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!

One of the biggest news stories in decades occurred last night ...

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by oscaroscaroscar, Mar 22, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. And the members of a journalism board were tersely threatened they could be banned for discussing it.

    I debated creating this topic and writing this post for a long time tonight before that reality finally trumped any concern of angering someone who obviously had been pushed beyond his limit, or appearing to offer a rebellious challenge simply for the sake of rebellion.

    I had a couple of versions in my head where my own anger at the concept had me angrily telling Moddy to go ahead and nuke me if he wanted. But then I realized that anger would be misplaced or at least left incomplete.

    So I'm not just trying to lock horns here as much as I am trying to come to understand what could get us to this point.

    By that, I mean Moddy's decision, the apparently juvenile and/or offensive actions that contributed to it and the farther reaching problem of easily accepting a journalism message board that is ordered to ignore discussing historic news but continues merrily debating the assets of scantily clad females or Throwback Pepsi.

    This is one of the major problems with the industry right now and, to some degree, the country. Substantial conversations are usually snuffed -- more frequently for reasons of apathy or insufficient focus -- while we keep talking more about less important things.

    Case in point: A major metro newspaper for most of last night had Tiger Woods as its top headline rather than The Topic That Must Not Be Addressed.
    That is almost as sad and wrong as the fact it shouldn't even come as a surprise at this point.

    So I looked for a place to check out feedback on so many aspects of this historic piece of news -- from the implications to the coverage -- and instead found no topics. Eventually I stumbled on a couple of comments buried in another old thread, sort of like a few sneaking dissenters meeting underground in Cuba. (I know -- it's not a free speech issue, because it's private and you can go elsewhere and all that. But where does it end? Should we not discuss the winner of the next presidential election on "the Internet's Most Popular Gathering Place for Journalists"?)

    Then I happened along Moddy's bellowing threat.

    I don't know what led to it. Or how bad the thread that caused it had become. Like many others on here, I appreciate all the hard work and sacrifice done by Moddy, Webby and the rest of the mods. I think the responsibility of keeping things in order should not fall solely on their shoulders and that folks should act like the supposed professionals we are -- and have intelligent discussions without resorting to name-calling. I think, too, as 21 said on one of the threads, we can have some disagreements without it being a disaster, even if that does happen to include some heated, immature moments. Failure to understand that fact has killed enough newsrooms without claiming a patch of cyberspace as well.

    I just think there has to be a better way than the moderator of a journalism board threatening members not to discuss a major news story or face possible banishment. If that means I'm supposed to just find another place to look when I want to see a discussion on major news, so be it. I hope not, of course. Because if this site can handle Winnie Cooper's hot pics, but can't deal with historic news, then it'll just be one more example of the demise of the business rather than the refuge it so often has been.
     
  2. budcrew08

    budcrew08 Active Member

    Oscar, check your pm.
     
  3. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    People acting like a-holes. On both sides.

    People creating Sock Puppets just to be a-holes. On both sides.

    A-hole arguments that made no sense. On both sides.

    Basically, it was a-holes.

    People not being able to hold themselves together in political arguments is not related to the ongoing demise of daily journalism as we know it. Political dialogue has always been embarrassing to its participants. It's just that centuries ago it was pistols at 10 paces. Now, it's "You're a f%$#ing idiot!!!" on an Internet message board.

    And Winnie Cooper doesn't have hot pics. She tried, but they came off like Melissa Joan Hart's MAXIM shots, in which The Teenage Witch's attempt at a "sexy" face instead looked like constipation.
     
  4. TwoGloves

    TwoGloves Active Member

    This should be interesting.
     
  5. TwoGloves

    TwoGloves Active Member

    Winnie's pics aren't hot? Not we might have a knock-down, drag-out pissing match that might be worth getting banned!
     
  6. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    Not hot.

    I can't shake the image of her pouting, making faces as Kevin practically begs her for a commitment, either to date him or to NOT date him.

    Just tell him what he wants to know!!!! He won't get pissed if you don't like him!!!!! He'll be glad to have an answer!!!!!

    Not that anything like that ever happened to me . . .
     
  7. lol. Piotr, I get your point on Winnie.

    As for the a-hole argument thing, that goes on with a ton of topics and certainly isn't limited to this one, though it may get a little more out of line a lot quicker. This goes beyond political discussion though because it's major news. When a journalism site doesn't want to allow its members to discuss major news, that is the bad sign for me, on all sides.
     
  8. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    I think the members made that decision for the site. I personally don't miss it. Just means less vitriolic detritus to sift through and/or ignore.
     
  9. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    Why would we talk like adults about such a historic topic - as misguided as I believe the people pushing it is - when we can have conversations about people sending ex-lovers poop with a cherry on top in a box?
     
  10. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    I'd love to allow it. We've proven repeatedly we can't handle it. And what you see on the board is just a small part of it. E-mails, PMs **** you can feel the steam rising. There are places to discuss this, I'm sure. Maybe one day this can become one of them.

    We tried to keep the one thread open yesterday so there was a place to discuss this here. Couldn't be done.

    Oscar, you haven't seen "bellowing" by any stretch. Trust me.

    I'll try to find some political message boards for you later.

    I think the responsibility of keeping things in order should not fall solely on their shoulders and that folks should act like the supposed professionals we are - your best line. If people did act like supposed professionals, we'd run into few problems.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page