The W
Views: 101464159
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.12.07 0353
The 7 - Site Bashing - "Internet intrigue Register and log in to post!
(38 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (3 total)
Alessandro
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 847/1715
EXP: 4887057
For next: 105813

Since: 2.1.02
From: Worcester MA

Since last post: 141 days
Last activity: 17 days
#1 Posted on 2.6.05 0927.56
Reposted on: 2.6.12 0929.01
http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/blitz/

There is an ongoing battle waging between traditional media types, i.e.- sportswriters, television/radio gabbers and Internet media, i.e.- sports bloggers, fan websites and Internet media critics.

The latter group is also engaged in a civil war of sorts with one web writer never turning down a chance to trash another web writer.
In short, these new, cutting edge media members, however legitimate, are falling prey to the vilest ill of the established media, namely, self-absorption.

Whether it is Steve Silva's BostonDirtDogs.com, a Red Sox site hosted by Boston.com, or Bruce Allen's BostonSportsMedia.com, a popular portal site with links to many regional sportswriters and talkers including yours truly, the problem is the same.

Even if they don't admit it, the Internet media are in search of respect from the traditional media. Conversely, even if they don't admit it, the traditional media feel threatened by the Internet media.

Lines are blurred when issues such accuracy and journalistic ethics come into play.

When Silva's site prints something that is not true, should it be looked upon as reporting or just the ramblings of a rabid fan? When a writer on Allen's site discloses the name of a media member mentioned anonymously in a story, is it a scoop or a lack of ethics? Both of these things have happened.

My view is threefold. First, unless advertised as parody or opinion, anything written or said publicly should be accurate.

Second, whether on the air or on the web, respect is earned, not given, and third, all of this is just another sad example of commentators commenting about commentators. Enough already.


Discuss ...



(edited by Alessandro on 2.6.05 1028)
Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 6312/16400
EXP: 144876468
For next: 848952

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 2.6.05 1252.13
Reposted on: 2.6.12 1255.04
    Originally posted by Alessandro
    My view is threefold. First, unless advertised as parody or opinion, anything written or said publicly should be accurate.

    Second, whether on the air or on the web, respect is earned, not given, and third, all of this is just another sad example of commentators commenting about commentators. Enough already.

Really, what can you add to that?

MAYBE something about how stupid "</sarcasm>" tags are, but really that's about it.

I would hope that people, registered AND from the outside, could (almost always) see threads started on this enchilada in those terms as well.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1190/2186
EXP: 7048678
For next: 139958

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#3 Posted on 2.6.05 1324.02
Reposted on: 2.6.12 1326.13
One thing that certainly has boomed internet-journalism-wise is college football and basketball recruiting "news".

Rivals.com is among the leaders in that area, and I have used their "experts" among others as guests and sources for sports stories. However, I always state (unless we can absolutely verify) that "(Site X) is reporting that (recruit) has given a verbal commitment to Illinois" so as to cover my posterior.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: ESPN *IN*
Next thread: Inside pulse says...
Previous thread: JMShapiro & the lost WM matches
(38 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Site Bashing - "Internet intrigueRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.131 seconds.