only high-profile Twitter douchebag I know on ESPN, and most of that's from his CNBC time. Every few months the ESPN-NY Mets beat guy Adam Rubin goes nuts on Mets ownership, but that feud predates his ESPN employment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
DangerKat posted:This is just as bad. Even though he is a columnist and not a beat reporter, Sid Hartman of the Star Tribune in Minnesota blows so much sunshine about the sports teams here that any time he does try to report anything, no one puts any stock in it. He displays such little objectivity that it has destroyed his credibility. The point is that from an integrity standpoint it is just the same, but I'm sure you've heard people in the media talk about Bob Kraft, owner of the Patriots and a not-necessarily-great guy, and they still have jobs
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 09:32
|
|
