A very fair article on "fanboy".

I don't see how you can cover a team day-in and day-out and still have a rooting "fanboy" interest in said program/organization, even if you grew up nearby or went to the school. It gets to feel so silly to root for people in that way who you talk to and cover every day. I mean, they're not cheering for the newspaper, right? You pull the curtain aside and you understand that these are people with a job to do, just like you and just like the kids they line up against.

As an aside - I do think you can funnel your former fan interest into a journalistic interest in the program, but there's a not-so-fine line there.

 

My only opinion on this article: Thanks for the SportsJournalists.com plug. As long as he spelled it correctly, that's all that matters. Free pub is always good!

 

To hell with the merits of the argument. The simple fact that it's coming from someone associated in his mind and heart with Notre Dame burns the credibility of the thing to the ground.

 

So if it's so common, how come I can grasp the subject but you, I mean the writer, can't?

 

Someone needs to remind him that most of these people are columnists or analysts who are paid for their opinions.

 

This article sucks, but I do have to say, the whole notion of people in our biz deriding readers who actually still enjoy sports as "fanboys" is arrogant horseshit. If it wasn't for the interest of these people some of us sneer at and look down on, none of us would be making a living doing this.

 

You're not changing that, Bruce. And I, for one, won't even be apologetic for it.

After sitting on our hands in press boxes from our teen years, by the time you've been in the business for several years and actually had to DEAL with athletes on a daily basis, the sight of somebody gushing strikes most of us as a) unseemly and b) silly.

I'm sure that won't be the most popular response from the class, but I'm being honest.

 

I don't have a problem with readers being fanboys, I have a problem with people, like the one who wrote this blog, saying that as journalists we are all just a bunch of fanboys and are biased.
Of course I hope my readers are fanboys so they will keep reading my stories.

 

This is my favorite part...

Of course. Becuase programs never, ever try to intentionally mislead reporters to make themselves look good, especially when the shit is hitting the fan.

It gets even better down low in the comments section of the blog where the dude tries to claim that only bloggers were telling it like it was with Tyrone Willingham, and that not a single sports writer, not one, was willing to criticise Ty for he poor job he was doing.

I'm sorry, but sports is the new politics. Fewer and fewer people want actual information, supported by facts, when they can just pick and choose the rummors they want to hear that supports the company line. Everything is going so well! Charlie Weiss is totally awesome! He studies game film and finds opponents weaknesses! Tra-la-lee, tra-la-la! Anyone who tells me different is just trying to make us look bad and get a job on ESPN.

 

OUTING ALERT: henryhecht was in 'Nam.

"You wouldn't understand, because you weren't there!"

j/k, no offence intended. ;D

 

mike coffey said:"I credit Curtis for using the word "pretense" with regard to objectivity, but we're beyond pretenses here. All writers are biased one way or the other, especially in college athletics, so decrying one group as being more culpable in this area than others is the height of hypocrisy."

yes i am biased after reading the "story" because i now think mike coffey is an asshole.

but really guys, why get fired up about this? coffey appears to be some pathetic excuse for a human being attempting to rationalize an asinine point about the love of his life ... his college football team, which says plenty about his existence.

i'd bet he sleeps on irish bedding and drifts off to sleep dreaming about giving weis a reacharound, because the best times in this presumed freak's life took place when he was in college and he presumably never, ever will be able to let go of them.

and really, if all fanboys did unite, what would we have, a college football version of a star trek convention?

it's sad because it's presumably true.

 

The guy writes about pretense, but it seems to me he is the pretentious one. He basically says fanboys are better because they are the most honest.
We've got a few fanboys around here and they are notorious for being wrong the most for one simple reason -- they see what they want to see. A recruit mentions the local school in a list of five and that means the recruit will be coming here. That freshman who shows flashes is obviously bound for greatness (nevermind the fumbles or missed blocks). The coaches and AD are all the best in the world at their job.
I do think there's a place in the market for fanboys, but as a reader/viewer/listener, I'd take what the beat writers said much more seriously -- especially because I know both groups personally.
Also, we don't pick letters to run and I have no hidden bias toward or against any college program. After a few years in this business, any trace of that was gone from me. Sports is a business, and to root for or against a team you cover would be like saying, "I pull for McDonalds. Fuck Burger King."