User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5815 seconds
46 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Friday, March 14, 2008Miami Herald: Bob Costas: Sports bloggers weave a tangled webAfter 50 years…I bet the Red Dye No. 2 pollutant from the ‘58 Mickey Mantle attached to Bob Costas’ droopy ass has worked it’s way up to his amyloadosis-filled brain.
Repoz
Posted: March 14, 2008 at 07:53 PM | 154 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: community, special topics |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsHall of Merit: Reranking Left Fielders: Results
(12 - 12:21am, Feb 04) Last: Chris Cobb Newsblog: 2023 NBA Regular Season Thread (342 - 11:18pm, Feb 03) Last: DCA Newsblog: OT - 2022 NFL thread Part II (330 - 11:03pm, Feb 03) Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor Sox Therapy: The Future Starts Now (Hopefully) (15 - 9:35pm, Feb 03) Last: The Yankee Clapper Newsblog: Orioles to decline 5-year Camden Yards lease extension, seek to secure long-term agreement (10 - 7:54pm, Feb 03) Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns Newsblog: These MLB legends were trailblazers in Japan (4 - 7:32pm, Feb 03) Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns Newsblog: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk (26 - 7:01pm, Feb 03) Last: Greg Franklin Hall of Merit: Ranking Right Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (43 - 6:03pm, Feb 03) Last: Jaack Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Hi Ho Hi Ho it’s Back to Club Football We Go (356 - 4:04pm, Feb 03) Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Newsblog: John Adams, Who Banged His Drum in the Cleveland Bleachers, Has Died (16 - 2:25pm, Feb 03) Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Hall of Merit: Ranking Left Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (95 - 1:15pm, Feb 03) Last: Rob_Wood Newsblog: Ex-girlfriend alleges Mets outfielder assaulted her in Syracuse; warrant, lawsuit target player (9 - 12:44pm, Feb 03) Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave) Newsblog: How to Watch the Caribbean Series (4 - 9:15am, Feb 03) Last: Jose is an Absurd Sultan Newsblog: MLB Network Exits YouTube TV Ahead of Spring Training After Contract Dispute (51 - 8:34am, Feb 03) Last: KronicFatigue Newsblog: MLB expansion: Nashville group led by Dave Stewart makes a pitch for Music City [$] (25 - 10:40pm, Feb 02) Last: John Northey |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5815 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Yup, that sounds like sportswriting to me.
What bothers Costas—and he’s not alone—is Internet and talk radio commentary that ``confuses simple mean-spiritedness and stupidity with edginess. Just because I can call someone a name doesn’t mean I’m insightful or tough and edgy. It means I’m an idiot.
‘But it’s one thing if somebody just sets up a blog from their mother’s basement in Albuquerque and they are who they are, and they’re a pathetic get-a-life loser, but now that pathetic get-a-life loser can piggyback onto someone who actually has some level of professional accountability and they can be comment No. 17 on Dan Le Batard’s column or Bernie Miklasz’ column in St. Louis.
Does the author purposefully put these two comments so close together intentionally or is it a simple coincidence that is going to end up giving everyone who stops by this thread a quick chuckle?
. . .
Just because I can call someone a name doesn’t mean I’m insightful or tough and edgy. It means I’m an idiot.
Yep, he's right.
edit: Damn, too slow.
And later on I was at the mall, and I was like, who are they kidding, a whole store just for candles? Who would even stop and look at that kind of thing? And why would they tell anybody they did? And why would they tell somebody about it so it could be in the newspaper? And if it was, like, in the newspaper, why would you read about that?
Stop caring about your teams people! Bob Costas and Dan Le Batard will care for you!
The funny thing about this is that all the people who responded to the poll probably DO care about the NBA. I think Mr. Costas grossly underestimates how much time I have to waste on the internet when I'm supposed to be working.
Speaking of which. Thanks for another fun week you chimps. See y'all Monday!
Today at the bookstore I saw a book that this sports announcer had written about all his wonderful ideas to improve the game of baseball, and it had zero percent influence on anything. No reasonable person who cares about MLB should care about it. Who has the time or the inclination to write this, even if your network lost the rights to baseball and your late night show got cancelled and you have lots of free time? Why would you weigh in with your ideas?
All you gotta do it pick up the morning paper, smear some ink off the cheap ads on your fingers, thumb to your favorite Costas and Le Batard column, and wallow in it, like a pig in a cage on antibiotics (with all apologies to Thom Yorke)...
This is really bizarre. I can see Costas' being grumpy about wiseass bloggers and trashtalking talk show hosts (ignoring for the moment that so many established media types are trash-talking wiseasses as well), but why would he bash a bunch of people responding to an innocuous internet poll? Also, there are a fair number of "reasonable" NBA fans who are interested in which good western team will miss the playoffs, since there are actually 9 pretty good teams in the west this year.
Why would you weigh in with this? This post added no value to my BTF experience, and I am going to complain about it in public. I only want to read posters with some level of BTF accountability.
It's just so time consuming to answer an internet poll. Wow, it must take all of five seconds. Get a life people!
That, in most cases, grants a forum to somebody who has no particular insight or responsibility. Most of it is a combination of ignorance or invective.’
The horror of it!
You've got an audience (I am a member of it--so it is at least me and Neyer) so maybe you could write an entry about this.
Overall, while he's right that comment sections are generally useless on main sites, his distinction between Paid Sports Journalists and people expressing their own opinions is worthless. Any expertise Costas has in analysis stretches out no farther than the reasoning behind his analysis, just like any internet writer.
Fixed that for you.
Leave Nieporent out of this.
>>>>comments on newspaper sites have nothing to do with bloggers
Good point
Wow, Costas really letting the sportswriters have it!
Oh wait...
Despite going pretty meta this week, I try to limit the whole navel-gazing thing. My view is that writing is writing is writing, and that the differences in medium only matter to the extent that it impacts the content (e.g. my complaint about Morrissey on Monday). It only seems to be the traditional media guys who want to disparage blogs for blogs' sake, and god knows we have enough "MSM is teh evil!" stuff being written on blogs. So while I noted the Costas thing, I'm probably going to take a Jeff Bagwell on it. Ultimately bloggers do better when they speak through their links and their blogroll as opposed to stepping outside of themselves and consciously reviewing other sites.
Point taken about this being more about newspaper commenters as opposed to bloggers, but it's the same argument. There are those who are credentialed and responsible who are worth our attention, and those who are not (always in the basements) who aren't. The only difference between a good commenter and good blogger is commitment. After all, look how many good bloggers/writers sprung from RSBB and BTF.
I'm way out of my element here, but didn't the people who decried rock and roll like Pat Boone?
You're going to wait until a lot of people are reading, and it's really important, and then you're going to choke by writing the worst entry of your life?
Thank you. Calling out bloggers using random newspaper comment posters is like calling out the MSM by using a crappy high school newspaper's sports column.
Thank you. Calling out bloggers using random newspaper comment posters is like calling out the MSM by using a crappy high school newspaper's sports column.
Who cares? You do. Le Batard does. David Stern does. If no one cared, if all sports fan(atic)s did not care about the sports they love, none of you would have a professional job in sports.
And if those sites provide a way for teams and athletes do reach out to fans, fans who buy tickets, merchandise and overpriced beer? If Chipper Jones makes an appearance on a mainstream blog, on the AJC, and hangs around to talk and answer questions, has that no positive effect on the fanbase?
Since when are MSM columnists "held accountable" for anything? As long as they don't offend a protected class, they can say or write whatever the hell they want -- insult any player they want -- no matter how vile or wrong-headed it is.
As if the level of discourse on talk radio or in a standard Mike Lupica column rises above the elementary school recess level.
They are a little too far back for this year. But they will be coming strong in the next 2-3 years.
I think Costas is decrying newspapers now having their writers run "blogs" and subjecting upstanding, god-fearing Americans like LeBatard and Miklasz to the rabble. More accurately, what I think he's saying is that it's one thing for pathetic losers to set up their own blogs and post their idiocy, but it's dumb for newspapers to set up "blogs" that give these same idiots a high-profile platform on which to post (via comments).
And one does wonder what good it does a newspaper to have open comments on a sports article. Presumably it "engages" their readers or something, but I think most of us would agree it doesn't exactly lift the discourse.
What makes a short, annoying little white guy with a journalism degree think he can....oh wait, those are my exact qualifications as well.
Well, you'll be glad to know (from Wikipedia):
Following high school, [Costas] attended the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, though he left school before graduating to begin his professional career.
Granted, this makes one wonder why you bothered finishing your degree. :-)
I'm not sure what my post has to do with your response. I said that those sites provide little value to me. And although I wasn't specific about which of the Costas comments I agreed with, it is the comments that have this aspect: "That, in most cases, grants a forum to somebody who has no particular insight or responsibility. Most of it is a combination of ignorance or invective."
You seem to think that I am implying that these sites shouldn't exist. I'm not sure how you got there, but that is not my opinion. I am saying that my experience with MSM comments sections has led me to believe that I shouldn't spend more of my time seeking them out.
All we need to complete the industrial farm metaphor is a way to work in a reference to downer cattle.
Two words: Bill Plaschke.
Costas is obviously protecting his ego here--if we're all just a bunch of booger-eating mama's boys, and he and his TV star sports scholar colleagues are the final word, what could possibly inspire so much rage?
This seems to describe Dan Shaughnessy quite well.
I'm not seeing that. He seems to be bothered that fans are allowed to express their idiocy in a forum that is attached to the work of media.
Costas is an oak, and can't understand why the maples aren't happy in their shade.
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas
The tone of any forum---whether it's BTF or a blog or a mainstream website's comments section or talk radio---is the "editor" or man at the mike who sets the ground rules. I agree that many blogs are far better than many of the mainstream commentators. But even talk radio has its bright spots. Maybe we're just lucky in DC, but I'll put John Thompson's call-in show on WTEM up against any commentary in any format. It's informal, funny and serious at the same time, because unlike most radio jocks (and jocksniffers) who are filled with nothing but opinions, Thompson has the brains and the knowledge to back his opinions up. And his listeners who call in respect that.
The worst (by far) of all the internet forums are the Comments section attached to many internet news articles. Out of pure masochism (there's no defensible reason) I visit the Washington Post to read some of these, and it's hard to believe that the Post finds anything useful about the neverending stream of sheer hatred and stupidity, complete with serial misspellings and incoherent sentences. They could eliminate 90% of this garbage by requiring posters to furnish a real name and traceable address, but since that would scare off the idiots who jack up their web meters, they won't think of it. It's amazing how the lowest common denominator drives such a high percentage of internet forums. BTF is a fairly uncommon exception.
Quite a feat from their mothers' basement.
Up to a point, but any MSM types can get fired for any controversial racial/ethnic/gender comments or for profanity. They can be wrong-headed as all get out, but there's a couple areas they have to be careful with vileness. Blogs? Not so much.
I don't know why people get so vituperative over blogs, when sports-talk radio has been around a lot longer and provides any random idiot with a much bigger audience than a blog could provide.
The rabble don't run the show. They can run their own blogs. The gatekeepers are breaking down.
Right; that was my point. (I didn't mention the profanity, but that's rather obvious.)
So in other words, eh, nevermind.
Definite Primey. I am extremely drunk, but that is one of the funniest things I have read on this site.
Heck, when I was kid, reading Dick Young's TSN column supplied me with an entire's week's supply of ignorance and invictive!
Agreed. And just to state the obvious, newspapers have been getting, and printing, inane letters to the editor for a couple of centuries now. Plus ça change ...
Agreed. And just to state the obvious, newspapers have been getting, and printing, inane letters to the editor for a couple of centuries now. Plus ça change ...
But they're not the same thing at all, at least in the case of most mainstream newspapers. I'll stick with the Washington Post, which is fairly typical in its policies.
If you want to send a letter to the editor for publication in the print edition of the Post, you need to (a) use your real name; (b) have a verifiable address; and (c) provide a daytime and an evening phone number, so that if they're considering your letter for publication, they know that the name attached to "your" letter is really you.
Whereas on these internet Comments sections, all you need is an e-mail address, period. No name required other than a "Username." And since the comments get posted instantly, it's hard to believe that even the e-mail address has to be yours. It's total anonymity, and you can see the results.
You're right that there's no question that inane letters get published in newspapers all the time. But few people who post the sort of vituperative drivel that you see on the sort of internet forums I'm referring to would ever want the world to know their identities---for good reason. And all you're doing by enabling this sort of crap is to drive off the people who want an intelligent discussion. The bad drives out the good.
There are two ways of addressing this. One is the Furtado method, which is to allow anonymous posting but have strictly enforced guidelines and rules about over-the-top personal attacks and comments. Since Jim monitors the site, he knows the difference between the mock screaming matches between (for instance) Kevin and Nieporent and the sort of crap I'm referring to that you can read on the Washington Post site. In the case of BTF it works out OK, since Jim does a good job, but IMO it's too dependent on one person's judgment.
The other method, which I'm in favor of, is to have no screening of content beyond certain N-words, F-words, B-words, etc. But each person has to first undergo the same sort of screening standards that the print edition uses for identity verification, and all postings are under people's real names.
I guarantee that this would cut down on 95% of the inflammatory BS you see on those sites, with little if any loss to real spontaneity. The one problem is that of people posting in work environments where they're afraid of their boss or supervisor finding out that they're goofing off on company time. So perhaps the better answer is the Furtado method, labor intensive as that likely is. The point of my comments is not to scare off business hour slackers.
But as for those f ucking morons who think that this is a question of "free speech," when all they really mean is "I want to be able to spread anonymous hate and lies from under my hidden rock," let them go back to talk radio where they belong. Why respectable internet sites put up with them---and encourage them---is beyond me. Maybe it is just the desperation of these websites to attract numbers, no matter what. But whatever it is, it's pathetic.
The result is freedom of speech, and all it entails, including some speech that is considered offensive. That means people can freely criticize powerful or dangerous groups, like governments, corporations; and groups like PETA, anti-abortion, and Rice for Hall. The range of quality of anonymous posting is huge, with many of much higher quality than what is seen on TV (see Iraq war and telecommunication immunity for examples). Some highly educated people post anonymously so they will not lose their jobs. Posting anonymously forces people to deal with what you say, rather than who you are. If Bill James posted anonymously, so he could write about confidential Red Sox info - how would it be received by the public?
What it has to do with hate and lies and quality is beyond me. You and Costas both used hateful speech. In fact, you used the same word that you claimed should be screened out. I guess Andy is a pseudonym.
Doesn't the Washington Post use 'anonymous sources'?
Anonymous to the public, yes; and sometimes, I'd wager, even to the editorial staff. But we rely on the idea that the reporter has done some vetting of the identity and veracity of the source. They don't print random statements left on a 'tip line'.
As opposed to responsible mainstream journalism, like Jay Mariotti in Chicago?
I'm surprised nobody called Costas on his bogus premise that being paid by big media confers professionalism.
Of course the Washington Post uses anonymous sources, which is a practice it's frequently under fire for. But at least in that case somebody knows the source's true identity, and in the end, at least someone (the Post itself) is responsible for what's written. That's not the case in the forums in question here.
As for me, if you're really dying to know, I'll spare you the trouble of what you could have discovered with three clicks of your mouse, beginning with my name above my post. I'm one of the more transparent people you'll ever find on any forum. I'll be glad to sell you a poster if you want.
And BTW, the F-word I referred to ends with t, not k.
Beyond those trivial issues, I already addressed the substance of your comments, if you would bother to read them. Your most substantive point is this:
Some highly educated people post anonymously so they will not lose their jobs.
Apparently you missed this:
The other method, which I'm in favor of, is to have no screening of content beyond certain N-words, F-words, B-words, etc. But each person has to first undergo the same sort of screening standards that the print edition uses for identity verification, and all postings are under people's real names.
I guarantee that this would cut down on 95% of the inflammatory BS you see on those sites, with little if any loss to real spontaneity. The one problem is that of people posting in work environments where they're afraid of their boss or supervisor finding out that they're goofing off on company time. So perhaps the better answer is the Furtado method, labor intensive as that likely is. The point of my comments is not to scare off business hour slackers.
Of course there's a wide range of quality from anonymous quotes. But here's one typical string of comments in today's Washington Post, all totally anonymous. You tell me how you'd evaluate the overall level of discussion there, and say with a straight face that the Post's policy of encouraging anonymity does anything but lower the tone:
Outspoken Minister Out Of The Obama Campaign
Tell me that anyone reading through these quotes would ever learn anything at all, beyond that political operatives and their camp followers have a lot of time on their hands. As I said, when you encourage this sort of crap, the bad drives out the good.
I guess that if your idea of "free speech" consists of "forums" that essntially come down to "yo' momma" vs. "no, yo' momma", then this is the best of all possible worlds. Of course we can avoid it if we wish, as I do in nearly every case. And of course it's not the end of the world, either. But I still wonder what the hell the editors of the Post are thinking when they read through that sort of drivel, if indeed they ever do.
I don't understand why these comments bother you so much.
That's a fair point, though so much of what is posted anonymously on forums or in comments takes the form of vacuity, or even actual fighting words. The worst offender I've seen lately is something called JuicyCampus, which amounts to a virtual bathroom wall.
There is excellent anonymous commentary on some blogs, especially Kevin Drum's Political Animal blog for Washington Monthly. No registration is required there, and while there is some trolling and mudslinging, you often get a fascinating range of information from the comments. But many political and sport sites just attract the bathroom-wall writers. Free speech on bathroom walls is fine, but I'm with Costas here, why would you spend much time reading it.
Like Andy's (and many others here), incidentally, my real identity is all of three clicks away. I go by Dernier on BTF because I really like the GGC type of handle.
Because they make real discussion nearly impossible. Because papers like the Post should do better. Because a forum in the Washington Post shouldn't be that hard to distinguish from Little Green Footballs. Sorry if that POV seems to bother you.
Of course BTF is dealing with a pretty specialized and, for the most part, highly educated and downrigtht decent group of readers/posters, so it's kind of self policing. Still, I don't see why newspapers can't make even a modicum of a barrier to screen out the laziest trolls.
Ultimately though, it's so easy to ignore commenters, that I'm not sure why Costas cares.
That's true on that site, just as it's true here on BTF. But that's largely due to the fact that BTF and the WM are boutique sites that the usual suspects don't bother with. Which is why my original comments were more directed at the Post and other mainstream websites.
And it's interesting to note that on the Post itself, you often get lots of good give and take. But that's much more the case on their formal discussion forums, which also allow anonymous posting, but have someone screening the comments and questions. As a result, you get a much higher level of discussion than you do elsewhere on the Post website, since the sort of repetitive and nasty personal attacks are simply not posted. This quaint practice is called "editing."
I totally agree. Although I do avoid the Lounge.
Of course, I don't care who you are. My point, I thought was obvious, was that you are not anonymous yet your post was very hate-filled, the type you claim is caused by being anonymous.
There are many people who spout hateful ignorant speech that use their real name: Rush L, Ozzie G, Bush, Dickie V or many people on ESPN. If you want to get rid of that type of speech, encourage logic, science and education over war and PR.
My point about the people with jobs, wasn't the same as yours. Mine was that people can and do post highly educated writings from within their field that they couldn't if they had to use their real name, due to their jobs. They would not be able to make these posts, if they could not do so anonymously: which brings down the intelligence level of internet posts, and censors speech that is necessary (e.g., whistleblowing). I am less concerned with getting rid of the stupid hateful quotes, than keeping the intelligent and needed ones.
Stop projecting. I just asked you a question.
Hey Costas... Yo Mama!
There are two ways to deal with it, though. You can adapt or you can rage against things. And really, there are a lot of ink writers adapting. Doing blogs or at least engaging them. Sharpening their commentary or stressing their access (which is still a good thing to have no matter what Leitch says) in order to differentiate themselves and stay relevant in the new world.
Then you have all of the others who sound like the guy in Office Space. "Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god d*mn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!"
There are many people who spout hateful ignorant speech that use their real name: Rush L, Ozzie G, Bush, Dickie V or many people on ESPN. If you want to get rid of that type of speech, encourage logic, science and education over war and PR.
What, exactly, was "hateful" about my post? Was it the "f ucking morons"? Read some of the comments I linked to and then tell me if I'm being "hateful" or merely descriptive.
My point about the people with jobs, wasn't the same as yours. Mine was that people can and do post highly educated writings from within their field that they couldn't if they had to use their real name, due to their jobs. They would not be able to make these posts, if they could not do so anonymously.
That's fine, but as long as they're anonymous, how is anyone to establish their credibility? Anyone can claim to be dishing dirt from inside the bowels of the government or a big corporation, and how do you distinguish between the real ones and the fakes? By crystal ball? By whether they reinforce your own particular point of view?
I don't understand why these comments bother you so much.
Because they make real discussion nearly impossible. Because papers like the Post should do better. Because a forum in the Washington Post shouldn't be that hard to distinguish from Little Green Footballs. Sorry if that POV seems to bother you.
Stop projecting. I just asked you a question.
And I answered it in the first three sentences. The last sentence was merely a rhetorical reflection of your own rhetorical comment.
BTW just to be clear, I'm not defending MSM writers or yakkers in general, nor am I attacking bloggers per se. In fact as a class, I'd say that the best bloggers are far, far better than all but the top handful of MSM types. I've always liked Costas, but I'm not really defending everything he says here.
I hope people remember this statement from Andy next time they say "I'm still mad about BTF registration!"
awesome read. thanks for sharing
Well, we have kevin.
"Weak Links in American Navy."
awesome read. thanks for sharing
Thanks, Rent. You should check out the rest of that website sometime. That Pearl Harbor poster is only one of more than 600.
I'd put this forward as what a good blog is. It provides an inside view of the sportswriting profession and brings POVs from people in the game as well as pertinent comments from readers. Not that a good blogger has to be a MSM type, there are plenty of other examples. But I think that is what is so frustrating about all the crap on the internet. It CAN be such a great resource for information and discourse that when f ucking morons, as Andy calls them, stick their mouths in, it really sucks.
My free for all hero has always been a military book collector friend of mine who used to double as a bouncer at the infamous Good Guys club in Georgetown. One of the grossest sights I've ever seen (and smelled) was one hot August day when he came into my shop, removed three layers of sweatsox, and started cleaning his toenails with his pocket knife. Just before I turned away in disgust I noticed that his big toe was permanently crossed over the next one, as a result of "a little tussle down at the Good Guys," where he tried to kick a biker but kicked the brick wall instead. Good times. And if you want, I'll put you in touch with him and his broken bottle collection....
Also, how much is the need for anonymous posting based on the need to hide their identity during times they're at work--and presumably doing something other than being on the internet? Is that a big motivational factor in hiding identity?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
But more important than any of that is that we have a right to be anonymous. Anonymity has the drawback of making people less likely to trust in the supposed truth of our statements and claims, but it has the advantage of allowing discourse that is free from interpersonal political motivation. We can choose as individuals whether we prefer the advantage of anonymity or prefer to avoid its disadvantage, but if we were to lose that right, it would be a Bad Thing, just as the loss of any personal right would be.
What's the utility of non-anonymous posting for most people?
My identity is two clicks away from this screen, but I use a screen name because I don't like the idea of having a more-than-temporary record of every stupid thing I post here attached to my name.
There's no real life equivalent of that, where something you say may offend somebody months or years down the road because a third party cited the date, time and location.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main