the anti-Whitlock

[SF_Express]

There are all sorts of voices in this business, there are readerships (both those who like and those who hate) for every one of them -- running the gamut from Dave Anderson to Scoop Jackson -- and I have yet to hear of a person who was permanently disfigured by an opinion or the style in which it is expressed.

Editors need to be open to providing forums to new ideas and styles and people of all ethnic and social and gender backgrounds, and somebody who refuses to allow somebody to speak to this demographic or because he or she doesn't talk or think that way is simply limiting his or her readership in the most competitive time in media history.

A lot of crap on here lately criticizing people who are getting or already have great opportunities is jealousy, no matter how hard they try to deny it.

Columnists you like and those who don't is a personal thing, and why people get so bent out of shape over the ones they don't like is a complete mystery.

;D

I wish I'd said that.

 

[shotglass]

I wish I'd said that.

Well, as the great Steve Martin once said: "Some of us have a way with words, and some of us ... uh ... um ... no have way."

 

[goalmouth]

Shtick is a routine, as in a shopworn act. It's not praise.

 

[henryhenry]

Powell covers sports. Whitlock covers media - and himself.

good that you bring this up when powell spends a great deal of time in the blog interview covering the media....

are you really this freaking stupid? or are you just here to humor me?

blogs don't do interviews - they sit on their butts and pontificate. sort of like you.

 

[Trey Beamon]

As usual, SF chimes in as the voice of intelligence and reason.

That's actually a really cool website for industry wonks like us. Lot of good interviews there.

Dave Kindred with a great interview there as well.

http://www.sportsmediaguide.com/09152006-DaveKindred.html

Thanks for the link. Great stuff. Apparently, Gene Wojciechowski -- one of my faves, BTW -- checks out the site every now and then...

Q. Is sportsjournalists.com helpful?

A. I read it once in awhile but the fact that it's anonymous bothers me. So I don't take it seriously. If they used their names you could have a dialogue.

 

[shotglass]

A. I read it once in awhile but the fact that it's anonymous bothers me. So I don't take it seriously. If they used their names you could have a dialogue.

Amusing.

 

[dooley_womack1]

I guarantee that Woj is not taking seriously some people here who are way up from him on the prestige chain. Again, focus on the words, not the handles.

 

[SF_Express]

I guarantee that Woj is not taking seriously some people here who are way up from him on the prestige chain. Again, focus on the words, not the handles.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Dooley, but really, there aren't very many in this biz who are "way up from" GW in terms of respect or where they're held in the pecking order or whatever.

 

[dooley_womack1]

I disagree, and to the sensitive folks, I'm not slamming him in that. I'm just saying there's a lot of good stuff he could get from here, if he didn't look down his nose at us.

 

[SF_Express]

I disagree, and to the sensitive folks, I'm not slamming him in that. I'm just saying there's a lot of good stuff he could get from here, if he didn't look down his nose at us.

Well, that last part is a different deal.

 

[Double Down]

21 always makes this point, and I think it's a good one, so I'll try to paraphrase it here for Gene if he just so happens to be reading:

The fact that this site is anonymous is what allows it to thrive. And what makes it absolutely engaging when it comes to a variety of subjects. And it also makes it the most democratic exchange of ideas we can possibly have. Words, not resumes, matter. You don't know if you're arguing with a Pulitzer Prize winner, or a clerk at a 24,000 circulation weekly. You don't have to worry about whether a potential boss is going to hold a grudge for some innocuous comment you made about his high school football tab, or about George Bush's foreign policy approach. Yes, people abuse the cloak of anonymity, but for the most part, we do a pretty good job policing ourselves. You can't post naked pics. You can't say, I hear so-and-so is forking so-and-so and that's how he/she gets all their stories. You can't really pimp your friends (or your own) stuff from bumfork because you will be mercilessly taunted by the regulars here, who will sniff you out and call you a fraud in about three seconds. You choose how much you want to reveal about yourself, and you want to be Jason Whitlock, Michelle Kaufman, Chris Jones or Dave Kindred, awesome. We give their opinions more (or less) weight accordingly. But if we all used our names, this place would have about 11 posts per day. Plus, one of the most enjoyable parts of my time on here is watching no talent assclowns scream and rant and mutherfork people who are legends in this business, but choose to remain anonymous to most of us, and then watch that same assclown praise that legendary writer on another thread and talk about how they're "one of my heroes." Cracks me up every time.

C'mon Woj. Join the party. You might learn something. Plus, the leeches out there who whine about the content on this site, yet don't register, don't post and just lurk, are beyond lame. It's like bitching about the president, but then confessing that you didn't even vote because it's beneath you.

 

[shotglass]

Thank you, DD. You da man.


Signed,
Anonymous