1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

My Blog

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Elliotte Friedman, Aug 2, 2007.

  1. Elliotte Friedman

    Elliotte Friedman Moderator Staff Member

    Normally, I would never call any attention to the crap I write. I can barely stand it.

    This is my CBC blog, and I wrote something about Mike Vick and the CFL.

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/sportsblog/2007/07/how_about_michael_vick_in_an_a.html

    I went away to a friend's cottage for a couple of days and could not believe the comments when I got back. My point wasn't to say the league needs Vick, or that it's a good idea. I just wanted to investigate the possibility of a team signing him.

    Did I do this badly? I'd like to hear others' opinions.

    EF
     
  2. pseudo

    pseudo Active Member

    Good grief, some people take offense easily. It was a valid topic, and I didn't have a problem with the Dog Appreciation Day crack that got 'em so riled.

    Even if you'd left that out, though, I think there still would've been a brawl in the comments section. Just the suggestion that a team might look at him seems like an endorsement of the idea to some, even though it obviously wasn't meant that way (to most of us).
     
  3. Sxysprtswrtr

    Sxysprtswrtr Active Member

    I pretty much agree with buckweaver's response, with one big difference. This topic is such an inflammatory issue - star QB accused of dogfighting - that I think even if you had stuck with the serious stance, people are going to comment regardless of tone. Take a look at the Vick-related threads on SportsJournalists.com, and you see some of the exact same response your blog received.

    Also, is there not some way you could post the Khari Jones blog in a separate posting? It gets lost when it's posted right after your commentary on Vick.

    That's my big beef with blogs; people try to force too much information. It's the Internet; there are no deadlines and last I checked, there's an infinite amount of space. Freshen up the blog by posting an hour later or 6 hours later with the other topic instead of bogging down one blog with tons of information. I'd rather read a blog that looks updated than one that is 60-inches long and is up for days.
     
  4. Pete Incaviglia

    Pete Incaviglia Active Member

    I'll admit, nearly the moment Vick was asked to "stay away" I thought I'd see him in the CFL. I and and few other fellow sports reporters and friends tossed the idea around the same way you did.

    I don't see too much wrong with the blog (it's a little long for a blog entry). But there has to be fans and fellow reporters (and CFL GMs, as you pointed out) thinking - in all seriousness and in jest - exactly what you wrote.

    One line maybe goes too far:
    Only issue: The Blue Jays, their Rogers Centre cohabitants, would probably have to cancel Dog Appreciation Day lest Vick go trolling for contenders.

    And even then, it's not all that bad.

    Remove that line, and it's a valid argument/topic. Not that it isn't already.
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Way too sensitive on many of those responses, Elliotte. Unfortunately, a lot of people read things into stuff that aren't in the actual words. Not sure how I'd deal with it if I was you. :(
     
  6. DEB

    DEB Member

    Since I am not journalistic savvy, I asked my friend, who is a journalist and a frequent poster on this board to review it. She looked at it and said that you started off on the wrong foot, right off the bat with the actual title, "How about Vick in an Argos Uniform?" Right there, you are linking Vick with the Argos. She would have renamed the title of the blog based on whether or not it could happen. Maybe something like "The Vick Lottery Begins?" or "Will Someone Extend a Welcome To Vick?" or something that doesn't single him to a team.

    You did try to make a case for why the Argos would consider it (with Bishop being hurt, trying to sign Flutie and the Pike/Vick connection), and this is where she thinks part of the problem was. Maybe you should have discussed the other teams that would possibly consider it instead of limiting it to one team.

    The so called humour you tried to infuse in the blog did not help you case. Don't try so hard. If you were more serious, then she thinks people would appreciate your blog more. Also, my journalist friend is a big Frers fan and thought the light hearted poke at your fellow panelist was a tad bit excessive. The Dog joke, well, that should not have gone in there too considering the charges he has against him. Bad use of humour.

    However, she says you have a decent arguement of Vick and the CFL. You did tell fans to have some hypothetical fun but they took it to heart, probably because you only mentioned one team. Also, she got confused with the Stegall/Jones bit in the end. You need to either create a separate blog on the issue/story or make a better separation from the other blog piece.

    She thinks that if you fixed these minor things up, then your blog would actually be quite good and better accepted.

    No matter what you write though, you will always have your critics and there are going to be times you will write something that is controversial. It's part of the business.
     
  7. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    Well, Elliotte, you didn't use the word "spade" in any context, so you have that going for you. :)

    Seriously, I think if you had it to do all over again, you might put something more obvious up high about the question being one of which CFL team would be craven enough to sign him. Perhaps, instead of, "Which CFL team will he be playing for," something like, "Which CFL team will be desperate enough to try and sign him?" That might have signaled your intentions better, and then you could have pretty much kept everything as written.

    That said, writing anything about the possibility Michael Vick might be playing football for anyone is going to get people, especially animal lovers, to release the hounds on you. Maybe I'd better rephrase that.
     
  8. Elliotte Friedman

    Elliotte Friedman Moderator Staff Member

    Appreciate the feedback.

    Keep it coming.

    EF
     
  9. Flash

    Flash Guest

    You wrote it, Elliott. Stand by it. Fuckabunch who take themselves and sports too seriously.

    A few people got it. And you stirred the pot ... something I can respect. [​IMG]

    The comments had me laughing. Especially the ones accusing 'Matt' of being un-Canadian because he doesn't like the CFL. I've heard that, too, because I prefer the NFL. It's like telling me I should have been cheering for the Oilers in '06 because I'm Canadian.

    Nope.
     
  10. JR

    JR Active Member

    Elliotte,

    I don't think there was anything wrong wwit the blog and the "Dog Appreciation Day" joke made me laugh out loud.

    However, I think Canadian "values" would come down pretty hard on any team who tried this.

    I know you weren't advocating it, but obviously some people read it the wrong way.

    Reading comments on a blog at CBC or the Globe & Mail are always funny because you get both the mouthbreathers & the "shocked and appalled" gang.
     
  11. thebiglead

    thebiglead Member

    If you mention two names right now, the majority of sports fans get worked into a lather: Mike Vick and Barry Bonds. Easily the two most polarizing athletes at the moment. They're both so 'now.'

    I'm astonished anyone can defend either one ... Bonds admitted to the c&c and Vick ... well, you've read the documents on the Smoking Gun.
     
  12. TyWebb

    TyWebb Well-Known Member

    Thought it was a well-written piece, with just enough humor and just enough serious discourse. In my part of the US, this is the only reason anyone has for saying "CFL." Everyone is thinking it, so there is no harm in you writing it.

    Like it has been said above, it didn't matter what you write. If its about Vick, you will get a river of comments, most of which will be negative. A writer at my paper (located in Georgia) wrote something against Vick - his supporters went ape-shit. Another writer wrote something slightly more positive/balanced - his detractors went ape-shit. You can't win with this one.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page