re: Dan Le Batard--"New journalism is degraded by public’s demand"

quote:

---

The same retard who reported that Harbaugh was going to coach the Dolphins.

He's part of the problem too.

---

Let me ask you this: Do you think that EVERY journalist who has reported something that turns out inaccurate is a bad journalist, or "part of the problem?"

I'm interested to see your answer here.

I've been pimping Lebatard on this board for as long as I can remember. He is the best in the business. That's a great article. I listen to his podcast just about every day.

ive never read any of his writing so it may be good but that dude is a serious douche.

quote:

---

ive never read any of his writing so it may be good but that dude is a serious douche.

---

Just curious, but does that opinion mainly come from his work on PTI?


Because he is a completely different dude on that show. IT's just for entertainment purposes. Granted, if you listened to his radio show, you may think he's still a douche, many do lol. But he's a brilliant douche, who is also pretty damn funny.

My take on the ESPN personalities is this:

The guys who cut their teeth as sportswriters tend to be better, IMO, than the guys who got there through the radio.

In other words, I prefer the writers who happen to be on TV or the radio over the radio guys who get to be on TV.

quote:

---

Because he is a completely different dude on that show. IT's just for entertainment purposes. Granted, if you listened to his radio show, you may think he's still a douche, many do lol. But he's a brilliant douche, who is also pretty damn funny.

---

Hoch and Stugotz are hilarious

quote:

---

Hoch and Stugotz are hilarious

---

Stu is funny in the fact that he is the typical sports fan. And I wonder if it's a running joke that he was an English major. There is no way that can be true, lol.

Hoch is one funny m'fer. Absolutely hilarious dude, very witty.

quote:

---

Just curious, but does that opinion mainly come from his work on PTI?


Because he is a completely different dude on that show. IT's just for entertainment purposes. Granted, if you listened to his radio show, you may think he's still a douche, many do lol. But he's a brilliant douche, who is also pretty damn funny.

---

+1

quote:

---

I agree to a degree. But was it really so bad to have a class of writers who got the most exposure because they presumably had the classical training, education, and career credentials and accomplishments to land a position at a major paper before they were able to commandeer the national spotlight with their work? I'm not sure that was such a bad thing. Sure there are good and bad professional journalists, but now the entire filtration process is dumped on the public, where it was once a gradual process that went over several steps of filtration within the industry before it was dropped on our heads to filter the noise emitting from blowhards and actual respectable journalists.

---

Yes and no. What makes a good columnist is completely different than what makes a good reporter. I'll use two poeple who I genuinely like, so don't take this as a slam. Gammons is a terrible columnist. However, he's a brilliant reporter. If he says a trade is happening, I believe him. If he says a trade is going to work, I don't. Thomas Boswell is the opposite. Wonderful columnist, and he's the guy who first inspired me to study baseball more closely and reject conventional wisdom about the game. There's probably not a writer who influenced me more as a kid, as I devoured his columns. He's also one of the worst beat reporters ever, as he falls for the company line every time.

I think seperating analysis and reporting is a good thing. No one does reporting better than your local beat writer. I mean that. It's a hard job, and no one on earth knows the team better than that scribe who has to follow around that team every day. He knows more than the rest of us put together. I love beat reporters, who are still real journalists and generally have a hard job for little pay.

however, when it comes to looking at the information and then determining what it all means, your local columnist sucks. Going to journalism school and the years of filing copy on high school volleyball did not prepare him to analyze data. He most likely parrots conventional wisdom and tired cliches without question. He's also likely a local celebrity, enjoying the perks of the job. He ceased to be a journalist usually the day he got a byline. I think, usually, he's been the one contributing to the noise more than anyone. He just has a bigger microphone.

quote:

---

What has happened now is that it's not only no longer a requirement to adhere to the standards of professional journalistic ethics--it's downright destructive to one's career. Why is that?--Because the public now demands that they compete with the immediacy and perversion of blogs. I think this is Mr. Le Batard's central point here.

---

And this is ethically wrong, and I agree with LeBatard's basic thesis. The collapse of "off the record" is truly saddening. Just because these guys make millions doesn't make them less deserving of basic privacy.

quote:

---

But at the root of it all, are these few good blogs worth the total destruction of any sort of ethical journalistic standards that once existed?

---

I think this is a false choice. These blogs did exist as newsletters and niche books before the internet (Bill James famously stapled his Abstracts himself). It's just given them a wide audience. If they provide quality analysis, the blog thrives. If it sucks, it's the bleacher report.

quote:

---

I think seperating analysis and reporting is a good thing. No one does reporting better than your local beat writer. I mean that. It's a hard job, and no one on earth knows the team better than that scribe who has to follow around that team every day. He knows more than the rest of us put together. I love beat reporters, who are still real journalists and generally have a hard job for little pay.

however, when it comes to looking at the information and then determining what it all means, your local columnist sucks. Going to journalism school and the years of filing copy on high school volleyball did not prepare him to analyze data. He most likely parrots conventional wisdom and tired cliches without question. He's also likely a local celebrity, enjoying the perks of the job. He ceased to be a journalist usually the day he got a byline. I think, usually, he's been the one contributing to the noise more than anyone. He just has a bigger microphone.

---

wow, absolutely nail on the head. I can't tell you how dead on this is.

quote:

---

Can't frickin stand Le Batard, but that is a decent article.

---

I mean, all of his articles are insightful and touch on issues you don't hear many writers talk about.

If you like this article, what articles did you absolutely hate to make you say you "can't stand lebatard?"