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!

The Romenesko lemmings

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by YorksArcades, Nov 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. YorksArcades

    YorksArcades Active Member

    Figured I'd risk the waters with this one.

    I know a lot of people like to express their deep, undying love for Jim Romenesko. Stupid, but not a mortal sin.

    But the parroting and worship seem a little extreme. Just in the last day or so, someone at a paper (it'll be REALLY easy to figure out which one, but I'll leave it to the sleuths) was bragging about how two of his articles were linked by our hero.

    Yet one of the links was not exactly in a positive context. (No idea about the second one -- the genius writer was so busy basking in the glow that he didn't provide more info.)

    Are today's journalists really so desperate for recognition that they embrace this?
     
  2. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Only the ones who want web traffic.
     
  3. TGO157

    TGO157 Member

    Lemons...yum.
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The OP created a bunch of strawmen and then asked a question regarding his own exaggerated characterizations: "lemmings," "deep, undying love for Jim Romenesko," "the parroting and worship," all appear. ... without pointing anyone to anything specific about Romenesko or his site that he specifically thinks makes the case for those characterizations.

    The closest he came was a whole other nebulous characterization about a "genius writer" who was "basking," . ... without any link for people to see what he is talking about. Why not just provide a link and make the case for something in particular, rather than an assassination attempt filled with hyperbolic language?

    And then that one characterization, of course, to led to another generalization about "today's journalists," as if they are some monolithic group. ... let alone one that lives for Jim Romenekso or his site. Maybe. But why not point to a dozen examples that have rubbed you wrong -- be specific, if you want to take a shot.

    Whatever the agenda with that post, if you really have a problem with Romenesko or his site, or how some people seem to take it too seriously in your opinion, why not point out specific things that bothered you and make a convincing case for SOMETHING, rather than a post filled with hyperbolic shots?
     
  5. YorksArcades

    YorksArcades Active Member

    Sometimes on Bar Rescue, there'll be a bar that allegedly has no lemons.
     
  6. YorksArcades

    YorksArcades Active Member

    You might have the time and drive to write a book with every post. But I don't.

    You could find all sorts of examples, just by using the Romenesko hashtag. I feel silly pointing this out, as I'm sure you would research this on your own and not spout a bunch of deeply ignorant, dumbass thoughts.

    Wait. You just did. Because you excel at that and have for years.

    See also: Ragu's Dumbass Guide to Economics, Commodities, and Other Stuff.

    Also, there was a specific example. I just chose not to call out that paper.

    But as always, any Venn diagram with Ragu on one side and Reading Comprehension on the other does not intersect.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Is the point to take gratuitous shots at people?

    If you meant this to be a serious thread -- and it is clear it wasn't -- you could have said, "I have a problem with Romenesko's site and how people react to it. The reasons are X, Y and Z. Here are some examples." It might have led to a discussion of some sort.

    All you did was make a bunch of unsubstantiated characterizations, and when I pointed it out, you figured it was OK to take some stupid and pointless shots at me, too. A cheap shot artist on an anonymous message board. Fine.

    By your "you excel at that and have for years," I take it that you have been on here before with other user names. Care to point out what names those were? It might give some context for the act with this new appearance.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2015
  8. YorksArcades

    YorksArcades Active Member

    Still can't figure out how to find the evidence?

    I'll put together some examples just for you.

    Here's the first:



    More to come.
     
  9. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    OK. Now add some more because I'm not a sleuth.
     
  10. Mr. Sunshine

    Mr. Sunshine Well-Known Member

  11. YorksArcades

    YorksArcades Active Member





    Also, Ragu's mindless blathering reminded me of another area to focus on: When people ask for Romenesko to investigate something, as if he does something more than aggregate.

    Sadly, a few of the hashtags that had served as placemarks have either faded or been buried under other tweets. So some of the juicier examples have faded into the ether.
     
  12. YorksArcades

    YorksArcades Active Member





    Last example is especially significant, as the person gave credit to Romenesko, the aggregator, rather than the original source that reported the info. This happens quite a bit. Many of these people are allegedly journalists, yet they don't understand the difference between reporting and aggregating.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page