I dont know where to begin. Bart, you got it all wrong. First I want to inform you that this anonymous blogger has two Masters degrees, one in media/comm from the London School of Economics and Politics, the other in media/journ from the Annenberg school. My partner has a Phd. We dont put those silly educated titles up cause they dont really mean squat. We are first and foremost fans, thats what qualifies us to talk about Clemson.
Bart writes in his info about himself: "He also finds marketing and commercials toxic to his sensibilities and does not believe culture is his friend; he deems it sad when people develop tribal attitudes toward their sports teams and wonders how those warped priorities impact the rest of their lives" (yes, the emphasis is all mine). Well if you start with that biased assumption then you are going to hate blogs, bloggers, and the fans that inhabit them no matter what. Real great objective viewpoint you got there Mr. Wright. You might call it warped but 'newsflash' online sociality is where fans go to deepen their experiences as fans, interacting together--building friendships and group solidarity. This isnt some backward phenomena its WEB 2.0 the natural progression of sports and social networking. So dont complain that your a dinosaur who is afraid of new cultural movements swirling around you, adapt or die but dont critique us fans who just want to talk Clemson sports because we love them. And yes, we wouldnt spend so much time investing in the team if we didnt--we'd like to see a return on those emotional, monetary investments once in awhile as well.
Here is another Newsflash--journalistic integrity ended with Ed Murrow. Yellow journalism controls the corporate nature of your alleged 4th estate. You have to worry about offended your sources and compromise almost every time you write a story. How about more serious gut check questions for Dabo and company? Why dont you nail him on how many plays he changes, if he gets the protections called as well, did Pearman ask him to stop changing calls?? You say that the anonymous blogger got "everything wrong", well lots of blogs wrote about it--which one got it all wrong? You cant even bring yourself to cite this anonymous blog. And wait, protecting sources--anonymity?? I think that was your profession that came up with the entire concept.
The facts are this--an altercation happened between Dabo and Napier, it may happen all the time but its newsworthy because it happened the week after a 2-3 start and amidst a pathetic offensive showing. For the time being we are the 5th estate, trying to make journalists more accountable for there lackadaisical reporting of football. Sports journalists are accountable to the people--the fans. And now we live online, and we arent going away. Get over it or get a new profession.
Did you report on the metrics of the study you cite (oh wait no link??), why the Columbus Dispatch may have a vested interest in paying for a study that derides blogs. Do we need to talk about the lead-up to Iraq (regardless of your politics) and all the fact checking that didnt go on by the top 'professional' journalists in your field? Since when were Op-Eds not purely opinion. We all understand when we read a blog that its the guys opinion about TDP, read it like an Op-Ed and your life will be better. Dont apply your tired paradigm here--we work within the fluidity of a chaotic hypertextual world.
Bart I see you like books. Go read some Henry Jenkins (I recommend Convergence Culture), participatory culture is not to be feared--it has good and bad points but it is the present. I know this all comes from being a Raiders fan, so really I dont blame you...
No comments:
Post a Comment