Context and sports commentary

[BB Bobcat]

I agree that the fact no one has said to Thames: "Why do you suck defensively?" means that Simers has performed some great journalistic feat by asking. I'm sure a lot of writers have asked Thames about his defense in a more tactful and meaningful way. ("What have you done to improve?")

TJ's shtick is his shtick. That's fine. Works for him. Gets a lot of attention to his stuff. I think it takes writing talent to put the words together to make something entertaining out of what he does in the clubhouse. I am not willing to give him credit for reporting skill simply for foisting himself upon anyone and asking whatever ludicrous question comes to mind without regard for tact or courtesy.

 

[Dan Feldman]

There is nothing worse than when writers write about what someone else wrote.

What is this whole board?

 

[LongTimeListener]

There is nothing worse than when writers write about what someone else wrote.

What is this whole board?

An outlet for sportswriters and people who are particularly interested in the mechanics of sportswriting. As opposed to a general-interest newspaper where people are interested in the Tigers and baseball and not a columnist 2,000 miles away.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I hear what you're saying, and it's an important distinction, but ... check out team message boards. Fans (readers) care about everything anyone writes about players, past and present, of their favorite team. And almost no columnist is 2,000 miles away anymore. They're almost all a click away.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

There is nothing worse than when writers write about what someone else wrote.

What is this whole board?

This is a message board, not a newspaper and we know the bulk of the audience here are either sportswriters or former sportswriters.

I doubt anyone in Detroit gives a **** about Marcus Thames or TJ Simers.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

On Whitlock's podcast, Marriotti tries to explain why he doesn't go out there the next day and face the people he's slammed and he fails miserably.

That's never been a issue for Simers.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

T.J. has the professional integrity to play his game right. He accepts the consequences of playing the very old role of rip job artist. I think he's a good sportswriter.
But I couldn't treat Thames the way he did. He's an outfielder who's not a good fielder, not some pol who embezzled from the country government or something. It's not right to browbeat or insult people with questions anymore than it is to do it directly unless they've done something to deserve it or you suspect they have.
Maybe that makes/made me a subpar reporter. If so, fine. I'd rather live with the consequences of how I do things.

 

[SF_Express]

T.J. has the professional integrity to play his game right. He accepts the consequences of playing the very old role of rip job artist. I think he's a good sportswriter.
But I couldn't treat Thames the way he did. He's an outfielder who's not a good fielder, not some pol who embezzled from the country government or something. It's not right to browbeat or insult people with questions anymore than it is to do it directly unless they've done something to deserve it or you suspect they have.
Maybe that makes/made me a subpar reporter. If so, fine. I'd rather live with the consequences of how I do things.

This is a subtle point, and many won't agree with me, but T.J.'s deal is, "Look. This is sports. It's not life and death. If my making fun of Thames' defense (to his face), and the Dodgers signing him, is the worst thing that happens to him in his life, he's going to have a pretty good life." In his heart -- and I truly believe this -- Simers' belief is none of this matters and that once everybody gets the joke and lightens up a bit, things will be a lot easier for all concerned.

But I'm not naive and know that if you do something for a living, even a game, human nature is you WILL take it personally, and in that, I actually think T.J. himself sometimes misses the point. It might all be a big goof for him, but like it or not, you're insulting the way somebody does the major thing they have chosen to do in their life to this point, and there's no way they're simply going to be able to blow that off.

 

[jr/shotglass]

I guess my only question in all this is, are any of the reasons offered up for being a "good rip-job artist" or a "print bully" enough to excuse a lack of civility or compassion?

Does being a journalist mean, in some cases, becoming an on-the-job prick? Does it have to, or do some journalists enjoy the fact that they can hide behind their job or their aura to become snipers?

Because I'm looking at this column -- and forget it's Simers, it's a more general issue than just him -- and I picture the nasty fourth-grader shooting spitballs at the heads of his classmates.

Of course, I don't know all these writers in real life, so aren't I doing the same thing that Simers did to Thames? ;)

 

[Dan Feldman]

There is nothing worse than when writers write about what someone else wrote.

What is this whole board?

This is a message board, not a newspaper and we know the bulk of the audience here are either sportswriters or former sportswriters.

I doubt anyone in Detroit gives a **** about Marcus Thames or TJ Simers.

So it's OK for sports writers to write about someone else's writing when, in theory, mostly sports writers are reading it? But when the audience is wider, it crosses a line? What's the huge difference?

And, as far as your point about it being a mistake to write about someone else's writing, does it matter whether the column was written for a Detroit paper? If it had been written in L.A., would that make any difference to you?

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

There is nothing worse than when writers write about what someone else wrote.

What is this whole board?

This is a message board, not a newspaper and we know the bulk of the audience here are either sportswriters or former sportswriters.

I doubt anyone in Detroit gives a **** about Marcus Thames or TJ Simers.

So it's OK for sports writers to write about someone else's writing when, in theory, mostly sports writers are reading it? But when the audience is wider, it crosses a line? What's the huge difference?

And, as far as your point about it being a mistake to write about someone else's writing, does it matter whether the column was written for a Detroit paper? If it had been written in L.A., would that make any difference to you?

With very few exceptions, the only people interested in journalist-on-journalist violence, are other journalists.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

There is nothing worse than when writers write about what someone else wrote.

What is this whole board?

This is a message board, not a newspaper and we know the bulk of the audience here are either sportswriters or former sportswriters.

I doubt anyone in Detroit gives a **** about Marcus Thames or TJ Simers.

So it's OK for sports writers to write about someone else's writing when, in theory, mostly sports writers are reading it? But when the audience is wider, it crosses a line? What's the huge difference?

And, as far as your point about it being a mistake to write about someone else's writing, does it matter whether the column was written for a Detroit paper? If it had been written in L.A., would that make any difference to you?

With very few exceptions, the only people interested in journalist-on-journalist violence, are other journalists.

Exactly. If your column involves taking an excerpt from another writer's column and screaming about why they're right or wrong, you're a hack.

Simers is no hack.

 

[Dan Feldman]

There is nothing worse than when writers write about what someone else wrote.

What is this whole board?

This is a message board, not a newspaper and we know the bulk of the audience here are either sportswriters or former sportswriters.

I doubt anyone in Detroit gives a **** about Marcus Thames or TJ Simers.

So it's OK for sports writers to write about someone else's writing when, in theory, mostly sports writers are reading it? But when the audience is wider, it crosses a line? What's the huge difference?

And, as far as your point about it being a mistake to write about someone else's writing, does it matter whether the column was written for a Detroit paper? If it had been written in L.A., would that make any difference to you?

With very few exceptions, the only people interested in journalist-on-journalist violence, are other journalists.

Exactly. If your column involves taking an excerpt from another writer's column and screaming about why they're right or wrong, you're a hack.

Simers is no hack.

But it was OK when Joe Pos did it because it's a blog? I'd be pretty shocked if his audience isn't much wider than journalists.