Observer's agenda

I think buck nasty might be Brenston Buckner, he sounds like him.

 

I'm hurt.

 

it's not hard to have put up a legitimate poll.
I noticed the one about Cam, by chance. I didn't know he'd done others. So just on that, clearly it's easy to have a lot of concern in this as any sort of measure.


also, there's legitimate reason to stoke the popular pick. They know him - there's so much about him. He's quotable. They go easy on quotable guys (Gross, Delhomme). Fox didn't give them much.


Then again, Rivera talks to anyone, and it hasn't boosted the Observer coverage. He's connected enough to know national media is better.

 

3a. You!

Your email thread with Gantt alone scores you points.

 

Reporters report. I get the issue of Fox not being quotable, but Fox is hardly the only coach in the NFL that plays it close to the vest. Reid. Belichick. Two elites, both boring as shit. But I never saw so much bitching and moaning from a pair of journalists, re: quotes, than from Fowler and Gantt. Like I said, I actually like Gantt's work, much more than Fowler. But, shit boys, dig deep and work. Quit relying on the next Rex Ryan to cut your workload in half. Trust me (and Collin/Mags should know this)....most beat writers and columnists are lazy.

 

quotes are such a small part of an article, and hearing a guy talk on presser, there's any number of things you can pick from as a starting point for an article. I do it all the time without quotes.

And, yet, these fuckers, one to the next, come up with the same fucking articles despite being written in different towns.

 

Mass Media is still in transition from print to electronic. So there's a temporal lag between "articles" and "columns" to blogs and twitters. Gantt et al blur the lines between traditional reporting and streaming content in an attempt to bridge this temporal gap.

Problem is, readers/followers often don't know the difference between solid reporting and the blogisphere, and can't tell what's substantiated fact and what's conjecture, because the information comes from the same source, with the same accredited authority.

And that leads to the very strong temptation by news organizations to intentionally puff up traditional reporting with "breaking news" couched as a blog or tweet. In the end, the ethics governing these outlets comes down to the individual reporter. And, of course, a knowledgeable readership. We'll know when a reporter is blowing smoke, and crucify him/her for it. It's happened to me, and it ain't fun, and there's no defense for lazy reporting.

The Observer must sell papers and satisfy advertisers. Some level of sensationalism is expected. Cam Newton is sensational. Mel Kiper's hair is sensational. Gabbert has good hair, too, but we've yet to hear him crack a joke or show any personality. John Fox was the anti-sensationalist. You go with the horse that pays, and right now that's Newton.

And sharing content is necessary in this economy. It's no wonder the beat guys sound alike, since they're sharing sound bytes. Steve Reed has some independence and I actually like his feel for the franchise, but he obviously needs an editor, or copy editor, and we can point to cost-cutting for that situation. Reed does the best he can editing his own stuff.

Bottom line, the media-internet universe is still evolving and I suspect the Observer's agenda is to survive until it all shakes out.

 

Well said.

To my point of "agenda": you echoed my sentiments. Cam sells. Blaine won't. Gantt does Twitter polling, and it's wedged into the blog portion of their sports page, weakly disguised as a news piece.

Money matters. Newspapers are dying, so, sure....this is a small slice example of the larger pie. Makes it no less unfortunate, in my view, but I'm sure Gantt would disagree.

 

Why don't you just stop taking shit so seriously.

 

David Addison