Homerism a cancer to our industry?

No, EStreet, it's about this ad on the jobs board:

 

that was a solid column, and very necessary for a game that ended like that.

 

Thanks for checking in, Revo.

 

I think this only pertains to columns, whether regular or beat columns. There are homers in this industry, I had the experience of working with one in the past. But I think it is possible to be what I would call an "objective fan." By that I mean the columnist writes what he or she makes of the situation.

I think this a good column that points out that the Cowboys shot themselves in the foot rather than the Seahawks shooting them, but I'm sure that if the game had gone differently and the Seahawks had blown out the 'Boys, the column would have been different.

 

That's not untrue, but there's still a context here that too frequently is negative, something papers do because they want to show how "objective" they are or because they're flat sick of the team or people they're covering.
Consider that when Cowher retired last week, the Pittsburgh PG ran a sider of "15 games that defined the Cowher era." The team won a Super Bowl and made six AFC title games -- and yet eight of the 15 games cited were defeats.
Seriously?
Defeat defines the Cowher era?

 

Defeats tend to resonate more than victories.

 

No, I think that was a miscalculation on the PG's part which they wouldn't do again if someone had stepped back and looked at it beforehand.

 

You're wrong. The PG has been trashing Cowher and Jerome Bettis for years.