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!

Pearlman on Lupica with a sportsjournalists.com reference

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Writer33, Jun 15, 2009.

  1. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Hey calm down. I was just kiddin. Post whatever you want - many times and often

    If I were to sum up pearls involment over the years at SJ , I would define it as "parinoid accusations"
     
  2. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    So, you're criticizing the criticism? :D
     
  3. Diabeetus

    Diabeetus Active Member

    Yes :D
     
  4. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Meta.
     
  5. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    I'm sure I'm not the only one, but my first thought was Pearlman knows arrogance in part because he spent time in a car with Rocker.

    As for the blog post/removal, it strikes me as him acknowledging his own observation of human behavior and applying it to himself. Which, the way I look at it, is decidedly un-arrogant.
     
  6. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    If you wear your Kangol hat backwards it makes you look arrogant.
     
  7. Sneed

    Sneed Guest

    I know a lot of what's been said in this thread is sarcastic--while others isn't, which I gotta say in humble honesty, kind of disturbs me--but it's not the first time Jeff's made a reference to the anonymity of this board.

    I understand that some people don't want to be outed because they're asking for advice or needing to vent, but it does seem a bit....um....ugh, there's no good word here....weak to get on here, under some fake name like ManDanicasSoHotINeedABandana and ridicule others on the board or others in the field or just anyone in general.

    Why is that okay?

    (Sorry about that Danica thing....I'm not so good with the wittiness somedays and it's 2:30 a.m. Why am I even still awake?)

    But I really am curious. I don't judge or look down on any of you anonymous people, but it just seems strange to me, especially in threads like these where posters can drop f-bombs used in ripping someone.
     
  8. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    You do understand that Pearlman himself has also been on this board using anonymous handles also right?
     
  9. Sneed

    Sneed Guest

    Yeah, I saw those posts in this thread, but that wasn't entirely what I was basing that on. I've thought about that a lot myself.
     
  10. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    A friend writes....


    My first game as the Tigers asst. PR guy. Tigers Yanks. Lost the game 2-1 in 10. Larry Herndon with a HR off the facing of the bleachers in dead CF. Morris goes 9.2 and loses.

    I get to the press box an hour before the game. Crazy busy. Ewald is on the field helping with the pre-game. He has armed me with a seating chart. I know the Yankees PR guy, Mr. X.

    All of a sudden a press box attendant comes up with this short guy in a long-ish dark gray overcoat. The short guy is clearly agitated. The attendant starts to explain to me, and the short guy cuts him off and says "I told Mr. X to tell Dan Ewald I was coming and to save me a seat."

    I say, "Let's find Mr. X and find out what's up."

    The short guy says, "That's not important. I need a seat."

    I say, "It is important. I don't know who you are."

    The short guy is really agitated and says, "I'm Mike Lupica. New York Daily News."

    Who?

    (sigh) "Mike Lupica. New York Daily News."

    I see Mr. X. "Mr. X..."

    Lupica says... "Look we don't need to make a federal case out of this, I just need a seat."

    "Mr. X... is this gentleman from your press corps?"

    "Yeah... Mike Lupica. New York Daily News. Just needs a seat."

    I say "Mr. Lupica... you can sit right down there." (pointing) Lupica turns without a word and follows the attendant to an open seat.

    Mr. X sez to me, "What was his problem?"

    "Says he told you that he was coming and asked you to have Ewald save him a seat. I'm sorry, man."

    "No, he didn't. Never does. He's an asshole. Don't worry about it."
     
  11. Diabeetus

    Diabeetus Active Member

    I think what Sneed was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that there's a line between constructive criticism and just blasting a guy, and some posters blatantly crossed it. While one is understandable, the other is cowardly to do behind the cloak of anonymity.
     
  12. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    I see both sides of the anonymous-criticism argument, and think it all depends on the tone and intent. Hiding behind some handle as a way to work out specific professional jealousies or antagonisms stinks. But staying anonymous to avoid awkward professional relations, while getting some legitimate topics on the table, strikes me as more than valid and acceptable.

    I see it this way: When readers debate the merits of what we do, they are essentially anonymous to us and each other. Goes on all the time and only the most vile, shrill or unseemly personal attacks are considered out-of-line. Yet we're on the inside, with greater insights into the issues and questions of this business. Why do we have to forfeit the right to discuss those things with the added value of our perspectives, just because we don't want to be embarrassed the next time we bump into a colleague? Or have our bosses punitively deal with us because we question their adherence to some ethics or standards or fair-hiring practices? That would put us at a disadvantage behind the rube on the street.

    If you can't handle people whose identities you don't know having an opinion about your work or your professional behavior, you're in the wrong business. That they might have the learned opinions of an insider shouldn't be a negative, it should be a positive.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page