A very fair article on "fanboy".

[Jimmy Olson]

http://www.ndnation.com/geetar/2006/10/fanboys-unite_116222698954744639.html

 

[Angola!]

It's funny what kind of relationships you can grow when you're not looking for the "hot story" that will vault you to national prominence and an ESPN gig.

First off, what this guy doesn't seem to understand is not every journalist in the history of print media is trying to get a job at ESPN. This is ridiculous and yet another example of how non-journalists view the media. Not all of us think ESPN is the top of our working careers.

They're held accountable by their readership. It's really easy for a Jay Mariotti or a Rick Telander to selectively respond to criticism of their writing. They can pick and choose the Letters to the Editor that get published, and usually get the chance to put their own spin on it. The Internet guys, however, are under the gun 24/7. If their readers don't like what they write, they (and everyone else) will hear about it on the message boards. They're also more likely to lose a subscription over a minor issue, as the team coverage is 100 percent of the reason the readers are there.

Speaking of ridiculous, saying that bloggers and "fanboys" receive more criticism is over the top. I cover high school sports and I can guarantee anything I write that is not liked will feature my name being shredded on a fan board. At my old shop I was constantly flamed for columns I wrote, be it on message boards or letters to the editor or phone calls saying I should be fired to calls to the local radio station.

Thanks for posting this drivel.

 

[Jimmy Olson]

yet another example of how non-journalists view the media.

You make it seem as if the media is the only opinion that should count. That's a bit arrogant isn't it?
Afterall, if it weren't for the reader/listener, wouldn't our jobs only be to hear ourselves?

The Grantland Rice's of the world were there to either
1) Paint a picture
2) Report facts without bias.

Perhaps it is you who should change his view of "the media", not non-journalists.

We should hold ourselves to higher standards.

I find your closing comments quite comical, in light of your attitude on the subject.

 

[Angola!]

yet another example of how non-journalists view the media.

You make it seem as if the media is the only opinion that should count. That's a bit arrogant isn't it?

We should hold ourselves to higher standards.

Yeah, in the part I was speaking about, journalists are all the matter. It seems most people out there, my family and friends included, think every print journalist wants to work for ESPN and I call bull****. I know I would like to get paid like I work for ESPN, but I have no desire to leave newspapers and I don't think that is arrogant at all.

 

[Jimmy Olson]

I will agree that ESPN is bull**** ;D

Joking aside, I hate what ESPN has done to Sports Journalism.

My experience is NOT that everyone thinks we want to work there.
I truly believe that most people want to believe that the rest of us
have standards.

 

[MertWindu]

It should be noted that what the writer, calls "journalistic acrobatics" is actually just what we lowly reporters call "hard work" and "an effort toward providing both sides." Spare me the histrionics. Hundred years of sportswriting, and suddenly the ****ing bloggers have us all figured out? Yeah, alright.

By the way, this gem...

And most importantly, I strongly believe it's easier to overcome a positive bias and write something critical when it's warranted than it is to overcome a negative bias and write something positive when it's warranted.

Is the perfect example of how little fanboys understand. Of COURSE a fanboy thinks its easier to overcome a positive bias and write something critical. As long as the bloggers get their Hanes in a knot about biases toward or against their favorite teams, they will continue to be cut-rate sportswriters. But hey, that's just my four years of education at a major university talking. What do I know?

 

[Jimmy Olson]

Um, four years of education at a major university is just that. It's not exactly a rare occasion these days.
I had to chime in on that one only because my brother-in-"law only" always uses that line. He forgets that
everyone else at the table has a diploma from schools that have much better reputations than his alma mater.

 

[BYH]

Hey Jimmy thanks for posting your story. ::)

 

[bigpern23]

While I'm sure all writers like to parade themselves as a truly objective voice, the fact of the matter is they've all got their agendas, and some are just better at hiding it than others.

I think the writer has been watching too many conspiracy shows. Agendas? Outside of reporting on a team as completely as possible, I can't think of a single "agenda" I've ever had (or any other writers I know, for that matter). The problem this guy has, is he lumps columnists, TV talking heads and beat writers all into the same pile. Columnists and talking heads are paid for their opinions. If that columnist or talking head doesn't like a certain team, that's going to come out. But there's never any pretension that Mariotti or his ilk are objective. He's supposed to offer an opinion.

The beat guys are the ones who are supposed to remain objective and report fairly. I admit that not all do -- some are homers, others are cynical bastards -- but I'd certainly say the vast majority do.

Their information and perspective is usually of better quality than you'd find elsewhere. These are guys who know the program and people in it. If they're telling you something, you know it came from those who know and those who know are being as straight with them as possible

Riiiiight. Because a beat writer who is with the team every day and has cultivated sources both inside and outside of the locker room has no idea what's going on.

They're held accountable by their readership. It's really easy for a Jay Mariotti or a Rick Telander to selectively respond to criticism of their writing. They can pick and choose the Letters to the Editor that get published, and usually get the chance to put their own spin on it.

I don't know about you, but I've never been given the option of which letter to run.

 

[bigpern23]

Oh, and fetch me a beer, newbie. In fact, make it two for subjecting us to your drivel. Murphy's Amber and a Magic Hat No. 9 will do nicely.

 

[dawgpounddiehard]

They're held accountable by their readership. It's really easy for a Jay Mariotti or a Rick Telander to selectively respond to criticism of their writing. They can pick and choose the Letters to the Editor that get published, and usually get the chance to put their own spin on it.

That's my favorite part. I just picture sports department meetings with letters to the editor fanned out across a large table and the sports writers sifting through choosing the letters to run to make us look good.

Jeez.

And this guy wants to examine this topic when he doesn't even know how a newspaper works? Give me a break.

Oh, Telander is a columnist, he's PAID for his opinion. Much different than a beat writer, pal.

 

[henryhenry]

one thing fanboy doesn't get - because he never worked in the business:

sportswriters have one overriding bias - they love good stories.

good stories have no rooting interest

 

[Pringle]

I don't see how you can cover a team day-in and day-out and still have a rooting "fanboy" interest in said program/organization, even if you grew up nearby or went to the school. It gets to feel so silly to root for people in that way who you talk to and cover every day. I mean, they're not cheering for the newspaper, right? You pull the curtain aside and you understand that these are people with a job to do, just like you and just like the kids they line up against.

As an aside - I do think you can funnel your former fan interest into a journalistic interest in the program, but there's a not-so-fine line there.

 

[Claws for Concern]

My only opinion on this article: Thanks for the SportsJournalists.com plug. As long as he spelled it correctly, that's all that matters. Free pub is always good!

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

To hell with the merits of the argument. The simple fact that it's coming from someone associated in his mind and heart with Notre Dame burns the credibility of the thing to the ground.

 

[MertWindu]

Um, four years of education at a major university is just that. It's not exactly a rare occasion these days.
I had to chime in on that one only because my brother-in-"law only" always uses that line. He forgets that
everyone else at the table has a diploma from schools that have much better reputations than his alma mater.

So if it's so common, how come I can grasp the subject but you, I mean the writer, can't?

 

[awriter]

There's plenty of ND bias out there, for example, and it swings both ways. People like Beano Cook, **** Vitale, Kirk Herbstreit, John Walters, Jason Kelly, Malcolm Moran and T.J. Simers are pro-ND, whether they'd admit it publicly or not. On the other side of the aisle, you have guys like John Saunders, Bob Ryan, Craig James, Jason Whitlock, Michael Wilbon, David Haugh, and Jay Mariotti, who probably aren't all that shy about admitting their feelings.

For all of them, pro or con, their bias seeps into their writing / commentating / voting / whatever.

Someone needs to remind him that most of these people are columnists or analysts who are paid for their opinions.

 

[Bruce_Shoebottom]

This article sucks, but I do have to say, the whole notion of people in our biz deriding readers who actually still enjoy sports as "fanboys" is arrogant horse****. If it wasn't for the interest of these people some of us sneer at and look down on, none of us would be making a living doing this.

 

[shotglass]

You're not changing that, Bruce. And I, for one, won't even be apologetic for it.

After sitting on our hands in press boxes from our teen years, by the time you've been in the business for several years and actually had to DEAL with athletes on a daily basis, the sight of somebody gushing strikes most of us as a) unseemly and b) silly.

I'm sure that won't be the most popular response from the class, but I'm being honest.

 

[Angola!]

This article sucks, but I do have to say, the whole notion of people in our biz deriding readers who actually still enjoy sports as "fanboys" is arrogant horse****. If it wasn't for the interest of these people some of us sneer at and look down on, none of us would be making a living doing this.

I don't have a problem with readers being fanboys, I have a problem with people, like the one who wrote this blog, saying that as journalists we are all just a bunch of fanboys and are biased.
Of course I hope my readers are fanboys so they will keep reading my stories.