Sports Bloggers in the Press Box

I take no issue with what you're written, but I'd just mention here that if this survey was posted on your blog site, then the replies would be naturally skewed.

 

That's legit ... clearly, it wasn't a scientific study. But I guess my point was that I was surprised by the results. But I guess to people on the outside, the "media" is anywhere you get your info.

 

That poor dumb bastard had no idea how close he came to meeting his maker that weekend. Half the press box wanted to harpoon him and throw his carcass in San Francisco bay.

He even smelled like he hadn't bathed in a month.

However, there are a few "real reporters" on the beat who routinely behave like they're still in junior high school.

You can work for a daily newspaper and still be an asshole/fanboy looser. There are lots of them out there.

 

Pot, meet the kettle.

 

Bacon, do you get paid for your blog?

 

So do a lot of fan boys who have sites. That still is not a solid reason to deserve a credential. Again, do you get paid for this blog? Do people pay for this content or is this just your wet dream? Credentials are for working media, not for fan boys with HTML knowledge.

And blogging is a big part of new media ventures for newspapers, most newspapers require its writers to blog and breaking news is put up on the site immediately throughout the day, even when it isn't breaking or news, just to have fresh content, so BaconBoy's entire notion that newspapers aren't grasping this concept is asinine.

And his "survey" has about as much credibility as if Newsmax did a "survey" about who was a better president Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton.

 

First, I don't have a blog ... I run a website, a brand concept built around the web ... i tried to explain the difference earlier, but that also fell on deaf ears. We are working on multimedia. But right now it's essentially a web-based product.

Second: yes. I run the business (which is much different than getting "paid"). I have investors. I draw a pay check (a small one for the time being, as is the case with any entrepreneur). We have advertisers ... we're fighting to get more, which makes us NO different than the sales guys at your paper. In fact, we're figting for the same dollars. We have two sales meetings today with folks who spend money on print, and we are going to do everything in our power to make sure that money is spent with us instead of in print. I have a business here, not a blog. Like any new business, if it works out, I'll make out. If it doesn't, well ... I still keep my foot in the newspaper world ... never hurts to hedge your bets, as the nearly 50 percent of the reporters at my paper have found out over the past 18 months or so.

So who's the professional here? The arrogant punk sitting in the press box, looking down on the "bloggers," or the guys trying to build their own brand and business through the web, and in many cases paying the guys like you who get shafted and no longer have a full-time newspaper job? I've learned A LOT about how the media operates once I got out from behind the keyboard. You might, too.

With all due respect, sitting in a press box reporting on a game is kiddie work compared to trying to build your own brand and product. So the arrogant attitude from some of the "old media" folks here is comical. It's like listening to spoiled little kids. I'm reminded of the old negro spiritual: "check yourself before you wreck yourself."

My own business may very well fail ... but that's the risk I've taken. In either instance, folks doing what I'm doing are going to eat old-media types for dinner if they continue to live in this fantasy world where the evil "bloggers" are a bunch of rookie fanboys. There's talent and money out there fighting to take away your readers and your advertising dollars. They're hungry and they're determined and, right now, they're winning the battle. That's the reality of the situation.

I say ignore them, and mock them, at your own peril.

Just trying to help. But my free advice here is done.

 

"We need to see something other than flash, egotism and self-importance. We need to see their credentials. And they need to prove, not merely assert, their right to an opinion."

-- Time Magazine's Richard Schickel on bloggers

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-schickel20may20,1,7842832.story?coll=la-news-comment

 

Holy dumb fuck. Richard Schickel does realize that if critics really had sway, James Patterson and his assembly line would not be the best-selling "author" in America, right? Criticism is an "elite enterprise?" Put down the pinot grigio and get out of the East Side penthouse. Criticism is not confined to someone who is blessed with the imprimatur (fancy enough word for you?) of a name-brand print publication. Those corn-fed rubes shitting on your books represent, oh, your actual readers.

There is a place for criticism that is academic and deeper than, is this book worth my $25? But there is also a place for more lowbrow criticism, as well as criticism that is in fact an active discussion among readers. Just because a site is called bookslut doesn't mean its criticisms are invalid or unworthy.

Richard Schickel might be the nicest guy in the world, and no doubt he's a very good writer who has worked hard to establish his rightful place. But here he just comes off as a pompous ass.

 

There are some really good bloggers and blog sites out there. And there's a vast expanse of crap, too.

The really, really good bloggers will thrive. But the fanboys and the crap sites - which right now far, far outweigh the good ones at the moment - won't make it, or at least won't ever see a dime of profit.

The marketplace will decide.

 

There's difference between having an "opinion" on a book and being a book critic.

The fact that someone thinks James Patterson, Tom Clancy, John Grisham, Danielle Steele et al are "fabulous writers" doesn't make those people "critics". They're not--anymore than going to Olive Garden twice a week turns you into an Italian food critic.

What Schickel thinks about those writers is irrelevant to their commercial success.

You can argue all you want about the literary merits of Stephen King but when you read a blogger who says that he's "the greatest American writer of the last 100 years", you know you're dealing with someone who doesn't have a clue.

 

I posted this elsewhere, but here is one blogger's response (Sunday Morning QB, which is a fine college football blog):

http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2007/5/21/122156/099

Schickel indeed does come off as pompous, but I've found many newspaper folk are coming off as very elitist, looking down at the peasants from their ivory tower.

Look, as has been discussed here, are there bad blogs and bloggers? Hell, yes. Are there good ones? Hell, yes.

But you know what, the same could be said of writers. I've seen plenty of crappy ones over the years, just as I've seen plenty of good ones.