The Article: WSJ - reopened!

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

filipo

Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
2 names - here you go.
Douglas Brinkley.
Eric Hagerman
Click to expand...

You know, these are two really good examples of another phenomenon or effect of going beyond the filter. I'd argue that these guys maybe didn't have access to the "hard questions" as you or I might know them. (I mean, how long did the myth of LA's pumpkin heart go on unchallenged?) Why is that? It's like a self-perpetuating effect. The myth of Lance is out there largely because he forced it out there. He controlled the message for so long, largely by going around the filter.

Anyway, fascinating to me, probably not so much to others. Going to mow the lawn now.
 
F

filipo

Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Barrus said:
I just read the music articles always, and well a lot of those are sometimes not that well written. But an article need not be good to have a large impact on the lives and the general opinion, most often a bad article is better at that. But still that has absolutely nothing to do with sports journalists, of which you gave no example as to who you find a real journalist, or don't you find sports journalists, journalists?
Click to expand...

Well, the original accusation was "most journalists of any stripe". So not just sports journalists. But, disregarding your disregard for the written word, here are a couple of sports journos I would say aren't enthralled by access:

Juliet Macur
NY Daily News guy
David Walsh, obvs
I'd even put Dan Coyle in that lot

BTW did read the article for a bit, but really was not interesting in the least for me, so didn't really kept on reading.
Click to expand...

Truly, i find this shocking.
 
Barrus

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
1
0
filipo said:
Well, the original accusation was "most journalists of any stripe". So not just sports journalists. But, disregarding your disregard for the written word, here are a couple of sports journos I would say aren't enthralled by access:



Truly, i find this shocking.
Click to expand...

I do not disregard the written word, but if it is a multiple page article into a subject that I do not find interesting, I will not spend the time. I have more than enough other articles to read. FInd it shocking if you will, but I myself rather read articles that do cater to my fancy or peak my interest in some way. In general I do not read most of these stories. And I know for certain you do not find interesting the articles that I read, or at least do not want to read what they are about. But I can read many of these articles at a day and on some way enjoy myself, or at least learn something that fascinates me or read an interesting novel, this was not such an article, therefor I do not continue through the entire piece.
 
Dr. Maserati

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
filipo said:
No -- I didn't say "avoided". I specifically made the point that they have largely been unable to ask the hard questions.



And Bill O'Reilly has been on TV an awful long time. Is he a journalist?
Another question: What led those papers to hire Liggett?



You got me there. Anything written about Lance Armstrong in Outside magazine is absolute, one hundred percent total chammy-sniffing cack. On that we agree.
As for Brinkley and VF, gladly accepted. See? Now was that so hard?

I'd offer up a third name, but Betsy can tell you more about that...
Click to expand...
Agree "avoided' was my word (interpretation) - not yours.

But again by saying that 'journalists' are "unable" is agreeing with 'albertos' original post "Most journalists (of any stripe) are more than willing to compromise their integrity to get access to a major celebrity."

Which is why I don't understand why you took comments that you appear to agree on off on a different tangent - not flaming, just confused.

Off the top of my head I can think of about 15 'journalists' who have written unflattering doping pieces on LA - but I have no idea what college they went to and exams they passed - I focus on the substance of their piece not their qualification.
 
B

Beech Mtn

Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
There's a new Sports Illustrated article. I posted it in the Landis Links thread since this one has gone so far down a tangent.
 
Dr. Maserati

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Cobblestones said:
So, anyway, what has been achieved by this pointless exercise?
Click to expand...
That 'albertos' original point that "Most journalists (of any stripe) are more than willing to compromise their integrity to get access to a major celebrity." is pretty accurate.
 
F

filipo

Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Agree "avoided' was my word (interpretation) - not yours.

But again by saying that 'journalists' are "unable" is agreeing with 'albertos' original post "Most journalists (of any stripe) are more than willing to compromise their integrity to get access to a major celebrity."
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Just because one is unable to gain access to a subject doesn't mean they are willing compromise integrity to get it. They may, but it's not causal. I fundamentally disagree with Alberto's statement.

Off the top of my head I can think of about 15 'journalists' who have written unflattering doping pieces on LA - but I have no idea what college they went to and exams they passed - I focus on the substance of their piece not their qualification.
Click to expand...

Well, it sounds like you focus on what you agree with. Not flaming or fanboying either, but just because it's written doesn't make it true. Just because it agrees with what you believe doesn't make it real. (Again, not flaming, just saying you have to know your sources.)
PS don't play the ivory tower card. For the longest time, learning journalism was a matter of training and apprenticeship, not one of colleges and exams. These new "journalists," unfortunately, have none of the above. They have laptops, but little more.
 
Hugh Januss

Hugh Januss

Jul 9, 2009
7,870
1,279
20,680
Dr. Maserati said:
That 'albertos' original point that "Most journalists (of any stripe) are more than willing to compromise their integrity to get access to a major celebrity." is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

That is like saying that most pro cyclists are not above resorting to cheating through the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs to earn and hold on to their place in the pro peloton.
 
F

filipo

Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
That 'albertos' original point that "Most journalists (of any stripe) are more than willing to compromise their integrity to get access to a major celebrity." is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

Or that people are generally stupid.
 
alberto.legstrong

alberto.legstrong

Mar 22, 2010
908
0
0
Beech Mtn said:
There's a new Sports Illustrated article. I posted it in the Landis Links thread since this one has gone so far down a tangent.
Click to expand...

I think this thread is hilarious. Literally hundreds of posts in what? 2 or 3 short days, initiated by the rumor of an article in the WSJ that has yet to appear !!!

How do you spell 'awesome'? The Article: WSJ

OK, so maybe the right word is 'as$some'.

I hope it's still going on its own wacky way well into the Fall. :D :confused:
 
Cobblestones

Cobblestones

May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Hugh Januss said:
That is like saying that most pro cyclists are not above resorting to cheating through the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs to earn and hold on to their place in the pro peloton.
Click to expand...

or that water is wet?
 
Dr. Maserati

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
filipo said:
No, it's not. Just because one is unable to gain access to a subject doesn't mean they are willing compromise integrity to get it. They may, but it's not causal. I fundamentally disagree with Alberto's statement.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on this point? Surely those that 'toe the party line' get far more access than those that don't?

filipo said:
Well, it sounds like you focus on what you agree with. Not flaming or fanboying either, but just because it's written doesn't make it true. Just because it agrees with what you believe doesn't make it real. (Again, not flaming, just saying you have to know your sources.)
PS don't play the ivory tower card. For the longest time, learning journalism was a matter of training and apprenticeship, not one of colleges and exams. These new "journalists," unfortunately, have none of the above. They have laptops, but little more.
Click to expand...

How do you come to the conclusion that "it sound like I focus on what I agree on"?
On the (red) paragraph - I had to check what you meant by 'Ivory Tower' - again, while I agree with what you have said you may need to reread my prior post - if there is something in it that requires clarification, just ask - as quite frankly I don't understand your need to point out something that I did not suggest.
 
F

filipo

Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Can you elaborate on this point? Surely those that 'toe the party line' get far more access than those that don't?
Click to expand...
I'm sure they do. That doesn't mean they will. What you seem to be suggesting is that one results from the other, which isn't always the case.


How do you come to the conclusion that "it sound like I focus on what I agree on"?
On the (red) paragraph - I had to check what you meant by 'Ivory Tower' - again, while I agree with what you have said you may need to reread my prior post - if there is something in it that requires clarification, just ask - as quite frankly I don't understand your need to point out something that I did not suggest.
Click to expand...

Nah. It's not worth it. This was interesting to me for a while, but frankly the responses have been disheartening. Better to leave it at snark and innuendo.
 
shawnrohrbach

shawnrohrbach

Apr 11, 2009
315
0
0
alberto.legstrong said:
I think this thread is hilarious. Literally hundreds of posts in what? 2 or 3 short days, initiated by the rumor of an article in the WSJ that has yet to appear !!!

How do you spell 'awesome'? The Article: WSJ

OK, so maybe the right word is 'as$some'.

I hope it's still going on its own wacky way well into the Fall. :D :confused:
Click to expand...


And shame on me for being just as amused by it. Great way to spend a lunch break.
 
Barrus

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
1
0
filipo said:
Nah. It's not worth it. This was interesting to me for a while, but frankly the responses have been disheartening. Better to leave it at snark and innuendo.
Click to expand...
classy from you, at least show some respect to the written word
 
Dr. Maserati

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
filipo said:
I'm sure they do. That doesn't mean they will. What you seem to be suggesting is that one results from the other, which isn't always the case.




Nah. It's not worth it. This was interesting to me for a while, but frankly the responses have been disheartening. Better to leave it at snark and innuendo.
Click to expand...
To be fair - since they were the only cards you ever had.... you were going to have to show it sometime.
 
alberto.legstrong

alberto.legstrong

Mar 22, 2010
908
0
0
Barrus said:
classy from you, at least show some respect to the written word
Click to expand...

I've seen some really dumb conversations on this forum. This one ranks up there. And to spend as much time on it.... I just sat back and let the rest of the forum run with it because if someone tells you the sky ain't blue, how do you go about changing their mind? Life's just too short to spend the time.

It was a nice distraction, but I would like to point everyone back to Betsy's original post that I was trying to feed off of until we took a detour
... into ... the Circular Zone....

Submitted for your approval, a co-opted media that is simultaneously elevated and income's increased for telling the emperor his clothes are magnificent and bullied/ostracized for daring not to say it with a straight face at all times. Consider that it must be a pleasure to see those who sold out treated like courtesans in the King's Court while they get treated like peasants for sticking to their integrity. But some of us are dead certain this is a rare thing!

Does anyone remember the classic episode with the boy who would wish anyone out into the cornfield who didn't give him what he wanted? I encourage you to go find it and check it out. Interesting similarities to the Cult's Leader.
 
O

Oldman

Jun 19, 2009
6,015
890
19,680
alberto.legstrong said:
I've seen some really dumb conversations on this forum. This one ranks up there. And to spend as much time on it.... I just sat back and let the rest of the forum run with it because if someone tells you the sky ain't blue, how do you go about changing their mind? Life's just too short to spend the time.

It was a nice distraction, but I would like to point everyone back to Betsy's original post that I was trying to feed off of until we took a detour
... into ... the Circular Zone....

Submitted for your approval, a co-opted media that is simultaneously elevated and income's increased for telling the emperor his clothes are magnificent and bullied/ostracized for daring not to say it with a straight face at all times. Consider that it must be a pleasure to see those who sold out treated like courtesans in the King's Court while they get treated like peasants for sticking to their integrity. But some of us are dead certain this is a rare thing!

Does anyone remember the classic episode with the boy who would wish anyone out into the cornfield who didn't give him what he wanted? I encourage you to go find it and check it out. Interesting similarities to the Cult's Leader.
Click to expand...

And with the DEA announcing an investigation into San Diego Chargers football non-prescription drug use on the Federal level this story may evolve into something bigger still . NY Times reports Feds pushing Tiger on the Galea drug shipping biz as well. There's a heaping pile of sh*t on the table and it appears the fan has a credible power source. Until the Twain meets...
 
B

Bicicleta

Jan 26, 2010
217
0
9,030
I read the whole thing. Let me ad a few more "Lames": Lame Lame Lame Lame Lame Lame Lame Lame Lame Lame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom