WHAT? HORSE CRAP !!!! His job is to get readers to buy the paper, or come to their site, if you read because you like him...great, if you read because you hate him...great... Either way, you read....and that is what he wants..... DD
Haven't read Dick Justice in over a year. Haven't paid for a copy of the Houston Comical in over five years. I don't spend my money, or my time, on drivel. (Except, of course, my own drivel here!) I disagree! Their marketing department's job is to sell papers! By appealing to the lowest common denominator, he's helping our culture sink further into its current intellectual abyss. Let the bloggers write uninformed, illogical, flip-floppy drivel. This guy draws a paycheck, and hasn't done a lick of research in decades.
It's the FOXNews-ification of our media. But one major point to note: FoxNews has been fantastically successful in drawing viewers. People today are much more interested in having their opinions reinforced. Content is what drives sales - marketing only reinforces it.
You only state that because you disagree with FOX News. Another common thread in our culture today is to assume that people of a different than one's own are less intelligent. There is plenty of intelligence on *both* sides of the political spectrum. Far more than in RJ's columns, for sure.
Speaking of intelligence or a lack thereof, I left out the word opinion above and didn't proofread to catch it.
He's cherry-picked one fact. I'm not going to play that game. You have to look at things in their entire context. What elements occurred in yesterday's game that he left out? Considering the entire scope of RJ's work, next week he'll likely be singing the Texans' praises. It's almost like a bipolar disorder with this guy. So, to grab one statement and say, "Is this write or not? Do you disagree????" doesn't cut it for me. Because RJ will turn over yet another leaf here in, oh, three minutes. Maybe four. Just like the argument last week that the Texans may be a "good" team with possible playoff implications. We hadn't seen this team on the road in over a month! Considering the entire body of work, it was too soon, at least for me, to call them a "good" team. And they played out like what I thought they were--a solidly mediocre team: some things that look great, flashes of real potential, and dumb mistakes that bring them back to earth quick.
you're really not taking to account how important turnovers are and talk about cherry picking, how many times did you personally refer to sage's turnovers as a reason he shouldn't start. now justice talks about turnovers and you're all up in arms.
Nope. My story about RJ has not changed one bit. He's talking about turnover this week; he'll be talking about something else next week. The TOs aren't the point--the fact that he'll flip-flop here in the ten seconds is the point.
Man, I'm no RJ fan. And you and I usually agree on Texans stuff. What did RJ say in this editorial that you didn't agree with? I don't recall what he wrote last week...is he flip-flopping on the Texans from week to week?
I don't know; I didn't read it. I don't have time for drivel. I stopped reading RJ a very, very long time ago. Whatever it is, assuming his long-held pattern holds true, he'll say something nearly opposite next week. The line about turnovers, taken by itself, is of course accurate. The validity of whatever points he makes in this one article isn't the issue, it's the fact that (assuming he holds to his long-held pattern) he'll completely and utterly contradict himself next week, and then turn around again numerous times after that. You mean like he always does on the Astros, and has always done on the Texans? I read on here that he wrote a glowing article about the Texans last week, and scathed them this morning. I read neither article. I made my statement based on his history; I stopped spending my time watching his act a very long time ago.
it's not that he doesn't sprinkle in some (obvious) facts here and there; it's his chicken little act. i'll go back to what i said in the first post: the outcome yesterday was a disappointment, no question. but the sky isn't falling; the season isn't over, and while there's reason for concern this year, he's just short of calling for ANOTHER restart - notice how he casually worked bill cowher into the article ("yeah, yeah!" says the LCD, "hire cowher!!!!") and then jumped all over the texans (irrelevant, losers, wrong direction - i'm paraphrasing) to help whip his crowd into a frenzy? it's cheap and lazy, imo.
No - FOX News, when it started, realized there was a need for a conservative voice in media. This is all documented. And what happened is that they gained a large audience. MSNBC is kind of the left's response to that, and it's also had growing success this year. What happened is that they took a very soft unintentional media bias, and turned it into a very direct and obvious bias. But the thing is, *it worked*. People started tuning into the stations that reinforced their own beliefs. And since we have a partisan nation, we got a partisan media. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Fox. It's pretty well accepted that they started a (very successful) move of media from informer to biased commentator. What you're seeing with Richard Justice is the same thing.
Well...I think he happens to be right on this particular point. [I live in Austin and have no connection whatsoever to local Houston "journalism" or opinions on the matter.]
which "point" - that we lost the turnover battle? yeah, he is. but we all knew that - not exactly insightful. and he likely only picked it up from another, better journalist in the pressbox. but surely you don't agree with his less-than-veiled call to crash this regime and start all over again.....?
On the subject of: Does Richard Justice do a good job as a featured sports columnist - He's awful, indefensibly awful. His perspective is quicksilver, he has little to no true insight into the sport, and provides little to no information in his columns that add dimension to his opinions or would tell the readers something they don't already know. Unfortunately, the same can be said of John McClain and Fran Blinebury (NBA). At least that they're awful - Blinebury is more consistent, unfortunately he's a consistent wet blanket that seems to detest both the Rockets and his own readers. Jerome Solomon and Jonathon Fagin are the only guys I can think of for the Chronicle that are good, informative, and insightful writers that have a good grasp of perspective. To the point of selling is the only important indicator for a columnist's worth, I think it's a fair point but a horrible acceptance of garbage journalism. Bill Simmons is a guy I don't agree with too often on points, but I do love how he roasts empty columnists that piss out hollow knee jerk write ups for a living. I don't want to read a columnist and go away feeling I have a better grasp on the topic than he does. Justice is absolutely one of those guys. A true example of a great columnist should be one who writes for an out of town paper that I look to read anyway. Especially if I want to read what this person has to say even if I suspect I'll disagree with the main point. A Columnist who you read and wish you could spend an afternoon chatting with about the sport. Guys that I can think of in that regard are J.A. Adande and Jason Whitlock. With the particular column in question - I don't have any issue with what Justice wrote. In fact a lot of what he said echoes what I was saying last week. The difference between winners and losers in pro sports oftentimes comes down to a winning mentality and coming through on your potential ceiling. Good teams find a way to pull off occasional wins against better teams, and wins on the road against their equals. "Bad" teams usually top out winning (most of the) home games that they were supposed to win. The Texans CAN be a good team. The Texans ARE not a good team. They moved the ball with ease between the 20s, but choked away two red zone scores. Our Sarah Palin D-Coord with no understanding of the secondary allowed a 37-yo with a 77 season QB rating to ring us up for 3 TDs and a 111 rating (his high until yesterday was 82 vs the Lions). Our defense played well, but not all game, and looked like they quit in the fourth quarter when we were down 1 TD and they allowed three 20+ yd plays in a 3-min Viking TD drive that iced the game. For fun, check out Nick Ferguson during the 25-yd TD capper of that drive. I'd love to know what he was doing or thinking - and this is broken record that skips every week with us. We are one of the worst in the league in turnover ratio - and this alone is going to keep us from progressing, be it year 1,2,3,or 7. Our defensive coordinator, while good at containing the run, is hapless preparing against the pass and is unable to educate our safeties on how to play intelligent pass defense. We CAN be a good team, but we ARE not one. We are progressing towards that, but at a pace that is disheartening to most of us that have been watching since day 1. Evan
ugh, especially feigen, who couldn't write his way out of paper bag. it's the pile-on i objected to - sure, it was disappointing. but not "let's rebuild again" disappointing. i think they were just worn out. minnesota ran on 11 of their first 13 plays after halftime, and the TD pass was a well-timed call that caught us thinking it was going to be 12 of 14.
sorry Evan......you wrote this well, but you lost me when you said you'd want to spend an afternoon chatting with Whitlock......I don't know if you are a KC fan or read the KC Star weekly as I do. Whitlock is an abomination to journalism. I kind of had the same prespective you did, at first. I found myself reading his columns even though I knew I'd disagree with him, but low and behold, week in and week out he finds a way to eek in a race card comment and at least one self gratifying line. The guy lives for controversy. I quit reading his speweage about a year ago when I finally realized he was in the tank for Herman Edwards so much that he obviously couldn't see what was taking place on the field. Maybe he's changed since then, although I doubt it. BTW, there is a whole forum for political satire, Palin jokes should be left there.
