Thursday, January 11, 2007

I can't take it

From the, 1/10/07, question to a writer of the WSJ online's Daily Fix, Jason Fry:

I don't even agree with their first question, but here it is:

"Q. There's a philosophical debate between traditional sportswriters and bloggers over whose method is better. Any thoughts?

A. I'm a blogger myself. Faith and Fear in Flushing, with Greg Prince.
  • To your point, it's fashionable among some bloggers to bash traditional sportswriters, but I don't know of a responsible blogger who will do that. There is no doubt that most if not all bloggers rely on reporters who go into lockerrooms and work the phones and talk to general managers, and without that all bloggers would be much poorer. Bloggers forget that at their peril."
Sorry, this just isn't true. I wish it were as frivolous as "fashion" but it's not. And, I don't have time to "bash." There is already more material than I can handle just dealing with bias and inaccuracy. And, "peril?" Who is this guy, Stalin?

"I do think that what Simmons and the great bloggers who followed his lead have done is taken away the idea that you can't have great sportswriting unless you are in a lockerroom. It's not true.
  • What Simmons did was weave together being a fan with being a reasonably impartial observer of sport."
WHAT? "Reasonably impartial?" How about his book, "Now I Can Die in Peace?" This makes me wonder about Mr. Fry's motives and plans for his own future. Mr. Simmons is not impartial, which isn't a bad thing. WHAT'S BAD IS TRYING TO HIDE ONE'S OWN OR OTHERS' PARTIALITY. EVERYONE HAS SOME.
  • "And being up front about sport not existing in a vacuum but being a part of your life – how your love of sports or a team warps your life and how you build your life around that.
Even though all bloggers like me owe him (Simmons) a debt, he didn't invent that. Go back and read Roger Angell's (New Yorker) pieces from the 1960s on baseball. He was an out-and-out fan of the Mets and Red Sox and a huge fan of the game – he talks about watching games or an entire season and how he felt about that. I'm sure Roger Angell didn't cheer while in the pressbox but he's certainly cheering in print. It's not a huge leap from Angell to bloggers like me and everybody else trying to write objectively about the teams they love without apologizing for loving them."
  • I appreciate Mr. Fry informing me about Roger Angell's contribution--it's interesting. But overall, my other points remain. The broad generalities in favor of well established baseball media brokers is alarming. They already control the "daily discourse," which shouldn't be. This is just more of the same.


Post a Comment

<< Home