crap, sensationalism, and all about getting clicks. The truth be dammed.
Patterson Plank -- you are generally a reasonable poster. I don't get what you are so irate about here. Even McAdoo said we'll see how he responds to treatment -- there are no definites here. All these guys are doing is saying "could" -- it's news.
Its the thing in its entirety that is getting to me. I saw Graziano on some ESPN fantasy show last night, and he was going on and on about Beckham missing games. Then he gets "lauded" for quality reporting. It sounded just like Wolf Blitzer to me on CNN when someone comes on with complete crap, and he ends it with "Great reporting". Odell says he will play, the Giants say its just a twisted ankle, he was walking around with nothing on his ankle in the 2nd half, and there is 3 weeks to go.
IMO they are stretching the truth to make a story. Now if we are on September 8th and we hear the Odell still isn't cleared then I'd be fine with this. But now, its no more than a guess to create clicks.
everything about Beckham is news and people want to read about it. If I'm a reporter, and someone who's information I think places weight on a speculation, and they are a source because they don't want to be identified -- then I'm reporting it.
If you're complaining about it because people want to read it - then I really am flabbergasted.
Now if it is just being made up -- and there is no credible source -- or they are just using their interpretation of what has already been publically said - for instance by someone like McAdoo -- then that goes to the integrity of the Journalist
everything about Beckham is news and people want to read about it. If I'm a reporter, and someone who's information I think places weight on a speculation, and they are a source because they don't want to be identified -- then I'm reporting it.
If you're complaining about it because people want to read it - then I really am flabbergasted.
Now if it is just being made up -- and there is no credible source -- or they are just using their interpretation of what has already been publically said - for instance by someone like McAdoo -- then that goes to the integrity of the Journalist
gidi another thing, not even 3 hours before that was written ranaan said that mcadoo was being secretive amd that is why he thought it was worsr no sources...
then he was asked will beckham play week 1, he said he thinks so, and that he has no sources and it was just a guess
Of new information, however I don't see the need for people to be nasty about it, I know, "thin skin thin skin". There is absolutely no reason to be personal about an article. Sometimes I think it's a being rude and downright mean is a prerequisite for this place.
The Golden rule around here seems to be, "if you say something I deem stupid, I get to treat you like trash".
Perhaps instead of insulting someone who made comments deemed stupid, that post or comment could be ignored (which is against personal pride), or attempt to educate the person on why their comments are off base.
that people want to read it. I'm complaining that the Art of Journalism no longer exists.
There's also a subtle difference here - people will read whatever news is about Beckham, but should that be the impetus for spreading "news" that isn't educating the reader or providing them any insight? If you take that stance, then pretty much reporting anything constitutes a good job and serving the public's wants.
Raanan didn't make anything up because he didn't provide anything to refute. Once he used the word "could" that shirked any responsibility he has to be tied to the validity of the reporting.
Like I said, if he wrote "Source: Beckham with High Ankle Sprain. First 4 games of season in doubt" Even then - he uses a term like "doubt", but he's at least provided a specific injury and a timetable of games missed.
i think ranaan is a good writer, good reporter, just took me back he would write something like this with graziano of all people...
and the whole retweeting doctors on the internet is also a little much if you ask me, but he was the one making a living writing about sports and i am just a nobody on a message board so who am i to judge...
I understand that -- in fact I talked with a number of the Journalists on the beat about this at Camp -- and had a nice chat especially with Dan Duggan.
The beats in general certainly have a different perspective than most of our readers would like - as they are a lot of times trying to gain readership for their respective bosses. I'm afraid that there is an element of capitalism involved in all this -- they all have to have their bills paid.
then that's news or info ..than the obvious of he "may miss the opener 2 weeks away"..plus even Odell doesn't know 2 weeks out if he'll be sidelined...yeesh..its bad journalism tactic for clicks now
It's not news because it's obvious? Holy Moly!
yes..i guess you don't get the jist of it as other in other words stated as well.
Old people tend to forget that online publications require new content all day long. So now you have "articles" which are merely a few statements based off of a few quotes that are really blog post updates.
People need to chill.
Writers need to constantly be writing stuff and you get smaller tidbits now throughout the day.
Internet publications changed things years ago. Catch up.
Old people tend to forget that online publications require new content all day long. So now you have "articles" which are merely a few statements based off of a few quotes that are really blog post updates.
People need to chill.
Writers need to constantly be writing stuff and you get smaller tidbits now throughout the day.
Internet publications changed things years ago. Catch up.
that has nothing to do with it...
he could of wrote the exact same article and didnt write it like it was a source and there would be no problem...
if beckham plays against cowboys do you say ph ranaan was wrong?
of course he could, until he practices of course he could miss the opener...
Thia officially makes your comments ridiculous -- if you agree that it may be true, then what's the problem? Really you are making very little sense here. Move on
How about "OBJ could play in opener despite ankle sprain"? It's still the same bs IMO with the "could" but taking the positive approach doesn't get clicks.
Anything could happen, and I agree with most here, source or not, the headline is click bait. The article offers nothing concrete and does nothing for me except regret for clicking on it.
It's important for BBI to remember that beat writers such as yourself can see Shepard supposedly shed tears from 120+ yards
^^^
This.
This is far more damaging than how the OBJ's opening-game status was reported/surmised/discussed. This reporting, if true, is pure imagination, or utter fabrication.
And because of this, then of course reasonable readers will FOREVER question whether any "sources" this reporter EVER cites really exist, or whether it's just another one of his imagination/fabrication.
Couple years ago, an ID here ("Rich_Houston_Giants_WR_1972" or something like that) claimed he just attended a Giants road game, and sat on the 1st row behind the team's bench, and overheard many conversations among the players, mostly echoing the sentiments that had been recently expressed here in BBI ("our team are getting old", "so-and-so player can't play; should replace him with so-and-so", and so on). His thread was first met with great positive responses, until someone declared that he didn't believe a word of it, that no way one could hear players talk in a noisy stadium even from where he claimed to be sitting, and even more unbelievably, the players just happened to echo opinions being voiced here at BBI. He demanded Rich Houston to show his game ticket, or any other evidence, that he was even in the stadium for that road game ...
This "I saw Sterling Shepard shedding tears" reporting while standing 120 yards away, if true, is in the same nature as Rich Houston's story.
This is stupid. The only news on Beckham that matters
Quote:
crap, sensationalism, and all about getting clicks. The truth be dammed.
Patterson Plank -- you are generally a reasonable poster. I don't get what you are so irate about here. Even McAdoo said we'll see how he responds to treatment -- there are no definites here. All these guys are doing is saying "could" -- it's news.
Its the thing in its entirety that is getting to me. I saw Graziano on some ESPN fantasy show last night, and he was going on and on about Beckham missing games. Then he gets "lauded" for quality reporting. It sounded just like Wolf Blitzer to me on CNN when someone comes on with complete crap, and he ends it with "Great reporting". Odell says he will play, the Giants say its just a twisted ankle, he was walking around with nothing on his ankle in the 2nd half, and there is 3 weeks to go.
IMO they are stretching the truth to make a story. Now if we are on September 8th and we hear the Odell still isn't cleared then I'd be fine with this. But now, its no more than a guess to create clicks.
Hell, I 'could' run into Blake Lively tonight.
If you're complaining about it because people want to read it - then I really am flabbergasted.
Now if it is just being made up -- and there is no credible source -- or they are just using their interpretation of what has already been publically said - for instance by someone like McAdoo -- then that goes to the integrity of the Journalist
If you're complaining about it because people want to read it - then I really am flabbergasted.
Now if it is just being made up -- and there is no credible source -- or they are just using their interpretation of what has already been publically said - for instance by someone like McAdoo -- then that goes to the integrity of the Journalist
gidi another thing, not even 3 hours before that was written ranaan said that mcadoo was being secretive amd that is why he thought it was worsr no sources...
then he was asked will beckham play week 1, he said he thinks so, and that he has no sources and it was just a guess
The Golden rule around here seems to be, "if you say something I deem stupid, I get to treat you like trash".
Perhaps instead of insulting someone who made comments deemed stupid, that post or comment could be ignored (which is against personal pride), or attempt to educate the person on why their comments are off base.
There's also a subtle difference here - people will read whatever news is about Beckham, but should that be the impetus for spreading "news" that isn't educating the reader or providing them any insight? If you take that stance, then pretty much reporting anything constitutes a good job and serving the public's wants.
Raanan didn't make anything up because he didn't provide anything to refute. Once he used the word "could" that shirked any responsibility he has to be tied to the validity of the reporting.
Like I said, if he wrote "Source: Beckham with High Ankle Sprain. First 4 games of season in doubt" Even then - he uses a term like "doubt", but he's at least provided a specific injury and a timetable of games missed.
What does - "He could miss the opener" even mean.
'Could' is just so damn vague. There was no meat to the article.
and the whole retweeting doctors on the internet is also a little much if you ask me, but he was the one making a living writing about sports and i am just a nobody on a message board so who am i to judge...
'Could' is just so damn vague. There was no meat to the article.
Sf, I'm not sure why you thought I was including you
The beats in general certainly have a different perspective than most of our readers would like - as they are a lot of times trying to gain readership for their respective bosses. I'm afraid that there is an element of capitalism involved in all this -- they all have to have their bills paid.
Man bites dog is still the golden rule for them.
Even better, have Flowers give him a noogie messing up his hair and throw him in a locker.
Quote:
then that's news or info ..than the obvious of he "may miss the opener 2 weeks away"..plus even Odell doesn't know 2 weeks out if he'll be sidelined...yeesh..its bad journalism tactic for clicks now
It's not news because it's obvious? Holy Moly!
yes..i guess you don't get the jist of it as other in other words stated as well.
People need to chill.
Writers need to constantly be writing stuff and you get smaller tidbits now throughout the day.
Internet publications changed things years ago. Catch up.
People need to chill.
Writers need to constantly be writing stuff and you get smaller tidbits now throughout the day.
Internet publications changed things years ago. Catch up.
that has nothing to do with it...
he could of wrote the exact same article and didnt write it like it was a source and there would be no problem...
if beckham plays against cowboys do you say ph ranaan was wrong?
What does - "He could miss the opener" even mean. [/quote]
It means he may not play Week 1. I agree with gidiefor, there is no reason to bash him or say this isn't journalism.
Quote:
of course he could, until he practices of course he could miss the opener...
Thia officially makes your comments ridiculous -- if you agree that it may be true, then what's the problem? Really you are making very little sense here. Move on
How about "OBJ could play in opener despite ankle sprain"? It's still the same bs IMO with the "could" but taking the positive approach doesn't get clicks.
Anything could happen, and I agree with most here, source or not, the headline is click bait. The article offers nothing concrete and does nothing for me except regret for clicking on it.
^^^
This.
This is far more damaging than how the OBJ's opening-game status was reported/surmised/discussed. This reporting, if true, is pure imagination, or utter fabrication.
And because of this, then of course reasonable readers will FOREVER question whether any "sources" this reporter EVER cites really exist, or whether it's just another one of his imagination/fabrication.
Couple years ago, an ID here ("Rich_Houston_Giants_WR_1972" or something like that) claimed he just attended a Giants road game, and sat on the 1st row behind the team's bench, and overheard many conversations among the players, mostly echoing the sentiments that had been recently expressed here in BBI ("our team are getting old", "so-and-so player can't play; should replace him with so-and-so", and so on). His thread was first met with great positive responses, until someone declared that he didn't believe a word of it, that no way one could hear players talk in a noisy stadium even from where he claimed to be sitting, and even more unbelievably, the players just happened to echo opinions being voiced here at BBI. He demanded Rich Houston to show his game ticket, or any other evidence, that he was even in the stadium for that road game ...
This "I saw Sterling Shepard shedding tears" reporting while standing 120 yards away, if true, is in the same nature as Rich Houston's story.
Until then, clicking on Ranaan or any other beat's article is your own damn fault...