It's funny when people expect guys like SAS or anyone at ESPN to be a "journalist."
They are not that. They are entertainers who have major conflicts of interest. ESPN/NBA are TV partners for example.
Once people understand they are here to entertain and not be serious "journalists," then at least we know what we're dealing with.
WOJ is another example. It's clear his business model is to do favors for teams and agents and get their agenda out. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:03 am Post subject:
I realized I could never take this fool serious when he argued on television that Dwayne Haskins was more of a running quarterback....the same Dwayne Haskins that threw for almost 5,000 yards last season, and rushed for 100.
It's funny when people expect guys like SAS or anyone at ESPN to be a "journalist."
Bill James talked about this in one of his books. In the old days, guys who wrote about sports were just sports writers. There came a point when they wanted to seem more professional, so they became “journalists.” But really nothing changed. There is occasionally some legitimate journalism in sports, but most of what we see is just reporting or punditry of various levels of quality. In the age of social media, hot takes are the rage.
It's funny when people expect guys like SAS or anyone at ESPN to be a "journalist."
They are not that. They are entertainers who have major conflicts of interest. ESPN/NBA are TV partners for example.
Once people understand they are here to entertain and not be serious "journalists," then at least we know what we're dealing with.
WOJ is another example. It's clear his business model is to do favors for teams and agents and get their agenda out.
I'd say these are different things.
Woj is basically a scoop guy, so he'll trade favors for information.
SAS isn't really a reporter. He's an entertainer. He just says outrageous things, whether true or not doesn't matter.
There is a lot of parallels between sports reporting and politically reporting these days.
There are legitimate reporters in both fields, but the people who get the notice are the clowns/screamers/entertainers who don't pretend to be objective or even accurate a lot of the time.
It's a symptom of the social media age, where viewers are looking for a quick shot of adrenaline.
It's funny when people expect guys like SAS or anyone at ESPN to be a "journalist."
Bill James talked about this in one of his books. In the old days, guys who wrote about sports were just sports writers. There came a point when they wanted to seem more professional, so they became “journalists.” But really nothing changed. There is occasionally some legitimate journalism in sports, but most of what we see is just reporting or punditry of various levels of quality. In the age of social media, hot takes are the rage.
In newspaper circles, the sports department was called the "toy department."
It wasn't take seriously, and traditionally sports reporters wrote trivial stories about trivial things.
An "in-depth story" was basically talking to some jock and regurgitating what he said.
The writing was sometimes more interesting, filled with color and jokes, because it wasn't considered important.
Keep in mind, the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is fairly new. The original newspapers pushed political agendas and interests. That changed during the Woodward/Bernstein era, when newspapers took on more of a social mission, but media is returning to its historical, partisans roots,
That is what people think of as "the media" -- the big cable stations. However media is vast and you can find any level and accuracy of reporting you wish to seek out. However, most people just seek out news that confirms their existing biases.
I remember the first time I saw him on TV, he was a frequent guest on Jim Rome's TV show on Fox Sports Net in the 90's. He had a shtick and he stuck to it....and now he's just doing it on a bigger platform and making bank.
Keep in mind, the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is fairly new. The original newspapers pushed political agendas and interests. That changed during the Woodward/Bernstein era, when newspapers took on more of a social mission, but media is returning to its historical, partisans roots,
That is what people think of as "the media" -- the big cable stations. However media is vast and you can find any level and accuracy of reporting you wish to seek out. However, most people just seek out news that confirms their existing biases.
Both points are certainly true. The notion that the media is objective was always a myth. People say that they want accurate, unbiased reporting, but that's really true only for the weather.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:07 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Keep in mind, the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is fairly new. The original newspapers pushed political agendas and interests. That changed during the Woodward/Bernstein era, when newspapers took on more of a social mission, but media is returning to its historical, partisans roots,
That is what people think of as "the media" -- the big cable stations. However media is vast and you can find any level and accuracy of reporting you wish to seek out. However, most people just seek out news that confirms their existing biases.
Both points are certainly true. The notion that the media is objective was always a myth. People say that they want accurate, unbiased reporting, but that's really true only for the weather.
I agree that we are attracted to media that bends towards our beliefs, but you do not think that if we trusted a media source to give us pure unbiased information, we would not embrace it?
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:09 pm Post subject:
lakersken80 wrote:
I remember the first time I saw him on TV, he was a frequent guest on Jim Rome's TV show on Fox Sports Net in the 90's. He had a shtick and he stuck to it....and now he's just doing it on a bigger platform and making bank.
I recall wondering why they always brought on that guy from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 68034 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:54 pm Post subject:
SAS uses controversy and a loud delivery to push his wheel barrow full of money all the way to the bank. I notice Max is starting to scream. I laugh because that's SAS shtick. Why go to the mans job and kick the shovel out of his hands? _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Keep in mind, the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is fairly new. The original newspapers pushed political agendas and interests. That changed during the Woodward/Bernstein era, when newspapers took on more of a social mission, but media is returning to its historical, partisans roots,
That is what people think of as "the media" -- the big cable stations. However media is vast and you can find any level and accuracy of reporting you wish to seek out. However, most people just seek out news that confirms their existing biases.
Both points are certainly true. The notion that the media is objective was always a myth. People say that they want accurate, unbiased reporting, but that's really true only for the weather.
I agree that we are attracted to media that bends towards our beliefs, but you do not think that if we trusted a media source to give us pure unbiased information, we would not embrace it?
I think we would be bored by it. How could you even cover Trump or AOC in that way? Both of them are spouting impure, biased information, as are the vast majority of newsmakers. And what they spout is news, for better or worse. When it comes to something like that, do you think that a liberal and a conservative would agree on what is pure and unbiased? The result would be some information dump that would bore us.
Keep in mind, the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is fairly new. The original newspapers pushed political agendas and interests. That changed during the Woodward/Bernstein era, when newspapers took on more of a social mission, but media is returning to its historical, partisans roots,
That is what people think of as "the media" -- the big cable stations. However media is vast and you can find any level and accuracy of reporting you wish to seek out. However, most people just seek out news that confirms their existing biases.
Both points are certainly true. The notion that the media is objective was always a myth. People say that they want accurate, unbiased reporting, but that's really true only for the weather.
I agree that we are attracted to media that bends towards our beliefs, but you do not think that if we trusted a media source to give us pure unbiased information, we would not embrace it?
I think we would be bored by it. How could you even cover Trump or AOC in that way? Both of them are spouting impure, biased information, as are the vast majority of newsmakers. And what they spout is news, for better or worse. When it comes to something like that, do you think that a liberal and a conservative would agree on what is pure and unbiased? The result would be some information dump that would bore us.
That's the thing: Many people consider "unbiased news" to be news that confirms their existing world viewpoint.
There is tons of unbiased news available, but many people find it boring and uninteresting because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
And that's what the SAS of the world do. Even if you doubt what he's saying is true, he's giving you some rumor that excites people, so it provides some degree of entertainment value. And that's what a lot of people like -- "news" that has no more value that a YouTube cat video, but it stirs your emotions for a few seconds.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:48 am Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Keep in mind, the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is fairly new. The original newspapers pushed political agendas and interests. That changed during the Woodward/Bernstein era, when newspapers took on more of a social mission, but media is returning to its historical, partisans roots,
That is what people think of as "the media" -- the big cable stations. However media is vast and you can find any level and accuracy of reporting you wish to seek out. However, most people just seek out news that confirms their existing biases.
Both points are certainly true. The notion that the media is objective was always a myth. People say that they want accurate, unbiased reporting, but that's really true only for the weather.
I agree that we are attracted to media that bends towards our beliefs, but you do not think that if we trusted a media source to give us pure unbiased information, we would not embrace it?
I think we would be bored by it. How could you even cover Trump or AOC in that way? Both of them are spouting impure, biased information, as are the vast majority of newsmakers. And what they spout is news, for better or worse. When it comes to something like that, do you think that a liberal and a conservative would agree on what is pure and unbiased? The result would be some information dump that would bore us.
That's the thing: Many people consider "unbiased news" to be news that confirms their existing world viewpoint.
There is tons of unbiased news available, but many people find it boring and uninteresting because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
And that's what the SAS of the world do. Even if you doubt what he's saying is true, he's giving you some rumor that excites people, so it provides some degree of entertainment value. And that's what a lot of people like -- "news" that has no more value that a YouTube cat video, but it stirs your emotions for a few seconds.
I think that is a problem....it really is impossible to test the theory because it is impossible to create the vacuum. We are all tainted at this point, and expect the bias.
Keep in mind, the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is fairly new. The original newspapers pushed political agendas and interests. That changed during the Woodward/Bernstein era, when newspapers took on more of a social mission, but media is returning to its historical, partisans roots,
That is what people think of as "the media" -- the big cable stations. However media is vast and you can find any level and accuracy of reporting you wish to seek out. However, most people just seek out news that confirms their existing biases.
Both points are certainly true. The notion that the media is objective was always a myth. People say that they want accurate, unbiased reporting, but that's really true only for the weather.
I agree that we are attracted to media that bends towards our beliefs, but you do not think that if we trusted a media source to give us pure unbiased information, we would not embrace it?
I think we would be bored by it. How could you even cover Trump or AOC in that way? Both of them are spouting impure, biased information, as are the vast majority of newsmakers. And what they spout is news, for better or worse. When it comes to something like that, do you think that a liberal and a conservative would agree on what is pure and unbiased? The result would be some information dump that would bore us.
That's the thing: Many people consider "unbiased news" to be news that confirms their existing world viewpoint.
There is tons of unbiased news available, but many people find it boring and uninteresting because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
And that's what the SAS of the world do. Even if you doubt what he's saying is true, he's giving you some rumor that excites people, so it provides some degree of entertainment value. And that's what a lot of people like -- "news" that has no more value that a YouTube cat video, but it stirs your emotions for a few seconds.
I think that is a problem....it really is impossible to test the theory because it is impossible to create the vacuum. We are all tainted at this point, and expect the bias.
It's not impossible to test at all. You can analyze web sites and determine if the topics and slants they choose correlate with a particular political viewpoint. And then you can measure if people with that political viewpoint seek out those sites.
That type of testing has already been done, and the data clearly shows that's what people are doing: More and more, they seek out news from organizations that present news that is shaped toward their existing political view.
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 68034 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:41 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 gets it. Sports show hosts are entertainers but they must have knowledge of the sports industry.
SAS has been spot on with some of his revelations. He's been first to announce on occasions. He has good rapport with many superstar athletes.
One thing I like about him, he tells it like it is even if it means he'll have a athlete at his throat. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:44 am Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
adkindo wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Keep in mind, the whole notion of objectivity in journalism is fairly new. The original newspapers pushed political agendas and interests. That changed during the Woodward/Bernstein era, when newspapers took on more of a social mission, but media is returning to its historical, partisans roots,
That is what people think of as "the media" -- the big cable stations. However media is vast and you can find any level and accuracy of reporting you wish to seek out. However, most people just seek out news that confirms their existing biases.
Both points are certainly true. The notion that the media is objective was always a myth. People say that they want accurate, unbiased reporting, but that's really true only for the weather.
I agree that we are attracted to media that bends towards our beliefs, but you do not think that if we trusted a media source to give us pure unbiased information, we would not embrace it?
I think we would be bored by it. How could you even cover Trump or AOC in that way? Both of them are spouting impure, biased information, as are the vast majority of newsmakers. And what they spout is news, for better or worse. When it comes to something like that, do you think that a liberal and a conservative would agree on what is pure and unbiased? The result would be some information dump that would bore us.
That's the thing: Many people consider "unbiased news" to be news that confirms their existing world viewpoint.
There is tons of unbiased news available, but many people find it boring and uninteresting because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
And that's what the SAS of the world do. Even if you doubt what he's saying is true, he's giving you some rumor that excites people, so it provides some degree of entertainment value. And that's what a lot of people like -- "news" that has no more value that a YouTube cat video, but it stirs your emotions for a few seconds.
I think that is a problem....it really is impossible to test the theory because it is impossible to create the vacuum. We are all tainted at this point, and expect the bias.
It's not impossible to test at all. You can analyze web sites and determine if the topics and slants they choose correlate with a particular political viewpoint. And then you can measure if people with that political viewpoint seek out those sites.
That type of testing has already been done, and the data clearly shows that's what people are doing: More and more, they seek out news from organizations that present news that is shaped toward their existing political view.
not really what I was saying....first, bias and slanting reside in the eye of the beholder. That said, my point was even if we were given impartial news, we would be suspicious and even look for bias that may not be there. We have been conditioned to the news were receive in 2019 being bias.
That leads to the next question, it is possible for news presented by humans to ever be fully void of bias? Even if unintended?
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:46 am Post subject:
jodeke wrote:
yinoma2001 gets it. Sports show hosts are entertainers but they must have knowledge of the sports industry.
SAS has been spot on with some of his revelations. He's been first to announce on occasions. He has good rapport with many superstar athletes.
One thing I like about him, he tells it like it is even if it means he'll have a athlete at his throat.
adkindo wrote:
he argued on television that Dwayne Haskins was more of a running quarterback....the same Dwayne Haskins that threw for almost 5,000 yards last season, and rushed for 100.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90323 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:13 am Post subject:
jodeke wrote:
yinoma2001 gets it. Sports show hosts are entertainers but they must have knowledge of the sports industry.
SAS has been spot on with some of his revelations. He's been first to announce on occasions. He has good rapport with many superstar athletes.
One thing I like about him, he tells it like it is even if it means he'll have a athlete at his throat.
I don't really care what he gets paid, but "he tells it like it is" couldn't be much further from what he does. He's a hot take hype man who routinely tells it like it isn't. He's a personality, and sometimes he has inside information, but most of what he does is based on being an over the top, ridiculous, cartoon of a blow hard. That's not an insult, that's his deliberate shtick. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
not really what I was saying....first, bias and slanting reside in the eye of the beholder. That said, my point was even if we were given impartial news, we would be suspicious and even look for bias that may not be there. We have been conditioned to the news were receive in 2019 being bias.
That leads to the next question, it is possible for news presented by humans to ever be fully void of bias? Even if unintended?
The trouble here is “bias” is a loaded world. Rather than talk about “bias,” media should be evaluated by its objectivity and factual accuracy.
And people can tell which media are slanting information and being deceitful and which are not.
Polls show that Americans consider Fox to be the least objective and least accurate news source, while they consider the Associated Press to be highly accurate and objective. Can't argue with that.
yinoma2001 gets it. Sports show hosts are entertainers but they must have knowledge of the sports industry.
SAS has been spot on with some of his revelations. He's been first to announce on occasions. He has good rapport with many superstar athletes.
One thing I like about him, he tells it like it is even if it means he'll have a athlete at his throat.
I don't really care what he gets paid, but "he tells it like it is" couldn't be much further from what he does. He's a hot take hype man who routinely tells it like it isn't. He's a personality, and sometimes he has inside information, but most of what he does is based on being an over the top, ridiculous, cartoon of a blow hard. That's not an insult, that's his deliberate shtick.
Yeah, SAS doesn't "tell it like it is." ESPN continually pushes SAS in front of cameras like a windup doll and he blathers on, whether he has anything to say, knows anything about the topic, or not.
Given the amount of airtime he gets, it's not surprising that he occasionally gets scoops and gets some things right. But his batting average is pretty low. But he's not on camera to be accurate. He's there to entertain.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum