"Hearing Trembley threw Rhyne Hughes under the bus and that the clubhouse is turning"

[BaltimoreTerp]

You missed my original post, apparently. I'm not talking about Carroll. I'm talking about the changing nature of "journalism" and the incentive to put new information in the pipeline w/ maximum velocity.

It's really not a knock on Carroll at all, anymore than it's a knock on those who think having tons of folks following their tweets is important.

If you think I'm wrong, maybe you could give me an analysis in the value of 140 character blasts of unsourced gossip, and why they're a good addition to the world of "journalism."

So your basic issue is with the type of media he used?

[Lucky Jim]

So your basic issue is with the type of media he used?

Nope. My real knock is the way that media is used by allegedly "serious" journalists.

[Slappy]

You missed my original post, apparently. I'm not talking about Carroll. I'm talking about the changing nature of "journalism" and the incentive to put new information in the pipeline w/ maximum velocity.

It's really not a knock on Carroll at all, anymore than it's a knock on those who think having tons of folks following their tweets is important.

If you think I'm wrong, maybe you could give me an analysis in the value of 140 character blasts of unsourced gossip, and why they're a good addition to the world of "journalism."

Tweet --> Blog = Ad views

Ad views * cost per 1,000 = $$$

Most advertisers are not overly concerned with how you get your ad views.

In BP's case also,

More page views = more subscriptions

[Lucky Jim]

Or they "smack" of, "Hey, this is something interesting I heard about the manager situation in Baltimore."

You only believe a statement when there is a clear indication of the source?

"Proof" and "background" are not unrelated, either. The background of how he created his opinion is the proof of his statement.

So, that's what I want to know.

As for you, I'm finding your earlier use of "confirmation bias" awfully ironic at the moment

I don't know what you mean about the confirmation bias? I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I've noted that nothing I said was a specific criticism of Carroll. And I further noted that my real issue is simply the changing nature of the industry.

Tell me, is the voice of a single source who says that "Trembley is losing the clubhouse" any different than a single source who opines that Carroll is suffering from confirmation bias? Other than the information that that opinion is based on, both are subjective takes and nothing more. And we don't know who Carroll's source is. First-hand? Second-? Third-?

And why was my use of the phrase to describe Steve's post ironic?

[Lucky Jim]

Tweet --> Blog = Ad views

Ad views * cost per 1,000 = $$$

Most advertisers are not overly concerned with how you get your ad views.

In BP's case also,

More page views = more subscriptions

Right. This is pretty much my point. It's exploiting the informality of the media to do things one knows the public will eat up and that you'd have trouble getting away with in a real article.

I don't deny it helps the bottom line. Whether it actually helps the quality of the information in circulation is another question altogether.

[dhaze]

I understand your point, but this is nothing new, it's just easier to do now because of modern technology. People have been using the press to air their grievances since...the beginning of the press!

[Can_of_corn]

If you think I'm wrong, maybe you could give me an analysis in the value of 140 character blasts of unsourced gossip, and why they're a good addition to the world of "journalism."

Did you happen to miss what happened in Iran last year?

Pretty sure that validates twitter as a form of journalism.

[McNulty]

Pretty sure Rhyne Hughes isn't the first person he's thrown under the bus this year. Last night he indirectly bussed Izturis by saying, "I'd rather not comment about that publicly."

MacPhail basically threatened the entire offense publicly a few weeks ago.

Who friggin' cares if they throw these guys under the bus? They stink! They deserve to be thrown under the bus.

I was pretty inebriated yesterday. What did Izturis do?

[Lucky Jim]

Did you happen to miss what happened in Iran last year?

Pretty sure that validates twitter as a form of journalism.

It validates it as a source of information. In some cases it may be the only source of information, at which point it may then function as a substitute for journalism.

Exigent circumstances often mean that other, more formalized methods are unnecessary. But simply because, say, sometimes the police must search something without a warrant doesn't mean that warrants should be deemed unnecessary.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Nope. My real knock is the way that media is used by allegedly "serious" journalists.

Please continue.

[Can_of_corn]

I was pretty inebriated yesterday. What did Izturis do?

Got thrown out on a stupid stolen base attempt. In all probablility cost the O's some runs.

[Lucky Jim]

I was pretty inebriated yesterday. What did Izturis do?

Lucky you. First and third, one out, Corey up. He gets thrown out trying to steal second, so that we can't score on a groundout or flyout.

As if Corey would get doubled-up?

[Lucky Jim]

Please continue.

I've already explained why I don't like it. Why do I need to "continue"? What does my opinion on it matter? it's clearly not going away.

[Mark Carver]

Lucky you. First and third, one out, Corey up. He gets thrown out trying to steal second, so that we can't score on a groundout or flyout.

As if Corey would get doubled-up?

Well, Patterson has already been doubled-up in the few games that he has appeared in so far...

[Can_of_corn]

It validates it as a source of information. In some cases it may be the only source of information, at which point it may then function as a substitute for journalism.

Exigent circumstances often mean that other, more formalized methods are unnecessary. But simply because, say, sometimes the police must search something without a warrant doesn't mean that warrants should be deemed unnecessary.

Sorry not seeing the connection you are trying to make.

Last I checked print and electronic media both have rather loose standards, have since the start of things. I used the Griffey case as an example earlier, the paper did not name sources anymore then our tweeter did. Many, many stories go to "print" with annoymous sources.