Norman Chad on blogging

[Smasher_Sloan]

As he so often does, Chad hits this one out of the park:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001642.html

 

[Singapore Slim]

As he so often does, Chad hits this one out of the park:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001642.html

If it were 2002, yes.

 

[GB-Hack]

As he so often does, Chad hits this one out of the park:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001642.html

Interesting piece, as was the revelation of his favorite blog.

 

[zebracoy]

A lot of these columnists - understandably - say the same thing (blogs are evil, people are dumb, we're the best). Those who know me know that I agree, but I'll leave that for another time/place/thread.

That being said, it was somewhat refreshing for Chad to step a little outside those usual boundaries. At least he accepts them, and realizes that yes, blogs lead to overkill. I do, actually, know a buddy of mine who blogged about a bowel movement, so he's not even stretching.

At some point, thankfully, a select few will emerge. Whether or not they end up being newsworthy, it's hard to say. But at this point, there's so much negativity toward them because they're just all over the place.

 

[Bob Cook]

Like Rick Morrissey's awful and out-of-tune piece in Sunday's Chicago Trib (following the Trib's even more out-of-tune and awful piece that passed for an editorial), these I-hate-blog columns are a waste of space and a signal to any reader who comes upon them online that newspapers are inhabited by dinosaurs.

These are the equivalent of horse-carriage makers railing about the motorcar is dirty and unreliable. Maybe it's true, but you're still pissing into the wind.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

If you read the piece, I don't think he said he hated blogs as much as he said he felt no need to personally add to the cyber-clutter.

The irony is I would gladly bookmark a Chad blog.

 

[broadway joe]

Like Rick Morrissey's awful and out-of-tune piece in Sunday's Chicago Trib (following the Trib's even more out-of-tune and awful piece that passed for an editorial), these I-hate-blog columns are a waste of space and a signal to any reader who comes upon them online that newspapers are inhabited by dinosaurs.

These are the equivalent of horse-carriage makers railing about the motorcar is dirty and unreliable. Maybe it's true, but you're still pissing into the wind.

Did you read the piece? Chad did not write an I-hate-blogs column.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

Just an opinion here, but blogs — like the internet SHOULD BE — are a complementary tool to our print versions.

It was mandated I start a blog for both my major beats (one summer, one fall/winter). I use them to link to news and stories from around other leagues and conferences and teams. I use them to post quotes that go unused in print stories. I use them to post break news and TEASE to "tomorrow's paper." I used them to post SOME opinion, but not in a snide and snarky manner, but rather in the exact same form as my weekly column; the "blog columns" are usually shorter.

Thing is, blogs are now varied. Sure, I used to say "they're written by guys in underwear in mom's basement" and that's still true about some of them today. But others are like firejoemorgan.com or Buster Olney's blog on ESPN.com. They all differ.

If done well at a newspaper, I think they can be helpful. I think Chad misses the point when he says "who wants more of me?" It's not about the writer at newspapers. It's about providing more useful information to the reader/fan. Because don't forget, space is more limited in print than ever before. And it's infinite on the net.

 

[GB-Hack]

Honestly, when Chad says "who wants more of me", I think it's as part of his normal, self-effacing schtick than his honest sentiment.

As much as I've read of him, and heard him on TV during poker broadcasts and way back when when he filled in on PTI, he makes it out that the viewer couldn't care less what he has to say or write. Meanwhile, the truth is I'm pretty sure he knows that's very far from the case.

 

[broadway joe]

Just an opinion here, but blogs — like the internet SHOULD BE — are a complementary tool to our print versions.

It was mandated I start a blog for both my major beats (one summer, one fall/winter). I use them to link to news and stories from around other leagues and conferences and teams. I use them to post quotes that go unused in print stories. I use them to post break news and TEASE to "tomorrow's paper." I used them to post SOME opinion, but not in a snide and snarky manner, but rather in the exact same form as my weekly column; the "blog columns" are usually shorter.

Thing is, blogs are now varied. Sure, I used to say "they're written by guys in underwear in mom's basement" and that's still true about some of them today. But others are like firejoemorgan.com or Buster Olney's blog on ESPN.com. They all differ.

If done well at a newspaper, I think they can be helpful. I think Chad misses the point when he says "who wants more of me?" It's not about the writer at newspapers. It's about providing more useful information to the reader/fan. Because don't forget, space is more limited in print than ever before. And it's infinite on the net.

I think you're right as far as reporters' blogs, which is what it sounds like you do. But for humorists like Chad (or Simmons or Reilly) it really is about "who wants more of me." They're not giving information, they're pretty much just selling themselves. I think Chad might be right to dole himself out in smaller doses.

 

[tonysoprano]

"Just had a rare, late-afternoon bowel movement? Let me tell everyone how I feel!"



Great line.

 

[FishHack76]

Depends on the bowel movement, I guess.

 

[goalmouth]

When newspapers drop comments from news stories, as will inevitably happen, the reader 'conversation' will be concentrated on blogs, making them an even bigger read.

 

[Sam Craig]

One of the problems talking about blogs is that it encompasses different formats. There are, to me, three types of blogs. First there are blogs done by people about something in their field. For example, a computer expert my blog about the computer industry, a stocks expert might blog about stocks, etc. Reporter blogs from their beats fall into this category. They're like Pete wrote about, news from their beat, extra stuff that didn't make a column, mini columns -- a sort of combination column and notes column.

Then there is the other extreme where someone is blogging about everything under the sun or this is what I think about everything or this is what I'm doing now.

In the middle, there are those who simply write about a topic or topics on what they're interested in and have varying degrees of quality and informed opinion or real information. It can range from being real worthwhile all the way down to the blogger in the basement cliche.

So the problem when someone is ripping blogs is exactly what sort of blog and whose blog are they talking about.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Just an opinion here, but blogs — like the internet SHOULD BE — are a complementary tool to our print versions.

Backwards. Print versions and blogs should be a complementary tool to our Internet news and opinion distribution.