This May Come as a Suprise

But there is a fairly heated debate going on in the world of sports journalism, as it relates to the journalistic responsibility of "Blogs" and other online mediums.

It is a fairly black and white issue (as these things so rarely are), where those in the "traditional" media (print, television) feel that "new" media (blogs etc.) do not represent credible journalism and have no place in the world of covering sports (the same thing is being argued in the political world as well).

Bloggers feel that they represent the fans, and offer a different forum, other than picking up a news paper the day after something happens and seeing what said journalist thinks about it.

Bloggers argue that they offer real time, up to the minute updates on what is going on in the realm of the topic they cover (for instance I can get up to the minute updates, and talk with other fans, as a baseball game is going on).

The problem for the Bloggers is that the comments that are made after their posts (an issue I don't have to deal with as no one ever comments!) are lumped in with the content of the posts themselves.



This is a clip from a recent episode of Bob Costas' show on HBO where Will Lietch of www.deadspin.com is asked to defend the content of his site against Costas and "Friday Night Lights" author, and general douche bag Buzz Bissenger, who claim that "blogs" are shit. Notice the sweet cameo by Browns receiver Bralyon Edwards who has to be asking his agent, "what the eff did you get me into"

Lietch does not stand a chance in this argument, not that you would be able to hear him over Buzz (Chipper Jones called and said it's time to drop the childish nickname) anyways.

My attitude is, like anything there are good blogs, and crap blogs. Because Mozart was a good musician, does that mean that all music is great? Because believe it or not, Buzz Bissenger is a good writer, are all writer's great?

As www.firejoemorgan.com has pointed out, again and again and again, There are a ton of really bad sports journalists out their, and they get their crap printed everyday.

This argument comes off to me a lot like pre-reformation Catholic Church rationale for why the Church was a vital part of common people's lives. Before Martin Luther and his 95 Thesis, The Church argued that only they were able to communicate directly with God, and only through them could common people speak with their Deity. It was this "we know what's best for you" mentality that led to the formation of the Protestant Church, which today manifests itself in American Evangelicalism, where people believe that they have a personal relationship with God (W thinks he talks with him on a daily basis).

Old school sports writers seem insecure to me. It feels like they fear that they are losing their grip on the thoughts and minds of the sports watching population. I no longer have to wait for the next days news paper to tell me what to think about the state of the Mets. I can watch the game, log onto www.Metsblog.com and see what other Mets fans are saying and thinking, and come to my own conclusion about how soon Willie Randolph needs to get canned. I now have a personal relationship with my sports teams, regardless of what so and so from the Daily News thinks about it.

It is true that people say things online that they would not necessarily say in their day to day lives. I would not sit at my desk and say all the nasty things about Hillary that I write on a daily basis. At some point, Internet content will probably be policed in some fashion. But for now, people are free to say or write what ever they feel.

I am having trouble inserting links into my posts. (any help would be appreciated)
but here is a reminder of the sites that I spend my time on.

www.metsblog.com
www.bobcesca.com
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.firejoemorgan.com