Liz disrespects the press

[The Wedge]

I wouldn't sell myself too short, if I were you. You might not be correct in this specific instance, but I think it's a safe bet that a lot of journalists routinely monitor the more responsible message boards and blogs. It's a very useful way to get a quick and accurate read on the consensus thinking on just about any topic.

Consensus thinking has it's problems, of course, and increasingly, guys like Roch are becoming the arbiters as to what's legitimate news as opposed to what's rumor, speculation etc. This is inevitable IMO, and one of the main reasons why I oppose the new practice of mainstream journalists also blogging on the side as part of their job description.

I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in a clear boundary between reporting and opinion. Long-term, I think Roch's (and others) credibility would be better served by ditching the blogs. I also think his popularity would suffer enough to where that idea won't gain much traction so it'll remain a moot point.

As long as there is a clear delineation, both on the part of the reporter and the reader, between a blog and a regular report or column, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. Basically, a blog allows for more editorial style commentary while still reporting...it's almost like a mixture, and people have yet to really grasp that part of the equation. That and the fact that in a blog, even in this case, there's very little editorial input, if any, before they go public. Roch is his own editor in those cases, I do believe.

[Tony-OH]

I wouldn't sell myself too short, if I were you. You might not be correct in this specific instance, but I think it's a safe bet that a lot of journalists routinely monitor the more responsible message boards and blogs. It's a very useful way to get a quick and accurate read on the consensus thinking on just about any topic.

Consensus thinking has it's problems, of course, and increasingly, guys like Roch are becoming the arbiters as to what's legitimate news as opposed to what's rumor, speculation etc. This is inevitable IMO, and one of the main reasons why I oppose the new practice of mainstream journalists also blogging on the side as part of their job description.

I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in a clear boundary between reporting and opinion. Long-term, I think Roch's (and others) credibility would be better served by ditching the blogs. I also think his popularity would suffer enough to where that idea won't gain much traction so it'll remain a moot point.

I disagree. Journalism is changing thanks to the internet and people don't want columns anymore, they want quick snippets like blogs. As long as the facts are checked, and I know Roch checks his stuff, the blog format is the future and it's why you see guys like Connolly and others doing it now as well.

Funny, Connolly spent time basically bashing me and this site in a radio interview after the Roberts issue and now he's blogging pretty much everyday the last time I checked.

The best thing about internet is the masses get the opportunity to decide what they want to read.The public will decide who they believe and who they don't care about by the number of people who visit the site/blog.

That's the best part of the internet. It used to be you only had a few people's opinions to go by and they set the mood for the entire city. I always wondered had the internet been around back when Rosenthal and the Sun was running Eddie Murray out of town, would that have turned out differently?

Now, Joe fan can write eloquently on the Hangout's message board and be read by journalists, tv/radio personalities, scouts, players and front office people.

[Sanfran327]

This is funny... Roch definitely pays attention to the OH. Check out his latest blog:

Roch

[RShack]

There's a zillion little things that come up, things that are actual baseball questions that are perfectly legitimate questions. But AFAIK nobody *ever* asks them. I don't think you have to dream them up, I think the game gives them to you if you just pay attention to the game. Tomorrow's game is different than today's game, so it will give you different questions if you pay attention.

...

I think the main problem is that it's too easy for everybody to simply forget about the fans, or else to just assume that fans are really morons who don't care about baseball, and that baseball is just mindless entertainment to them. That's how we get the inane Amber questions...

Roch is one of the most immature writers I have ever seen. He writes at times like he is about 12 years old.

Good that you like him. To me just another case apparently of someone who hasn't been around long enough to know what is good and bad from a writer, similar to an Oriole fan thinking Tejada is a good glove man because they never saw the truly good glove guys at the position from years past. Roch isn't very good and that is being kind. Another example of an inferior level of talent from his generation.

Well, just to clarify, I never meant to imply that no fans are morons... I just meant to say that lots of fans aren't ;-)

[24fps]

I disagree. Journalism is changing thinaks to the internet and people don't want columsn anymore, they want quick snippets like blogs. As long as the facts are checked, and I know Roch checks his stuff, the blog format is the future and it's why you see guys like Connolly and others doing it now as well.

Funny, Connolly spent time basically bashing me and this site in a radio interview after the Roberts issue and now he's blogging pretty much everyday the last time I checked.

The best thing about internet is the masses get the opportunity to decide what they want to read.The public will decide who they believe and who they don't care about by the number of people who visit the site/blog.

That's the best part of the internet. It used to be you only had a few people's opinions to go by and they set the mood for the entire city. I always wondered had the internet been around back when Rosenthal and the Sun was running Eddie Murray out of town, would that have turned out differently?

Now, Joe fan can write eloquently on the Hangout's message board and be read by journalists, tv/radio personalities, scouts, players and front office people.

There is no question that the internet has altered journalism forever, and journalism hasn't fully made the transition by a long shot. To what do you attribute the "journalist as blogger" phenomenon? Is is the newspaper/radio station/TV station desperately trying to find a business model that translates to the 21st century? Or is it the journalist trying to turn himself into a brand and score the elite money that you referred to in a different post? Of course, the answer is both or either depending on who you ask.

I've always been wary of the notion that more choice is always better than less - not that you're advocating this, exactly, but there is a suggestion of this in your post. It's my belief that a few trustworthy voices are far better for Joe fan than unfiltered exposure to the staggering cacophony that is the internet; blogoshpere and all. People have always had the opportunity to choose what to read, the internet has only altered the scale; admittedly it's done so dramatically.

The key word is trustworthy and it always has been, so how to you achieve that in todays environment? I don't believe it's by providing "snippets" and "tidbits", and off-the-cuff opinion if the goal is to differentiate yourself from the masses. Anyone with a computer and time on his hands can start to blog, after all.

IMO, journalism will come full circle and editorial judgement will once again be at a premium. It is on this basis that I would suggest to any new journalist that he not stray too far from traditional methods for too long if he wants to be one of those respected voices. While the methods of access are ever-changing, the product is not, and that product is news, not mere information.

[RShack]

I've always been wary of the notion that more choice is always better than less - not that you're advocating this, exactly, but there is a suggestion of this in your post. It's my belief that a few trustworthy voices are far better for Joe fan than unfiltered exposure to the staggering cacophony that is the internet; blogoshpere and all. People have always had the opportunity to choose what to read, the internet has only altered the scale; admittedly it's done so dramatically.

Well, people have had to the choice to read whatever they want from a much smaller pool of choices. What the internet has done is separate publishing from capital investment, so anybody can do it. So, in that sense it's more democratic.

But I agree with you about the more-is-better argument. Unfettered democracy is basically a mob. That was one of the big differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution: their's devolved into mob rule, chopping off the heads of lots of people, including those who helped the American Revolution.

The key word is trustworthy and it always has been, so how to you achieve that in todays environment? I don't believe it's by providing "snippets" and "tidbits", and off-the-cuff opinion if the goal is to differentiate yourself from the masses. Anyone with a computer and time on his hands can start to blog, after all.

IMO, journalism will come full circle and editorial judgement will once again be at a premium. It is on this basis that I would suggest to any new journalist that he not stray too far from traditional methods for too long if he wants to be one of those respected voices. While the methods of access are ever-changing, the product is not, and that product is news, not mere information.

I agree that the key word is trustworthy. I also agree that things are in a state of transformation. However, I'm not so sure where the big reason is to expect that editorial judgment will once again be at a premium. I just don't see why or how that would happen. As long as it's competitive and for-profit, I don't see the motivation for high standards. Over its brief life, CNN has gotten worse and worse, with more visual flash, more emphasis on soundbites and so-called entertainment news, and next to nothing in the way of actual thorough reporting. Face it, the only people who did reporting were the newspaper guys, TV just borrowed stories from them, and now the kind of newspaper people who actually do that are themselves something of an endangered species.

While I'm not cheerful about it, I see little reason to expect anything except more and more of the stuff that's based on nothing but emotion and soundbites, with less and less that has any actual substance to it. TV treats the population like we all have ADD, and thus actively helps create a population that has ADD. So I think it's gonna be more and more, "Let's grab a rope and go hang somebody."

[BillySmith]

No you don't, but I teach to the top of the class, so it's no surprise.

Well, I do always sit in the back. I'm not sure you even go to class though.