Jones/ESPNMAG

[Songbird]

On the flip side, beer, you have to allow someone to rip another writer even if you don't like it.

Difference of opinion is all it is.

 

[beeranyone]

You're right Songbird. Just gets my back up when he starts going after more than the guy's writing. His observations don't bother me. His attitude, yup.

 

[Songbird]

Yeah, the e-challenge seemed a bit, how you say, funny.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

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?

"Ow wow this is cool" about sums up beerfucks original post. If this was another less known writer than "THE Jones" (as si=ome have dubbed him) the thread would have been moved to the Anything Goes board and many people would have been spared many minutes of wasted time discussing this crap of a piece.

Let me also point out two salient points.

1. I have not said anything on this thread that I would not say to someone's face directly (and this is coming from one of the few non anonymous posters on the board).

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.

Let me just say that people have said how tough it would be to edit a single word from Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea - yet most people could edit hundreds of words from Jones piece and yet the blind still call it a masterpiece?

BTW - if you want to see me - I'm easily found.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

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/

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

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

 

[friend of the friendless]

70,

70,

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.

I just write over your head. Lots of room.

o-<

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

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

You may not like Fenian's response. You don't agree with it. But much like your insipid idiocy, you cannot pretend it does not exist. He responded to your criticisms, so it is factually incorrect to say that NOBODY has responded to your criticisms. Fenian gave your arguments more dignity than they deserved.

Try to keep up.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Actually PDB - Fenian did not address any of my questions or criticisms. He danced around what he thought Jones was trying to do. You can say he tried to address one of my criticisms and legally speaking I couldn't argue. Yet the purpose of the piece is still basically un-responded to.

 

[Double J]

Why don't you PM Jones directly and ask him, if it's so darn important to you to have the response you seek??

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

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.

 

[Small Town Guy]

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.

Wouldn't the fact that you couldn't find it at the grocery store give more credence to the idea that it's not rubbish? Most grocery stores I've been in are filled with things like Star, The Globe, and The Enquirer. On the other hand, I've never seen The New Yorker or The Economist battling for space with Bat Boy or Cosmo. So would they be rubbish as well? So confusing.

On another note, earlier Chris mentioned that Halberstam had said writing about sports seemed like a demeaning way to use his talents after 9-11. I remember a column he wrote that said something like that, but it's worth noting that three of his final four books were about sports, all published after Sept. 11. The Teammates in 03, The Education of a Coach in 05, and he was working on a book on the 58 title game when he died. I think it's safe to ashume he wouldn't have considered writing for ESPN to be prostituting one's skills.