Bruce's piece featured on FJM

[Warren Brusstar]

Yes, I get a little hung up on the anonymity thing, probably because as a beat writer, it's a point of pride that if you write something critical, you show up the next day and are accountable. I'll stop short of calling some of these anonymous writers "cowards" because I do understand the the blogging world is different, but I do think it's easy and cheap to make fun and then hide behind a screen name. That's just me.

 

 

I wonder why this same principle doesn't seem to extend to journalists' use of "anonymous sources." Why is it not okay for a blogger to write anonymously (i.e, "hide behind a screen name") but it's okay for a newspaper columnist/reporter to print comments from "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources? If it's cowardly to criticize someone while using an screen name, isn't it just as cowardly for a journalist/reporter to criticize a public figure through the use of unnamed or anonymous sources? Yet, I don't see the same collective outrage from journalists regarding unnamed or anonymous sources (who generally make a journalist's life easier) as I do regarding anonymous bloggers (who generally make a journalist's life more difficult).

 

because the journalist wouldn't get the quotes in the first place if they didn't promise anonymity to the source

 

I know that, silly.

 

If the basis for calling anonymous bloggers "cowardly" is that it's unfair to criticize a public figure without at least allowing the public figure to know the identity of the person who is criticizing him, why isn't it equally cowardly for a journalist to print a column that includes critical comments about that same public figure made an "anonymous" or "unnamed" source?

[jersey cubs fan]

Yes, I get a little hung up on the anonymity thing, probably because as a beat writer, it's a point of pride that if you write something critical, you show up the next day and are accountable. I'll stop short of calling some of these anonymous writers "cowards" because I do understand the the blogging world is different, but I do think it's easy and cheap to make fun and then hide behind a screen name. That's just me.

 

 

I wonder why this same principle doesn't seem to extend to journalists' use of "anonymous sources." Why is it not okay for a blogger to write anonymously (i.e, "hide behind a screen name") but it's okay for a newspaper columnist/reporter to print comments from "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources? If it's cowardly to criticize someone while using an screen name, isn't it just as cowardly for a journalist/reporter to criticize a public figure through the use of unnamed or anonymous sources? Yet, I don't see the same collective outrage from journalists regarding unnamed or anonymous sources (who generally make a journalist's life easier) as I do regarding anonymous bloggers (who generally make a journalist's life more difficult).

 

because the journalist wouldn't get the quotes in the first place if they didn't promise anonymity to the source

 

I know that, silly.

 

If the basis for calling anonymous bloggers "cowardly" is that it's unfair to criticize a public figure without at least allowing the public figure to know the identity of the person who is criticizing him, why isn't it equally cowardly for a journalist to print a column that includes critical comments about that same public figure made an "anonymous" or "unnamed" source?

 

The biggest difference is the journalist is putting his name out there. I don't see either situation as cowardly though. There's nothing wrong with the responsible use of anonymous sources.

[seanimal]

umm.

 

well.

 

at least I'm not the first post anymore.

 

nsbblol "strikes" again

[Derwood]

umm.

 

well.

 

at least I'm not the first post anymore.

 

nsbblol "strikes" again

 

douchebaggery at its finest. the author of nsbblol is the lowest kind of internet coward

[Derwood]

:wave:

[UMFan83]

umm.

 

well.

 

at least I'm not the first post anymore.

 

nsbblol "strikes" again

 

douchebaggery at its finest. the author of nsbblol is the lowest kind of internet coward

 

After reading a few posts there, I can tell exactly who writes there.

[Derwood]

Bruce, don't follow that link. it's just a 12 year old level of potty mouth blog.

[Mephistopheles]

umm.

 

well.

 

at least I'm not the first post anymore.

 

nsbblol "strikes" again

 

Hahaha. People are making comments saying they're me on that blog. I didn't know people fantasized about being Meph.

 

http://hardwarelogic.com/articles/blogs/Website_Reviews_and_You/MoreYouKnow.jpg

[Jon]

I don't think there's a reason to keep talking about what's going on at that blog. And assuming that link contains language similar to what was reportedly at that site earlier, it's probably not appropriate, either.

 

If you ignore it, they'll go away.

[abuck1220]

people aren't going to ignore it because they like the attention.

[wekse]

umm.

 

well.

 

at least I'm not the first post anymore.

 

nsbblol "strikes" again

 

douchebaggery at its finest. the author of nsbblol is the lowest kind of internet coward

 

someone is just begging for a piece to be written about him, it's almost as if they feel left out.

[Derwood]

umm.

 

well.

 

at least I'm not the first post anymore.

 

nsbblol "strikes" again

 

douchebaggery at its finest. the author of nsbblol is the lowest kind of internet coward

 

someone is just begging for a piece to be written about him, it's almost as if they feel left out.

 

i can't wait for them too.

[Tyrant]

Bruce, don't follow that link. it's just a 12 year old level of potty mouth blog.

 

That's nice of you to protect Mr. Miles.

 

By the way, has that site been around for a while? I haven't heard of it and I've been on here for a few months now.

[Bull]

umm.

 

well.

 

at least I'm not the first post anymore.

 

nsbblol "strikes" again

 

douchebaggery at its finest. the author of nsbblol is the lowest kind of internet coward

 

someone is just begging for a piece to be written about him, it's almost as if they feel left out.

 

Its funny and sad that this humble little community has such an adamant critic.

[Guest]

umm.

 

well.

 

at least I'm not the first post anymore.

 

nsbblol "strikes" again

 

Apparently unrational is a word now. You learn something knew every day.

[Soul]

'08: the year of nsbb backlash?

 

LOL, I didn't know this little site would produce such vitriol. Tim: get your DoS blockers in tip top shape, because that's what is usually next you know.

[TruffleShuffle]

1. There is no way that this site is run by professional writers. (especially ones who claim to have writen some pretty good comedy shows).

 

yeah good point, those guys definitely don't know what they're doing. it's not like FJM was just voted the best sports blog of 2007. i mean that would generally tend to indicate that people find the site funny and enjoy going back there frequently and reading it, so it's a good thing that people didn't choose it as the best sports blog, or your argument would look pretty silly.

[Tyrant]

1. There is no way that this site is run by professional writers. (especially ones who claim to have writen some pretty good comedy shows).

 

yeah good point, those guys definitely don't know what they're doing. it's not like FJM was just voted the best sports blog of 2007. i mean that would generally tend to indicate that people find the site funny and enjoy going back there frequently and reading it, so it's a good thing that people didn't choose it as the best sports blog, or your argument would look pretty silly.

 

Not to mention 10,000 - 12,000 daily visitors. Who all must spend their time playing "Who Let the Dogs Out" in their cubicles and laughing hysterically.

[David]

Bruce, don't follow that link. it's just a 12 year old level of potty mouth blog.

 

That's nice of you to protect Mr. Miles.

 

By the way, has that site been around for a while? I haven't heard of it and I've been on here for a few months now.

 

I found it last week when it was posted in the comments section of Roast's blog. I posted the link in Rants and all hell broke loose and the thread wound up being deleted.

[CUBZ99]

1. There is no way that this site is run by professional writers. (especially ones who claim to have writen some pretty good comedy shows).

 

yeah good point, those guys definitely don't know what they're doing. it's not like FJM was just voted the best sports blog of 2007. i mean that would generally tend to indicate that people find the site funny and enjoy going back there frequently and reading it, so it's a good thing that people didn't choose it as the best sports blog, or your argument would look pretty silly.

 

This is the first piece I have read from FJM.com and my comment still stands. Maybe they have funny posts, but out of the entries I have read (only this one), it was not good quality or even remotely funny. Ironically, the same guy who claims that the story is full of cliches' piggybacks on almost all of the comments on every Cubs board regarding Theriot. There is no originality saying "Theriot's numbers are terrible." We all know that.

 

And the fact that they were voted best sports blog in '07 means what? Citizen Kane was voted the best movie of all time, and many people can't stand it. In the future it would be stronger if you could actually defend the site yourself, instead of relying on other people's opinions.

[TheGrinch]

1. There is no way that this site is run by professional writers. (especially ones who claim to have writen some pretty good comedy shows).

 

yeah good point, those guys definitely don't know what they're doing. it's not like FJM was just voted the best sports blog of 2007. i mean that would generally tend to indicate that people find the site funny and enjoy going back there frequently and reading it, so it's a good thing that people didn't choose it as the best sports blog, or your argument would look pretty silly.

 

This is the first piece I have read from FJM.com and my comment still stands. Maybe they have funny posts, but out of the entries I have read (only this one), it was not good quality or even remotely funny. Ironically, the same guy who claims that the story is full of cliches' piggybacks on almost all of the comments on every Cubs board regarding Theriot. There is no originality saying "Theriot's numbers are terrible." We all know that.

 

And the fact that they were voted best sports blog in '07 means what? Citizen Kane was voted the best movie of all time, and many people can't stand it. In the future it would be stronger if you could actually defend the site yourself, instead of relying on other people's opinions.

He made the statement about it being voted best blog of the year not to say how great of a blog it was, but that it shouldn't be a surprise that the blog is run by professional writers (which it is). You said it wasn't after having read one article that was mostly an inside joke that went over your head. Congrats on missing the point and still being wrong.

[biittner77]

1. There is no way that this site is run by professional writers. (especially ones who claim to have writen some pretty good comedy shows).

 

yeah good point, those guys definitely don't know what they're doing. it's not like FJM was just voted the best sports blog of 2007. i mean that would generally tend to indicate that people find the site funny and enjoy going back there frequently and reading it, so it's a good thing that people didn't choose it as the best sports blog, or your argument would look pretty silly.

 

This is the first piece I have read from FJM.com and my comment still stands. Maybe they have funny posts, but out of the entries I have read (only this one), it was not good quality or even remotely funny. Ironically, the same guy who claims that the story is full of cliches' piggybacks on almost all of the comments on every Cubs board regarding Theriot. There is no originality saying "Theriot's numbers are terrible." We all know that.

 

And the fact that they were voted best sports blog in '07 means what? Citizen Kane was voted the best movie of all time, and many people can't stand it. In the future it would be stronger if you could actually defend the site yourself, instead of relying on other people's opinions.

 

This wasn't one of their better articles. Read their glossary and if you still don't think its funny then fair enough.

[Tyrant]

 

This is the first piece I have read from FJM.com and my comment still stands. Maybe they have funny posts, but out of the entries I have read (only this one), it was not good quality or even remotely funny.

 

Here's one of my favorite FJM posts:

 

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2006/08/best-ever.html

[WilcoFan]

This is the first piece I have read from FJM.com and my comment still stands. Maybe they have funny posts, but out of the entries I have read (only this one), it was not good quality or even remotely funny.

 

This is why "Arrested Development" got canceled.

[Geech]

Oh jeez, the cool police has determined that FJM is no longer cool. I knew it would happen sooner or later.

 

What? No, we haven't. These are just some other dudes.