A very fair article on "fanboy".

So, basically this boils down to one guy being pissy because some people like Notre Dame and some people don't.

Well, stop the fuckin' presses. Who gives a shit?

"Sports is the new politics." Couldn't have said it better, Double D.

 

You are correct and it also boils down to some dipshit posting his own blog and getting us all to repond, the fucking troll.

 

JackS, Jim Heckman, Bobby Burton, and Mike Shanahan all sitting together enjoying a meal in 2000...

(Finish the story here.)

 

What journalists care about:
1) Games end early;
2) Interesting stories, win or lose.

Beat writers are paid to bring perspective to daily coverage. That's not an agenda or bias; it's competence. Fan-based writers approach their coverage from a school-first point of view. It doesn't make it bad or wrong, just not comparable.

 

What exactly makes something a fan site? Is it a message board? Being a part of the Rivals or Scout networks? Some of the sites on Rivals or Scout are what I would call a fan site with "beat writers" that have no previous experience in journalism and write thinks like "If we can beat Notre Dame on Saturday..." But a lot of those sites hire reporters with newspaper experience and expect them to be true beat writers. I know guys who cover teams for Rivals sites that didn't go to that school and aren't even close to being a fan.

It brings up some questions: how many of you would ever consider somebody from InsideCarolina.com or something similar a legitimate beat writer? How many of you would take a job like that? How many would if it wasn't your alma mater? If you are a hiring editor at a paper would you consider someone based on experience covering a beat for one of those sites?

 

not i
not i
not i
no