Thursday, June 19, 2008

Sports Bloggers vs. MSM, Part Infinity

This was attempting to be even-handed, but more than anything it was overly simplistic -- not to mention creating something where there really isn't.

(Let's just clarify: By extensively quoting Simmons, Adam Reilly actually frames the debate as newspaper vs. online, not MSM vs. bloggers. Bill isn't a blogger; never has been. Rick Reilly was just being a douchebag when he called him that, revealing his own ignorance about various forms of sports media and their leading practioners.)

What I should have done was give this the FireJoeMorgan treatment. Maybe later.
-- D.S.

UPDATE: Do you know why I love sports blogs? Because Fire Joe Morgan just DID give this column their treatment. Here you go.

1 comment:

pete said...

Dan, I've often wondered something about the criticism by MSMers of blogs and even though it's quite simple, no one ever seems to ask. So often people say about blogs, "most of them are bad" then add the qualifier, "but not all of them." We've heard it from Costas, Bissinger, and Wilbon. It's one of the most common things you hear. What no one ever asks, and what I've always wondered is, "which are which?" On the infamous Costas program he said to Leitch something like, "some blogs are very good, but most are not" but never elaborates. Which are the bad blogs. I want to know. Is Deadspin in that category? Or is Deadspin one of the bad ones? Who is reading these "bad ones"? Is anyone? Are they generalizing all blogs by some majority made up of crappy geocities type sites? I honestly want to know if Costas can list the blogs of each type because I suspect he can't, that he's coming to that generalization based on anecdotal evidence provided by other MSMers. The point is, if you can't even name the so-called "bad blogs" then are they even relevant?