The Orioles, the media and the Hangout

[JackO]

I think Jack-O has his thoughts on this matter and honestly, I'm sure there are other journalists who have the same feeling about us lowly internet guys. Thankfully, lots and lot of people give a lot more credit and I'll hang my hat on those instead of some guy who wants to degrade as some second-tiered wannabe journalists.

This isn't rocket-science, it's journalism and 85% of this board could do it and do it well. I kinda find it funny when "real" journalists try to put us down like they have some sort of secret training that makes them more worthy than someone else.

People pay attention to what we say and we get press credentials because we are professional in how we act and how we report things. I've been doing this for 15 years and over that time I've certainly made some mistakes along the way. At this point, I'm pretty sure I understand how to talk with sources and understand who might have an ax to grind and who might be willing to tell the truth. I also clearly understand about getting corroborating sources which is what I'm in the process of doing. Oh, an my pro-am butt will also give the Orioles an opportunity to respond before posting my piece.

Maybe I don't do this fulltime and maybe people are only paying me to access my site and not write as Mr Jack-O said, but in the end, I'm able to look myself in the mirror and know I did things right and the story will stand on that merit.

Pro-am or not, people seem to like it and honestly, I'm more concerned with informing Orioles fans then I am trying to win over a journalist who looks down upon anyone not in his full-time club.

At this point, you are just being insulting and are clearly not reading what I am writing. So, in jest I will shoot back with this answer to your 85 percent quip:

Hey, 99 percent of us could join the armed forces and do it well. Most of us are too smart to consider it.

[Tony-OH]

At this point, you are just being insulting and are clearly not reading what I am writing. So, in jest I will shoot back with this answer to your 85 percent quip:

Hey, 99 percent of us could join the armed forces and do it well. Most of us are too smart to consider it.

I see you are keeping it classy. Thanks for proving what kind of individual you really are.

[Mashed Potatoes]

http://masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2010/06/post-game-samuel.html

I agree with Roch that asking Samuel to explain the intention behind bunting in that situation leads to a rather obvious answer. However, I think there was a very important follow up question to ask. There are competing philosophies on how to manage a lineup, a baseball team, and what to do in various game situations. As a brand new manager without prior experience in that role the fan base is largely unfamiliar with who Juan Samuel is and what goes behind the decisions he makes.

The idea that you shouldn't waste an out and that bunting should be seldom used but in very specific occasions is one shared not just by the sabermetric nerd community but actually employed by other major league teams. There was an opportunity to ask Samuel why he stands on one side of the debate and what general philosophy places him on that side.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his answer, that provides new information for the readers to consume, judge and evaluate. Then, I think there is work to be done to research the logic and math behind letting Wieters swing away and finally weave both sides of the debate and Juan's answer into a coherent story that educates the public about who Juan is, what he believes, and the validity of his beliefs.

Furthering the debate in this way allows us to have an intelligent discussion about these matters and it gives Samuel a chance to defend himself. Perhaps he was unaware of the work done to examine probabilities and the average outcomes of doing certain things historically in baseball. Perhaps he knew those probabilities but also knew that Cesar Izturis in his career had crushed the current opposing pitcher. Perhaps he could see a real lack of confidence in Wieters eyes and just wanted to at least advance the runners if the outcome of his at bat seemed to inevitably be an out. I could go on and on, but each one of these different answers whether you agree or disagree with them tells us something about Juan Samuel that we did not know before and never will know if the questions are never asked.

I echo clarence's frustration with the unwillingness of the major media outlets in Baltimore to ask the kind of follow up questions and do the kind of research that ultimately educates the public, and I think this is a good example to use for illustrating his frustration.

[JackO]

I see you are keeping it classy. Thanks for proving what kind of individual you really are.

Matt Wieters! your reading comprehension skills leave a little to be desired.

I wrote:

At this point, you are just being insulting and are clearly not reading what I am writing. So, in jest I will shoot back with this answer to your 85 percent quip:

Hey, 99 percent of us could join the armed forces and do it well. Most of us are too smart to consider it.

In jest, Tony. It means jokingly. I appreciate what the armed forces do for a country. But you took a shot at my profession, I playfully took one back at yours.

In all seriousness. I will give you some constructive criticism. I think that your columns provide some good information and some interesting thoughts and are generally enjoyable. But the quality of the writing -- the diction, the grammar and the syntax -- would get you canned in about two days.

Yes. Having conversations is a skill that many possess. Putting together everything you learn in those conversations in a coherent, clean and readable way is a talent. Some have it. Some don't.

[ScottieBaseball]

Matt Wieters! your reading comprehension skills leave a little to be desired.

I wrote:

In jest, Tony. It means jokingly. I appreciate what the armed forces do for a country. But you took a shot at my profession, I playfully took one back at yours.

In all seriousness. I will give you some constructive criticism. I think that your columns provide some good information and some interesting thoughts and are generally enjoyable. But the quality of the writing -- the diction, the grammar and the syntax -- would get you canned in about two days.

Yes. Having conversations is a skill that many possess. Putting together everything you learn in those conversations in a coherent, clean and readable way is a talent. Some have it. Some don't.

Like I said before..."in jest" serves the same purpose for you as "I don't mean any disrespect", but then following it with something disrespectful.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're a bit of an elitist offering up cowardly, back-handed compliments and insults veiled as constructive criticism. I don't mean any disrespect. Nothing personal. In a good Christian way, and all that.

[bOhs01]

Ok, we get it. You write good Get over yourself.

[JackO]

Like I said before..."in jest" serves the same purpose for you as "I don't mean any disrespect", but then following it with something disrespectful.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're a bit of an elitist offering up cowardly, back-handed compliments and insults veiled as constructive criticism. I don't mean any disrespect. Nothing personal. In a good Christian way, and all that.

Clearly this has touched a nerve with those who run the hangout.

My comments have nothing to do with being elitist. This has to do with responding to an opening post that questioned the value of professional journalism.

I have been quite clear that I value the hangout and really enjoy it. I have also been quite clear that I value and enjoy reading the reports of the staff writers here and of many of the serious amateur posters here. I have also said that I am looking forward to whatever it is Tony has to write about the current state of the Orioles.

I am not sure how that is being elitist.

That being said. If Tony wants to play serious journalist for the day, that is great. But given that I have never seen a serious expose from the guy, I will read it with a grain of salt -- especially if it is all credited to anonymous sources. I have explained quite thoroughly why I will read it with skepticism. And if it all shakes out, then the next report I will read without that skepticism. None of it was derogatory.

Scottie -- I enjoy your work. I think you do a great job keeping this site running smooth. And it really is one of my first reads in the morning: New York Times, Washington Post, O's Hangout. I find this site thoroughly enjoyable, and it is where I go to relax for a few minutes during the day. And I really, really enjoy the banter that goes on here, from the very well informed, well thought-out posts by some of the stars of the hangout's lay community, to some of the inanity and pettiness that ensues.

Tony -- Again. Love the site. It is top-notch. It is a great community. It is an example of what most folks talk about in the media community when they talk about building online communities around their media products.

That being said. I have always found your bullying nature one of the serious weakness of the hangout. It has been on clear display during this thread. I raised a question and expressed some skepticism about whatever we might read from you and you in turn follow with insults and attempts to bate me. You also purposefully misrepresent what I write to make it sound like I am insulting the entire hangout -- even though I have been clearly praising of it.

It is a shame, and one of the things that you seriously undervalue about the nature of being a journalist. When you write for thousands of people, you put yourself out there in front of all of those readers to criticize, scrutinize and pick apart. In the real journalism world, you can't just turn around and say "trust me" or "my friends trust me."

For a military man, you really have a thin skin.

And I have this gut feeling that I will get banned for this post, even though this sentiment has been expressed to me in private several times throughout the years.

[Tony-OH]

Matt Wieters! your reading comprehension skills leave a little to be desired.

I wrote:

In jest, Tony. It means jokingly. I appreciate what the armed forces do for a country. But you took a shot at my profession, I playfully took one back at yours.

In all seriousness. I will give you some constructive criticism. I think that your columns provide some good information and some interesting thoughts and are generally enjoyable. But the quality of the writing -- the diction, the grammar and the syntax -- would get you canned in about two days.

Yes. Having conversations is a skill that many possess. Putting together everything you learn in those conversations in a coherent, clean and readable way is a talent. Some have it. Some don't.

Yet I've been doing this for 15 years and people still seem to want to know what I have to say. Also, I'll go out on a limb and say that most likely more people know of my work than yours. That must stick in your English department crawl now doesn't it? You wanna be a real man, come out and tell everyone who you are and stop hiding behind your anonymous screen name.

BTW, I've been published by other people so before you start "assuming" again, and we all can see what YOU become when YOU assume, know your facts.

Here's the deal, I'm done with you. I really don't care what you think or care about you "advice." You are troll who came in here with one thought and one thought only and that was to disparage me and my staff.

Now slither away to some other site where they'll be glad to hop on the anti-Tony/Hangout bandwagon. I've got more important things to do then waste more time with someone like you.

[Austin]

I think there is a difference between reporting for the Hangout and a full blown newspaper. Newspapers have lawyers who give both general and specific advice on how to avoid libel suits. They have ombudsmen who deal with journalistic ethics and are experts in the field. They have multiple layers of editors. Many of their employees went to journalism school, and have had formal training on ethics, reporting techniques, etc. Newspapers in big cities have the pick of the litter among journalism students, they can be extremely selective in who they hire. And they have significant economic resources they can bring to bear.

So, I don't consider it a knock on the Hangout, or its editors and staff, to say that there's a difference between being a journalist for the Hangout and being one for the Sun, in terms of what goes into publishing a story.

The Hangout staff, in my opinion, writes very well and is very dedicated. They are professional in the sense that they are paid, and they are professional in the sense that they take their responsibilities seriously. But I don't think they are subject to all the benefits, constraints and checks and balances of a major newspaper. So, they may be able to write things that a major newspaper would not publish for various reasons.

All I really know is that, when it comes to Orioles news and analysis, what I read here is the best there is.

I agree with this. Tony is obviously a very smart man and has managed to make money through one of his passions, something I find very admirable, but there are differences between the OH and news entities like the Sun or the Post. JackO has come off as fairly condescending throughout this thread, but I don't agree with Tony's assertion that 85% of us could be journalists and do it well, or that real journalists don't need some sort of "secret" training. Journalists do have very specialized training, and plenty of people pay lots of money to go to school for years to become one. To say that anyone can do it is wrong and potentially insulting. Now, that doesn't mean that Tony or Scott aren't journalists or that they don't hold themselves to the same standards that journalists do, and I'm very interested to read Tony's take on things. The Hangout has done more for my understanding and knowledge of baseball than anything else, and regardless of whether or not this is officially "journalism" means nothing to me. I just want a truthful, interesting story to read and I'm sure Tony will deliver.

[Sports Guy]

Thanks for the email. It's funny because I actually started to do a little research about this myself for a story I wanted to work on. it's just tough getting team officialls to be forthcoming on it and other Oriole scouts are certainly not going to talk on the record about how outmanned they are for fear of losing their jobs

That is part of a response I got from a member of the media in reference to my email about the scouting numbers in the division.

I am posting this to kind of back them up a little bit...Now, don't get me wrong, I would like to hear some more hard hitting questions...But I think that answer gives you an idea what they have to deal with in regards to this organization.

Its not so easy to just come up with this stuff. I think it would be for most other organizations but PA rules by fear and AM thinks he has a job that really matters in the scheme of everyday life. He feels he has government secrets and has to kill you if he tells you.

I have gotten on the local media in the past for stuff but I do sometimes forget who they are dealing with...Trust me, its not easy to do the simplest tasks for and with this team.

[JackO]

Yet I've been doing this for 15 years and people still seem to want to know what I have to say. Also, I'll go out on a limb and say that most likely more people know of my work than yours. That must stick in your English department crawl now doesn't it? You wanna be a real man, come out and tell everyone who you are and stop hiding behind your anonymous screen name.

BTW, I've been published by other people so before you start "assuming" again, and we all can see what YOU become when YOU assume, know your facts.

Here's the deal, I'm done with you. I really don't care what you think or care about you "advice." You are troll who came in here with one thought and one thought only and that was to disparage me and my staff.

Now slither away to some other site where they'll be glad to hop on the anti-Tony/Hangout bandwagon. I've got more important things to do then waste more time with someone like you.

Like I said. Insulting and a bully. Too bad, because the site is top-notch.

[JTrea81]

I have gotten on the local media in the past for stuff but I do sometimes forget who they are dealing with...Trust me, its not easy to do the simplest tasks for and with this team.

When I talked to Zrebiec regarding the Millar fiasco, he mentioned that it was pretty hard to get any statements or info from the Warehouse.

The Orioles are a very media unfriendly team to cover. I don't envy Roch, Schmuck, Zrebiec or Ghiroli one bit...

[Nigel Tufnel]

I am not sure how that is being elitist.

That being said. If Tony wants to play serious journalist for the day, that is great.

I, for one, have no idea how anyone could consider you elitist.

[Tony-OH]

Clearly this has touched a nerve with those who run the hangout.

My comments have nothing to do with being elitist. This has to do with responding to an opening post that questioned the value of professional journalism.

I have been quite clear that I value the hangout and really enjoy it. I have also been quite clear that I value and enjoy reading the reports of the staff writers here and of many of the serious amateur posters here. I have also said that I am looking forward to whatever it is Tony has to write about the current state of the Orioles.

I am not sure how that is being elitist.

That being said. If Tony wants to play serious journalist for the day, that is great. But given that I have never seen a serious expose from the guy, I will read it with a grain of salt -- especially if it is all credited to anonymous sources. I have explained quite thoroughly why I will read it with skepticism. And if it all shakes out, then the next report I will read without that skepticism. None of it was derogatory.

Scottie -- I enjoy your work. I think you do a great job keeping this site running smooth. And it really is one of my first reads in the morning: New York Times, Washington Post, O's Hangout. I find this site thoroughly enjoyable, and it is where I go to relax for a few minutes during the day. And I really, really enjoy the banter that goes on here, from the very well informed, well thought-out posts by some of the stars of the hangout's lay community, to some of the inanity and pettiness that ensues.

Tony -- Again. Love the site. It is top-notch. It is a great community. It is an example of what most folks talk about in the media community when they talk about building online communities around their media products.

That being said. I have always found your bullying nature one of the serious weakness of the hangout. It has been on clear display during this thread. I raised a question and expressed some skepticism about whatever we might read from you and you in turn follow with insults and attempts to bate me. You also purposefully misrepresent what I write to make it sound like I am insulting the entire hangout -- even though I have been clearly praising of it.

I just couldn't let this go by. In this thread you have taken one poorly veiled shot after another against us but I'm the bully for responding?

Sorry, I can take criticism just fine, but when you start taking shots at my ability to put together a good piece on what's going BEFORE it comes out, then I'm going to get a little upset.

Oh, a good job at "jesting" over the intelligence of those who serve the very country that allows you to post your drivel. I'm retired from the military but I still take offense to people like yourself who think that those who serve are someone how too dumb not to.

By the way, I did a pretty long piece back in 2002 called "An Organization in Need of change" that was one of the main reasons we were given press credentials the next year due to its journalistic quality.

I'm sure you just assumed I've never done anything like that. :rolleyestf:

[JackO]

I just couldn't let this go by. In this thread you have taken one poorly veiled shot after another against us but I'm the bully for responding?

Sorry, I can take criticism just fine, but when you start taking shots at my ability to put together a good piece on what's going BEFORE it comes out, then I'm going to get a little upset.

Oh, a good job at "jesting" over the intelligence of those who serve the very country that allows you to post your drivel. I'm retired from the military but I still take offense to people like yourself who think that those who serve are someone how too dumb not to.

By the way, I did a pretty long piece back in 2002 called "An Organization in Need of change" that was one of the main reasons we were given press credentials the next year due to its journalistic quality.

I'm sure you just assumed I've never done anything like that. :rolleyestf:

Reading comprehension Tony. I did not say you have not written anything. I said I have not read any expose you have written. Given that the one you referenced was published 8 years ago, you can hardly blame me.