A Richard Justice Moment

with all the stat services, and technology added to sports, i think the quality of sports writing has gone up as far as informational purposes. and for better or worse, sports writers are a lot more willing to criticize athletes or organizations, and challenge. sports writing brought about steroid investigations.

this is a newspaper, these guys have to come up with something to write about almost everyday, if you want more in depth writer, subscribe to sports illustrated or something.

 

Exhibit A: Micky Herskowitz

 

Compare the game articles from tinman's "historic" Dream-versus-Bulls thread to game articles from today.

Compare anything Herskowitz wrote during the 80s or 90s to anything put out by the "Comical" today.

Read 80% of what Solomon puts out, 95% of Justice, 90% of McTaggart, 90% of Feigen for more examples of pure drivel.

 

its hard to be informative nowadays on a daily basis when you can pick up information on the internet. the problem is you don't need sports writers. you have information at your fingertips, when mickey was writing, you needed the newspaper. now you can just complain about it because all the information you get from the chron, you can get from 100s of other sources.

 

Oh come freaking on pgabs, this has *never* been about their viewpoint or whether or not they criticize someone or some organization. It's the quality of the writing in general. There's no comparison. The grammar quality is down, the pieces aren't as coherent and fluid, the logic is unsound or missing altogether. It's more akin to a conversation at a bar or a 15-year-old's "AOL Sports Blog" (anyone remember that? ) than real journalism.

You're sort of at the root of the problem with this point.

I bet part of the reason the quality is hurting is because they have to grind this stuff out so much more quickly than 20 years ago because of this impossible competition with Internet news sources.

But if people aren't going to turn to the Chronicle for information, then they have to find new ways to make themselves relevant. And putting prepubescent sports blogs out there from guys with a lot more knowledge, connection inside the sports world, and education is NOT it. It's embarrassing and offensive.

I'd like to see the Chron guys dispense with the stupid blogs, write one article a day, and write it damn well. That I'd pay money for.

 

edit:

 

I think that it's not about Justice or other writers being bad, but rather in today's information age, you just can't ****ing get away with this stuff anymore.

I remember when I was young, I pretty much take any article from the Chronicle as basically gospel, because that's ALL I had to rely on for any news. But nowadays, things can be checked and questioned immediately by many people quickly. Even if you make a tiny mistake someone on this board will likely find it and correct it within 10 posts. It's what happens.

The problem I have with Justice is that he still hasn't adapted. In other words, he still thinks readers will take his words at face value because we don't know any better... when we do now.

 

No, that's not it with me at all. It really is, and has always been, about the quality--specifically the glaring lack thereof--of the writing. That at times has included crass sloppiness with facts, but it's much larger than that.

 

This is something columnists have done for YEARS. It's just that they RARELY got caught before the internet because it was difficult to dig up archives.

Today, it's all out there, so guys like Justice get busted by it all the time. Some writers have adapted by openly making fun of themselves when they screw up. Justice clearly hasn't gotten the memo.

 

It should also be noted that journalists don't care for blogs for the most part. The Chron writers are NOT PAID for blogging. It's just part of their job. Plus, they have to monitor the comments which are very often ridiculous and occasionally blatantly offensive.

So, I feel for him at least that much.

 

...and I'll add that I'm not really setting my expectations that high. The newspaper has for as long as I can remember been written on a "fourth-grade reading level". But even on that level, the quality of what is being written is simply garbage compared to what it once was.

 

Man, some of the commentors on RJ's blog are ruthless. This one was pretty funny

"Part of you blog feels like what I listened to on 1560 this morning with JVG. Nice job using some of his analysis. I'm glad MLB didn't hire you. And you're easily one of the worst personalities on Around the Horn."

 

Me, too, actually--but if you have to write it, write it well. I can see getting overwhelmed by the comments and losing track of all that crap, but don't put drivel up there.

My real beef here is that fact that they're required to do that at all. Let the adolescents and the "free-lancers" blog. Give your paid, credentialed, educated journalists that huge amount of time and energy back so that they can do what they trained for and chose as a profession--write.

There's a difference between writing and blogging, IMO.

 

yeah, i saw that, too. it really should have included a byline for riley as he more or less wrote the thing. i can guarantee you justice was not in the weight room (an area i'm 99.9999% certain is off-limits to the press, as is most of their facility, i'd wager) when the kubiak/riley exchange went down - so who leaked that story to him? one of the players? its possible, i suppose, but i highly doubt it given how much he praises riley throughout the piece for doing a job justice couldn’t possibly have any insight into.

and you know what? i don't have a problem with riley going to a confirmed buddy and saying, "hey, i'd like to tell my side of the story." i don't even mind justice using his position to help shine a more positive light on a buddy who just lost his job.

what bothers me is that justice so irresponsibly chucked any and all journalistic integrity out the window and let his buddy influence his opinion. did he bother to call rick smith for comment (before blating him personally?)? nope; of course not. he mentioned the texans’ injuries but quickly detoured to talk more about smith’s failings, as if they – however true - justify riley’s failings. and he never once mentioned that the texans have routinely been the least physical team on nearly every single field they’ve ever been on.

btw, speaking of that blog post…

these are the kind of dumb statements justice prints on a near-daily basis. first of all, if you're going to list elite franchises, the ravens over the colts and/or steelers? the eagles? really? the ravens, who’ve been bad, good, bad, good over the last 4 years with two different head coaches? they’re not a bad organization by any means, but one to be emulated over some obviously better ones?

second of all, that conversation most certainly includes the denver freaking broncos. in fact, it may begin and end with the broncos during the shanahan era: 14 seasons and he posted as many SB championships as he did losing seasons. remarkable. there are some very well-run franchises in the nfl, but few – even the colts and patriots – can boast a better 15-year stretch than the one shanahan just completed in denver.

 

this is naively ignoring the current state of the newspaper business. to NOT blog at this point - or, at the very least, have a diversified online presence - is professional suicide.

plus, writing a daily blog on top of 2-4 columns a week isn't paticularly taxing, especially these days when you really don't have to be at the stadium on a nightly basis. in fact, technically, you really don't need to even watch the game.

i continue to maintain his biggest problem is laziness. he's just a lazy writer. and the chronicle condones it. they don't police him at all. he doesn't consider the shanahan-broncos an elite franchise.... that right there is, as far as i'm concerned, a fireable offense. just plain stupid and lazy.

 

I don't mean to ignore the current state of the newpaper business, and I don't believe I'm naive about it. Those drivel blogs, and the few hundred people who visit them for free on a daily basis, do *nothing* for the paper's bottom line.

You said it--"a diversified online presence." Find something other than what every prepubescent 12-year-old is doing to define your newspaper. Engage your readership with different interactive things, indeed. But blogs are a silly waste.

...not according to the journalists I've spoken to and read. Their days are much, much fuller than they used to be.

Are you freaking kidding me?? Did you just say that? That's part of the problem!! If they're watching highlight reels and reading box scores then writing game-wraps or columns accordingly, they are no freaking better (and worse, really) than anybody who posts for free at places like this.

Agreed, Ric. I agree with this completely.

 

sure they do - same way their paper column impacts the bottom line; more readers mean more advertising. it's the same principle being applied to a new medium. and they'll pay dividends down the line as they work toward whatever future awaits the business, which is likely going to be online.

msn.... msn, msn, msn.... you're taking the grumpy old man (aka buzz bisinger), "why, in my day, we didn't have interwebs..." approach, the same one that will leave any newspaper in the dust if they adopt it. blogs are relevant, insightful - hell, google corky simpson and rickey henderson for a very recent, prime example.

there are A LOT of not good but great, great, great blogs available on the internet. message boards, too, for that matter - this one being a prime example.

then they're lazy. sorry but they are. the blog is nothing more than a natural extension of their day job. writing an additional angle about why the astros are bad, for example (with no word counts or size requirements), shouldn't be terribly taxing. clutch here has a day job, a family - he still finds time to keep this site up-to-date. for (more or less, i assume) free, to boot. i ran a magazine back when i was doing my old site - wrote all day, did the site when i got home.

i'm not condoning the practice, msn. i'm just saying, in today's landscape, it's enitrely possible, making a daily blog less of an inconvenience. and you're ignoring the growth of televised sporting events. it's now possible to see, say, every single astro game without leaving your couch - you couldn't do that 20 years ago. that, combined with the avalanche of instaneous information available means going to the game is no longer a requirement to do your job.

again, clutch covers the rockets pretty extensively and i don't believe he even lives in houston. i didn't for the first 6 years of my old site, either.

 

That's an unfair representation. I clearly said to go for an innovative online presence that involves readership. Innovative, not, "hey let's stick up a bunch of blogs!"

Perhaps if the Chronicle had even one I'd feel differently.

I disagree completely! On top of an increased writing load and advanced deadlines from ten years ago (remember that we're not naive about the state of the newspaper industry), they also have to generate these blogs *and* approve all those responses. And reply to a handful of them. You don't think that consumes much time?

Much props and respect to Clutch, but they're not really comparable. How many articles a week is he writing here, really? It is a lot of effort and a "labor of love," without a doubt--but he's not having to approve every message nor is he generating content seven days a week. He also enlists other moderators to help him out. Your old site was great, but there wasn't daily content, and in many cases not even weekly.

Unless, of course, one wishes to do his job right. You know, not lazy.

Not going I get--but you said not even watching. I expect the beat writers to be at the game if they're going to provide a game wrap, period. Sorry. Columnists, however, I'm with you on. But if they never even *watch*, and use only highlights and box scores to arrive at whatever drivel they produce, and that's what gives them extra time to keep up with the blog--how in the hell is that a good thing?