It sounds like Woj runs his column like Hedda Hopper, Queen of Hollywood gossip back in the day. She would cozy up to you if your star was on the rise, and if you didn't pay respect or feed her tidbits you ran the risk of her turning on you later. _________________ We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden
Stein is a shill of Mark Cuban, the main difference between Woj and Stein (besides Woj almost always being first) is Stein answers to his masters, Woj answers to himself, so their narratives tend to run in a for my masters vs for my self angle. Just look at the dog (bleep) he pumped out for Cuban over Rondo (Bonus challenge for the day : find a trade using Dallas' assets, not including their best 4 players that wouldn't be paying 5c on the dollar for Rondo).
Great point! Woj would never report anything ridiculous like that!
Lots of reporters make trades with sources -- give me a scoop on X and I will/won't report Y.
To me, the thing that defines Woj is that he mashes every thing together -- true reporting, conjecture, and opinion -- in a way that he doesn;t make it clear where one starts and the other ends. And because he tends to be a hitman, he uses that approach to try to make his personal opinions seem like reportage,
He's a great scoop guy, and that's his real value. His opinion and reporting pieces have become increasingly bad and lazy, in my opinion, because he uses the personal-opinion-disguised-as-reporting tactic way too much to create sensationalism that he can't really back up.
Joined: 13 Apr 2001 Posts: 11882 Location: Looking outta the window, watching the asphalt grow ...
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:53 pm Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
I thought this was a good and fair article.
Lots of reporters make trades with sources -- give me a scoop on X and I will/won't report Y.
To me, the thing that defines Woj is that he mashes every thing together -- true reporting, conjecture, and opinion -- in a way that he doesn;t make it clear where one starts and the other ends. And because he tends to be a hitman, he uses that approach to try to make his personal opinions seem like reportage,
He's a great scoop guy, and that's his real value. His opinion and reporting pieces have become increasingly bad and lazy, in my opinion, because he uses the personal-opinion-disguised-as-reporting tactic way too much to create sensationalism that he can't really back up.
Stein is a shill of Mark Cuban, the main difference between Woj and Stein (besides Woj almost always being first) is Stein answers to his masters, Woj answers to himself, so their narratives tend to run in a for my masters vs for my self angle. Just look at the dog (bleep) he pumped out for Cuban over Rondo (Bonus challenge for the day : find a trade using Dallas' assets, not including their best 4 players that wouldn't be paying 5c on the dollar for Rondo).
Great point! Woj would never report anything ridiculous like that!
there's a difference between saying that they're trying to trade for him, and calling their nonsense offer the leading suitor, sort of ironic not to spot that in a thread about how people doctor their delivery. _________________ I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong
Stein is a shill of Mark Cuban, the main difference between Woj and Stein (besides Woj almost always being first) is Stein answers to his masters, Woj answers to himself, so their narratives tend to run in a for my masters vs for my self angle. Just look at the dog (bleep) he pumped out for Cuban over Rondo (Bonus challenge for the day : find a trade using Dallas' assets, not including their best 4 players that wouldn't be paying 5c on the dollar for Rondo).
Great point! Woj would never report anything ridiculous like that!
there's a difference between saying that they're trying to trade for him, and calling their nonsense offer the leading suitor, sort of ironic not to spot that in a thread about how people doctor their delivery.
I remember watching Yahoo! Sports videos where they talk to Woj and Marc Spears. In 2007, Woj was asked who among the then-lesser known players he thinks would do well. He mentioned Rodney Stuckey, who was later picked by the Pistons.
ironically, he was spot on... Randle was a risk, and a injury waiting to happen. _________________ "Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it."
Looks like the writer of this hit piece on Woj did so for the benefit of one Lebron James. The best declining player in the world has definitely enjoyed a frosty relationship with LBJ and this writer is trying to curry favor with James by exposing it. _________________ "I was laying myself on the line by saying, if this doesn't work in three to four years, if we're not back on the top then I will step down because that means I have failed,"
Jim Buss (2013)
Give me the most accurate scoop the fastest most often over the best and least biased analytical article any day.
To me, it depends on the type of scoop. If a reporter is the first to find out about something that everyone else is going to know about in 15 minutes (a trade was made), that's not a big deal to me. If a reporter finds a scoop that if not for him would never see the light of day, I find that valuable. However, that type of scoop is rare.
I'm not following NBA news so closely that knowing about a trade or injury an hour or two faster means much to me. I'd rather read a compelling piece of analysis.
I'm not following NBA news so closely that knowing about a trade or injury an hour or two faster means much to me. I'd rather read a compelling piece of analysis.
I agree, but as the other poster says, finding a compelling piece of analysis can be a chore. Along those lines, the ESPN Ombudsman wrote a piece a couple weeks ago arguing that ESPN should raise its journalistic standards. I don't entirely agree with him, because ESPN is (as its name indicates) about entertainment and sports, not serious journalism. Anyway, he made one comment that struck me:
Quote:
As Laurie Orlando, ESPN’s senior vice president of talent development and planning, told me last year, “This is a halfway house for coaches. We build up relationships, and we have better access when they go back to coaching. And they’ll come back to us again if they had a good experience.”
Those kinds of revolving doors (similar to ones that spin for former political operatives on mainstream news shows) can end up turning some of the analysts into spokespeople for an industry they might want to return to, rather than full-hearted sharers of informed opinions. They need to be used more skillfully by producers as opinionated sidekicks to journalists rather than as alpha dogs with host puppies.
One ESPN broadcast journalist complained to me about having to deal with “guys who have no idea about issues and storylines, who have to be guided back to areas they know something about. They are always falling back on that they played the game and you didn’t.”
I'm not following NBA news so closely that knowing about a trade or injury an hour or two faster means much to me. I'd rather read a compelling piece of analysis.
I agree, but as the other poster says, finding a compelling piece of analysis can be a chore. Along those lines, the ESPN Ombudsman wrote a piece a couple weeks ago arguing that ESPN should raise its journalistic standards. I don't entirely agree with him, because ESPN is (as its name indicates) about entertainment and sports, not serious journalism. Anyway, he made one comment that struck me:
Quote:
As Laurie Orlando, ESPN’s senior vice president of talent development and planning, told me last year, “This is a halfway house for coaches. We build up relationships, and we have better access when they go back to coaching. And they’ll come back to us again if they had a good experience.”
Those kinds of revolving doors (similar to ones that spin for former political operatives on mainstream news shows) can end up turning some of the analysts into spokespeople for an industry they might want to return to, rather than full-hearted sharers of informed opinions. They need to be used more skillfully by producers as opinionated sidekicks to journalists rather than as alpha dogs with host puppies.
One ESPN broadcast journalist complained to me about having to deal with “guys who have no idea about issues and storylines, who have to be guided back to areas they know something about. They are always falling back on that they played the game and you didn’t.”
I'd go a step further. I don't think people want serious journalism from ESPN. They don't mind the occasional article about concussions but they want 99% of the coverage to be gossipy tidbits. So I think the ombudsman is kidding himself about what the purpose of the network is. He's kidding himself if he thinks coaches and players who are analysts want to become journalists; they want to be personalities. I mean, heck most of ESPN columnists want to be personalities rather than journalists. And why not -- readers and viewers reward personalities more than journalism. That's why Woj is so successful -- he's more of a personality than a journalist.
I'm not following NBA news so closely that knowing about a trade or injury an hour or two faster means much to me. I'd rather read a compelling piece of analysis.
I agree, but as the other poster says, finding a compelling piece of analysis can be a chore. Along those lines, the ESPN Ombudsman wrote a piece a couple weeks ago arguing that ESPN should raise its journalistic standards. I don't entirely agree with him, because ESPN is (as its name indicates) about entertainment and sports, not serious journalism. Anyway, he made one comment that struck me:
Quote:
As Laurie Orlando, ESPN’s senior vice president of talent development and planning, told me last year, “This is a halfway house for coaches. We build up relationships, and we have better access when they go back to coaching. And they’ll come back to us again if they had a good experience.”
Those kinds of revolving doors (similar to ones that spin for former political operatives on mainstream news shows) can end up turning some of the analysts into spokespeople for an industry they might want to return to, rather than full-hearted sharers of informed opinions. They need to be used more skillfully by producers as opinionated sidekicks to journalists rather than as alpha dogs with host puppies.
One ESPN broadcast journalist complained to me about having to deal with “guys who have no idea about issues and storylines, who have to be guided back to areas they know something about. They are always falling back on that they played the game and you didn’t.”
I'd go a step further. I don't think people want serious journalism from ESPN. They don't mind the occasional article about concussions but they want 99% of the coverage to be gossipy tidbits. So I think the ombudsman is kidding himself about what the purpose of the network is. He's kidding himself if he thinks coaches and players who are analysts want to become journalists; they want to be personalities. I mean, heck most of ESPN columnists want to be personalities rather than journalists. And why not -- readers and viewers reward personalities more than journalism. That's why Woj is so successful -- he's more of a personality than a journalist.
I'm not following NBA news so closely that knowing about a trade or injury an hour or two faster means much to me. I'd rather read a compelling piece of analysis.
I agree, but as the other poster says, finding a compelling piece of analysis can be a chore. Along those lines, the ESPN Ombudsman wrote a piece a couple weeks ago arguing that ESPN should raise its journalistic standards. I don't entirely agree with him, because ESPN is (as its name indicates) about entertainment and sports, not serious journalism. Anyway, he made one comment that struck me:
Quote:
As Laurie Orlando, ESPN’s senior vice president of talent development and planning, told me last year, “This is a halfway house for coaches. We build up relationships, and we have better access when they go back to coaching. And they’ll come back to us again if they had a good experience.”
Those kinds of revolving doors (similar to ones that spin for former political operatives on mainstream news shows) can end up turning some of the analysts into spokespeople for an industry they might want to return to, rather than full-hearted sharers of informed opinions. They need to be used more skillfully by producers as opinionated sidekicks to journalists rather than as alpha dogs with host puppies.
One ESPN broadcast journalist complained to me about having to deal with “guys who have no idea about issues and storylines, who have to be guided back to areas they know something about. They are always falling back on that they played the game and you didn’t.”
ESPN Ombudsmen have been complaining about their lack of journalistic integrity and standards for nearly a decade. As you said, ESPN don't care because they ain't journalist. Too bad they clothe themselves of the trappings of same. _________________ “It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
I'm not following NBA news so closely that knowing about a trade or injury an hour or two faster means much to me. I'd rather read a compelling piece of analysis.
I agree, but as the other poster says, finding a compelling piece of analysis can be a chore. Along those lines, the ESPN Ombudsman wrote a piece a couple weeks ago arguing that ESPN should raise its journalistic standards. I don't entirely agree with him, because ESPN is (as its name indicates) about entertainment and sports, not serious journalism. Anyway, he made one comment that struck me:
Quote:
As Laurie Orlando, ESPN’s senior vice president of talent development and planning, told me last year, “This is a halfway house for coaches. We build up relationships, and we have better access when they go back to coaching. And they’ll come back to us again if they had a good experience.”
Those kinds of revolving doors (similar to ones that spin for former political operatives on mainstream news shows) can end up turning some of the analysts into spokespeople for an industry they might want to return to, rather than full-hearted sharers of informed opinions. They need to be used more skillfully by producers as opinionated sidekicks to journalists rather than as alpha dogs with host puppies.
One ESPN broadcast journalist complained to me about having to deal with “guys who have no idea about issues and storylines, who have to be guided back to areas they know something about. They are always falling back on that they played the game and you didn’t.”
I'd go a step further. I don't think people want serious journalism from ESPN. They don't mind the occasional article about concussions but they want 99% of the coverage to be gossipy tidbits. So I think the ombudsman is kidding himself about what the purpose of the network is. He's kidding himself if he thinks coaches and players who are analysts want to become journalists; they want to be personalities. I mean, heck most of ESPN columnists want to be personalities rather than journalists. And why not -- readers and viewers reward personalities more than journalism. That's why Woj is so successful -- he's more of a personality than a journalist.
I don't think that's limited to just ESPN.
I agree. Sports journalism gives people what they want - trivia and gossip.
Absolutely. I'm not shocked that he does that sort of stuff. I'm sure most of his competitors do the same thing. Still, it's jolting to see it actually spelled out. And the article does provide some context for Woj's hatchet jobs. If you don't play ball with Woj, you may wind up in the crosshairs.
Isn't that the way with most if not all of the media types? They like you, they love you, you stiff them, they HATE you! I remember when Vanessa Bryant had an ectopic pregnancy and had to miss a scheduled meeting with some person or other. That dude that writes for ESPN, Marshkazi or something like that, wrote a hatchet piece that basically called Kobe a self-centered POS for stiffing the guy. When news came out that Vanessa had had an ectopic....i.e...LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCY....not a peep of an apology from dude. I even wrote him to ask him if he planned on apologizing. He never responded.
We have several members of the media who post here, one of whom defends the media at ALL times yet never discloses that he is a member of the media.
I remember when there was a spread about me in the LA times when I graduated medical school in 1993.
To say the piece was filled with lies and quotes taken out of context would be an understatement. As far as I am concerned, there is virtually no journalistic integrity, perhaps never has been. Yet they place themselves as some sort of arbitors of truth.
(bleep).
Interesting piece. But the article is useless without a picture of the fro.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum