Is this high school blog post appropriate?

Actually -- go back and read it, that is not what he wrote.

He wrote that he has never seen a kid who hits in the 3-hole that "cannot swing a bat" -- in other words, he was saying he's never seen a kid in the 3-hole (i.e. who is supposedly the best hitter on the team) who would rather get hit by the pitch and take the cheap wa on base than swing and hit the ball.

It is a huge difference between than and saying he can't hit and it is not at all a cheap shot, just an observation.

 

That's exactly right, and that's exactly the point. If you present a factual point, it's different than if you editorialize about a kid's suckiness.

One way or the other, it's still a knock on a 17-year-old kid.

 

But it is the kind of knock that is acceptable. You aren't ripping him for making a mistake, you aren't ripping him for not being good enough, you aren't ripping him for anything that is typical of a 17-year olds.

You are ripping him for playing baseball in a chickenshit way.

 

"I've never seen a 17-year-old who can't hit" might be over the line.

Here's another thing: Is this just how the kid plays ball? Or is he just doing what his coach tells him? In this case, shouldn't the blogger be ripping the coach?

I've always been a little hesitant to rip anyone -- high school, college or pros -- without talking to them first. Maybe you talk to the kid, and he says, "Coach says if I don't get hit by a pitch, he's going to run over my dog."

Of course, that would require the writer to have the guts to talk to the person he's about to rip, and maybe ask a tough question. Who's the chickenshit now?

 

see, I

actually, I think you need to read it again. your interpretation would be a kid that won't swing the bat. can't swing the bat is something else entirely.

edit: and my second point was hit already by someguy - my guess is that coach wants this going on. if he doesn't, he stops it after the first time and certainly after the second. I would suspect that the kid is doing what he's told - especially since it seems several other players did the same thing. why not rip into them by name, too?

 

Here's the deal few seem to be saying.

IT'S A BLOG. ISN'T THAT THE FORUM FOR WHAT THE JOURNALIST IS ACTUALLY THINKING.

Isn't that the whole idea behind blogs anyway. To get way inside with analysis, thought and occasional judgment? I mean, isn't the whole idea behind a blog to get exactly these kinds of thoughts. And, considering what he had just witnessed, isn't this a relatively defendable position to take. Take out the part about how he would have beaned the guy, and state a couple of things a little more artfully and it works for a column. And, he's not ripping anybody in a personal way. He's ripping the STRATEGY.

Really, I don't know what else to say, other than this is EXACTLY THE REASON TO HAVE A BLOG.
My guess is his regular journalism is more interesting than most, because he has these thoughts, because the thinks about them (clearly, reporting that the pitcher hit a bunch of batters, would have clouded the truth, when the truth was the opposing team was mining this baloney strategy). Well, because this guy takes note of such things, he's likely to write a more informative, interesting and accurate story. Also, because he takes note of such things, his blog is likely to be more explosive.

I've got no problem with it.

Soon, he'll write another blog and everybody will move on.

Hopefully, in the next one, he'll be true to himself again.

 

Well, that's the thing about blogs.

As I read it, the difference between blogs and columns are that you have fewer safeguards with blogs, and you can be looser with judgment and factual material.

That works until the day somebody steps over the wrong line and winds up losing a multi-million lawsuit.

That's the day media outlets are going to find out that blogs are NOT untouchable.

 

And you are 100 percent certain said writer didn't talk to anyone?

And once again, he didn't write "I've never seen a 17 year old who can't hit...."

Perhaps you should read the blog before commenting on it.

 

I think the difference between the word can't and won't are noted -- the problem you have is context. And in the context of what he wrote I think it is very clearly he clearly means "won't" as he is not commenting on the ability of the player in question to hit, rather he is commenting on the fact that all he wants to do is step into pitches.

You want to kill the writer for using the wrong word, that's fair game.

That doesn't change the point that if you read the blog what he is ripping the kid for is fair game as well.....

 

And zag, your argument doesn't cover the entire blog item, either.

The writer took this out to the extent where he says he might have thrown a pitch at this kid.

Poor form.

 

You are right, that crosses the line and basically tells us a lot about the maturity level of the writer. It is a line -- along with stories about his fifth-grade baseball exploits -- that the blog would have been better off without.

But he did not cross the line in ripping the kid for getting hit by pitches......

 

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our business today. This attitude of, "Who cares? It's a blog!"

I don't believe in throwing journalistic standards out the window just because "It's a blog!" And if that makes me a 31-year-old dinosaur, so fucking be it.