The Simmons Site

Alrighty then. I just botched it ... or actually never looked on Saturday, which is possible.

 

You mind expounding upon that point. I'm a little slow.

 

Pretty sure he means the Boston Bruins column where he fabricated a Stanley Cup Final Game 7 from the 70s. And also made up Brad Beverly when the player on the Bruins is named Rich Peverley.

Even if he's not familiar with the team, and as he joked on Twitter was tired from his flight to Boston, he could have pulled up the box score from the game in less than 30 seconds and checked Peverley's name.

That mistake is as careless as it gets. And careless mistakes mean that you don't care. I think I've proven my inference.

 

We all know errors happen but that site tends to be associated with lazy top of head and lack of work errors. Do some basic fact checking. Otherwise, as queried, yes, I discount everything that comes after. But I'm also not a fan of the Rick Bragg style "recreated scene" bullshit so you mileage may vary.

 

That NBA column was long (in classic Simmons fashion), but I thought he brought up some fair points, and it was a good read. Personally, I've always been a fan of Simmons and am pulling for the site to do well.

 

Multiple, respectable good points, here . . . but we're still talking website under the auspices of an operation whose mothership is a money machine. No excuses, in this case. Get 'er done.

 

Ben, does that mean that the best they can expect is a begrudging nod of the head if they would, at some point, get everything right? Because their parent company is big-time money?

 

Mr Hecht,

Actually, I was following up Mr Womack's proposition that mixing up the Houston franchise is the instant death of a book's credibility. In 100,000 words on deadline I'm a little more forgiving. Been there. That said, I agree the website has a lot fewer excuses, if not none at all.

YHS, etc

 

He brought up some fair points and a lot of bullshit, per usual.

 

This is actually the money line/perspective.

Not for me, necessarily -- the accuracy matters more to me -- but most readers, especially of that site, are reading more for style and stories.

That is the way with most things on most Web sites. It's part of why information is getting more lightweight, and more diluted, and more surface-ish and voyeuristic these days. And, that's what most people want. It's easier to read, and is what keeps their attention.

Readers very often don't care that much about facts. It's all about perceptions, and a highly visible, big-name site both promotes that and thrives in that kind of environment.

 

I liked the NBA column today. I think maybe a 4 to 1 ratio of good points vs. WTF.

 

I'm not asking for New Yorker-level precision, here. I'm not swinging a sword. But they have no excuse not to do better, in this area. Doesn't the current state of affairs embarrass them? I've hypersensitive to print mistakes, and they do a good job with the print mag. I know they can do it.

They're very thin-skinned with regard to their image, though, and would expect better.,

And I'll be the first one to say so, if I see meaningful levels of improvement in the integrity of the proofing of the online product.