Why do message board fans flip out over sports writers?

These are people who paint their faces, think that wearing their lucky shirt affects the outcome of a game and spend hours and money creating a "fire the coach" website. Why would you expect them to be rational in other ways?

 

For example of adversial tone with press. Belichick, Bill from 8/27/07.

 

I hope you keep one thing in mind: these people have no life.

 

What happened?

Guess he saw his understudy be a A1 dickhead last week to someone asking about the quarterback situation recently (a "Brian" or "Ryan"?) and he had to catch up.

 

Part of it, as stated prior on here, is that the vitriol is fueled by some sort of vested interest in Small Town High or Big State U. Some people damn near live and die by the teams they root for – we, as reporters, do not – and sometimes see someone's analysis as a personal attack. (think: "How the hell can you say that about him? He works his ass off every night and Reporter X still rips him!") Joe Fan doesn't see Joe Pro in the same light or degree that a reporter sees him in. From a distance, a team or a player is near idolized - the role of the fan. Up close, he's analyzed, maybe scrutinized - the job of the press.

 

People who write on message boards are loosers? Um, I mean ....



... nevermind.

 

For starters, readers of sports columns are far more likely to believe themselves smarter than the writer than nearly any other common area of writing.

The same people who're insecure talking about economics, politics, or world affairs tend to think themselves experts when it comes to football, basketball, and baseball. They see a writer who never played never coached and assume him no more knowledgeable or qualified to express the opinion than themselves; which makes em immeasurably more pissed when its an opinion they disagree with.

 

2 reasons:

1) Everybody's an expert these days. Fans have their own web-sites and blogs, and they're constantly trying to prove to themselves and others that they know just as much about the team, if not more. It's a byproduct of talk radio and Around the Horn. When you disagree with somebody's opinion, shout -- or in this case, write -- in a way that draws attention. (By the way, baseball fans, and all their stat geeks, are by far the worst at this.)

2) Few people want objective news or harsh opinions anymore. They want it filtered to their liking.

 

I was about to start a thread but I saw this and it couldn't have been more timely.

I made my first blog today. The writer complained about one of my stories, pinpointing several words he didn't agree with and complained about the article. Reading the blog entry, it became obvious it was an e-mail he sent directly to me which I replied to and answered all his questions and concerns ... politely, I might add.

Well, at the end of the blog he writes, "So I crafted a strongly worded letter to the writer and editors and will post the reply should I get one."

Unfortunately, he hasn't done that for almost three weeks. I guess I lose over this one. What a schmuck I am. Maybe I should take his advice and quit.

EDIT: I should clarify that I just saw the blog entry today and the correspondence had been three weeks ago.

 

A family tradition: from the father (Parcells) to the son (Belichick) to the grandson (Saban).

 

My friend micro has hit on a big part of it, I think. What is not pro-State is "negative." If you work in a market where there are homers, it's even worse, because you're seen as "anti-State" if you aren't a homer. You can never, ever, ever, ever, ever get a fan to grasp the concept of journalistic neutrality. It would be something like trying to get a person who has never had sight to understand what looking at a sunset is like.

The closest I've come, during a heated discussion with an angry, drunk fan, was surprising him five minutes into our conversation by asking, "Why haven't you asked me why we give Tech more coverage than City College?" He stopped, looked at me like I was stupid and said, "I couldn't care less about either school." I said, "So we could run even more Tech stuff in our paper and less City College, and you'd be fine with that?" And he said "Fuck yeah. Makes me no difference if both go 0-11."

And I said, "Now you're a step closer to being in my shoes, because I truly have no stake in how your team fares. Now, do you see that every day I view your team through that lens, the same basic emotional indifference you have toward those other two schools?"

I'm not sure he got it, but it shut him up.

 

Being a veteran of some message boards since it's inception, most of what everyone have said here is 100.1% true (yes, I wrote 100.1 because sportswriters deserve a .1% for putting up with the world of message boards). Board lurkers think they are smarter, sharper, and have more information that the man on the moon. If there is anything they can't stand and that's a writer who doesn't see it their way.

1. Message board geeks are not reporters. A sizable number of those who run the boards do report on stories, but the the big stuff is for the pros.
2. Whatever is written is an opinion. However, so many of them drink the kool-aid, they'll never get it.
3. They haven't been in your shoes. Nor have I. Just because I have friends who are in the business, I don't go around asking or doing any investigations on my own to get the dirt on what team has done this or what athlete has done that.

Johnny, I love your last sentence. That should be a bell ringer to anyone who thinks you can't do your job.