Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
After some feedback from users, I feel some clarification is necessary in regards to our rules and guidelines for this site, which can be found here http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/42952/
The Journalism topics only board is designed to be for SERIOUS AND PROFESSIONAL discussion of journalism topics. Without exception, threads are to remain on topic. If you wish to post something that is not on topic and does not relate to journalism, please take it to the appropriate board.
As we progress with following these new rules, I encourage you to consider the following when you are posting new threads or responding to current threads:
1. Am I contributing to the discussion?
2. Does anyone really care about the thread I'm about to start?
3. Is the subject line clear enough to describe exactly what the subject is (please refrain from subjects that say "Oh wow!" or "This is cool".. give some detail)
4. Have I checked or searched to make sure the thread I am starting has not already been started by another user?
Evil Basket (aka Chris_L) said:2. NOBODY has addressed any of the criticisms I have had about the piece. Nobody. Too busy butt kissing Jones and attacking me I guess.
PopeDirkBenedict said:Evil Basket (aka Chris_L) said:2. NOBODY has addressed any of the criticisms I have had about the piece. Nobody. Too busy butt kissing Jones and attacking me I guess.
Lets work on reading comprehension, mmmkay?
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/2230312/
Boom_70 said:friend of the friendless said:70,
Boom_70 said:friend of the friendless said:Sirs, Madames,
Threads like this make a case for membership by application. It's one thing to have some honest criticism from peers, anyone ranging from jg to a kid working at some Dust Bowl weekly. Or even a kid in j-school. But to have some drive-by shooting from a sj-hating troll who writes about "the media elites" is a bit much. I don't mind having pieces ship on--it has happened here and it will happen again. I have no problem with it so long as it's honest, industry criticism. And if peers want to ship on espn, knock yourselves out. Tell it here or to the ombudsman, make my day. But the lurker not-in-the-biz troll trashing those who toil and take pride in what they do and have put in years to get to their place in the game ... that isn't just tiresome. It's not an ashault on the writer. It's an ashault on the readers here. It's an ashault on the site.
o-<
It seems like you are are suggesting that readers are not allowed to criticize.
If you like a story send heaps of praise, If you don't like it then tough.
See, you're not reading closely enough ... again.
Readers have comment boxes on newspaper and magazine sites to throw their uninformed grenades into. If you are a reader and non-peer and have strongly felt opinions, send something in to the letters page. Read-only for non-SJs, I'd have no problem with. SJ would be great for peer review, the stuff of the Workshop. The unfortunate effect of having non-biz people flaming all over the place is that it drags the site into disrepute. It doesn't represent us. It's like having naturopath quacks and some guy from the health-food store commemting on the AMA site. A professional site.
o-<
Nah - it's your writing. Unless someone has the time to read your work through 10 - 12 times its barely understandable- be it a post here or one of your columns.
Everything you do is overwritten and what might be good thoughts are lost in the haze. I'm sure most give up after one read and their hair has caught fire.
Evil Basket (aka Chris_L) said:PopeDirkBenedict said:Evil Basket (aka Chris_L) said:2. NOBODY has addressed any of the criticisms I have had about the piece. Nobody. Too busy butt kissing Jones and attacking me I guess.
Lets work on reading comprehension, mmmkay?
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/2230312/
Already addressed
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/2230695/
Try to keep up
DirtyDeeds said:I'm a big fan of Jones, and "The Things That Carried Him" is the best magazine piece I've read in long, long time, but there are some fair criticisms here. The ESPN piece is well-written, certainly, but I didn't particularly like the Armstrong/Tyree and Sorenstam sections, either. And the Mexico thing just flew over my head (maybe because I read it online and skimmed some parts quickly). I think the issues on here are the way those criticisms were made. I did love the Yankee Stadium, Hamilton and Munson's locker segments. Overall, it's better than any Year in Review I've seen in a while.
And Boom's suggestion that Jones should be "above it all" and not work for ESPN is patently ridiculous. As has been stated here, some of the best writers in the world work/have worked for ESPN, and it has been recognized as an excellent magazine (at least outside this little world). I still prefer Esquire, but I think I MIGHT take ESPN over SI at this point, despite some of the lowest common demoninator crap.
Lee Jackson Beauregard said:DirtyDeeds said:I'm a big fan of Jones, and "The Things That Carried Him" is the best magazine piece I've read in long, long time, but there are some fair criticisms here. The ESPN piece is well-written, certainly, but I didn't particularly like the Armstrong/Tyree and Sorenstam sections, either. And the Mexico thing just flew over my head (maybe because I read it online and skimmed some parts quickly). I think the issues on here are the way those criticisms were made. I did love the Yankee Stadium, Hamilton and Munson's locker segments. Overall, it's better than any Year in Review I've seen in a while.
And Boom's suggestion that Jones should be "above it all" and not work for ESPN is patently ridiculous. As has been stated here, some of the best writers in the world work/have worked for ESPN, and it has been recognized as an excellent magazine (at least outside this little world). I still prefer Esquire, but I think I MIGHT take ESPN over SI at this point, despite some of the lowest common demoninator crap.
The magazine is rubbish by any objective standard. You won't find it at the dentist's office, for good reason. I couldn't even locate the rag at the grocery earlier tonight.