Sports Media Thread

[Felix Leiter]

Ditka didn't like Walsh, as he regarded him as an 'academic' and someone who never played the game. Putting a big lineman in the backfield and running him against the Bears was just rubbing salt into the wound for the '84 Bears. Ditka never forgot. Roger Craig was a stud for a few years both running and catching the ball.

 

When Hank Stram was with the Chiefs and had QB Lenny Dawson slide the pocket, a number of teams tried to adopt that offense the next couple years. It didn't last too long.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So Arguello lives in Arizona, and he's the one who got this shot of Heyward. It's a real good ST pic, especially for someone who probably has to shoot over/around a fence: http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/files/2016/02/Jason-Heyward-624x468.jpg

 

Yesterday, another Cubs blog used that pic in this tweet:

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

That tweet somehow got picked up by CBS Chicago's blog, who credited the pic to Bornon3rd or Yahoo, I'm not 100% sure and it's since been corrected.

 

This apparently pissed off Arguello, who ranted about it for a while last night, and who now has found a solution in the form of MSPaint watermarks.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

I get that it sucks that his picture was misattributed, but how do you come to the (apparently inarguable) conclusion that a 'woo Jason Heyward at camp' tweet is stealing your work? Sure citation would have been nice, but this is also just Twitter we're talking about, not a blog post or more formal form of media. I look at that tweet and don't assume that person took the picture(partially because of how good it is!), am I crazy?

[Banedon]

Haha, that blogger was just tweeting the picture...he never claimed credit. CBS is the culprit here. That's a pretty stupid mistake. But it was corrected. Move along, Arguello.

[Banedon]

Whoa....ESPN is making a 7.5 hour long OJ "30 for 30" documentary?

[biittner77]

Whoa....ESPN is making a 7.5 hour long OJ "30 for 30" documentary?

 

shouldn't that be 240 for 30?

 

This seems pretty unnecessary. Unless they actually interview OJ.

 

Not sure if it was A & E but somebody already made a pretty good documentary about OJ as well as the civil trial. I think it's called OJ: The lost tapes or something like that.

[David]

Haha, that blogger was just tweeting the picture...he never claimed credit. CBS is the culprit here. That's a pretty stupid mistake. But it was corrected. Move along, Arguello.

 

Eh, I'm not sure who is to blame there. Is CBS supposed to be aware of every blogger who might Tweet out a pic (especially if it's already a somewhat known blog that Tweeted out Arguello's pic seemingly without crediting the source)? It's not like it's hard to hit re-tweet. It's actually a lot harder to Tweet that pic out without linking it to Arguello's Tweet.

 

and i think everyone here knows how not a fan I am of Arguello's work

[David]

Whoa....ESPN is making a 7.5 hour long OJ "30 for 30" documentary?

 

shouldn't that be 240 for 30?

 

This seems pretty unnecessary. Unless they actually interview OJ.

 

Not sure if it was A & E but somebody already made a pretty good documentary about OJ as well as the civil trial. I think it's called OJ: The lost tapes or something like that.

 

30 for 30 meant 30 episodes/documentaries for ESPN's 30 year anniversary...but then they just kept the title for the subsequent volumes/seasons even though it wasn't the 30th anniversary anymore

 

but yeah that does seem way too long

Edited February 12, 2016 by David

[Banedon]

Whoa....ESPN is making a 7.5 hour long OJ "30 for 30" documentary?

 

shouldn't that be 240 for 30?

 

This seems pretty unnecessary. Unless they actually interview OJ.

 

Not sure if it was A & E but somebody already made a pretty good documentary about OJ as well as the civil trial. I think it's called OJ: The lost tapes or something like that.

 

30 for 30 meant 30 episodes/documentaries for ESPN's 30 year anniversary...but then they just kept the title for the subsequent volumes/seasons even though it wasn't the 30th anniversary before

 

but yeah that does seem way too long

 

It's apparently going to be aired as five 2-hour episodes (with commercials), and debuted at Sundance. Very well received.

[CP_414]

They are doing that OJ 30/30 over 4 or 5 days this summer. I saw a review of a portion of it that was released to critics recently and they said it is the best thing ESPN has ever produced.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sounds promising, though too bad Brett Morgen wasn't involved. June 17th, 1994 is amazing.

[UMFan83]

 

shouldn't that be 240 for 30?

 

This seems pretty unnecessary. Unless they actually interview OJ.

 

Not sure if it was A & E but somebody already made a pretty good documentary about OJ as well as the civil trial. I think it's called OJ: The lost tapes or something like that.

 

30 for 30 meant 30 episodes/documentaries for ESPN's 30 year anniversary...but then they just kept the title for the subsequent volumes/seasons even though it wasn't the 30th anniversary before

 

but yeah that does seem way too long

 

It's apparently going to be aired as five 2-hour episodes (with commercials), and debuted at Sundance. Very well received.

 

Should just make this season 2 of Making a Murderer

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Haha, that blogger was just tweeting the picture...he never claimed credit. CBS is the culprit here. That's a pretty stupid mistake. But it was corrected. Move along, Arguello.

 

Eh, I'm not sure who is to blame there. Is CBS supposed to be aware of every blogger who might Tweet out a pic (especially if it's already a somewhat known blog that Tweeted out Arguello's pic seemingly without crediting the source)? It's not like it's hard to hit re-tweet. It's actually a lot harder to Tweet that pic out without linking it to Arguello's Tweet.

 

and i think everyone here knows how not a fan I am of Arguello's work

 

I think it's more of an honest mistake. CBS had no way of knowing, but they fixed it when notified. Bornon3rd could have cited the source, but the point of the tweet was more light-hearted fun than official reporting so I get not taking away from that purpose with formal citation. The worst offender is Arguello going off the deep end about it, and ruining his future pictures over what amounts to a victimless misunderstanding.

[RammyFanny]

Haha, that blogger was just tweeting the picture...he never claimed credit. CBS is the culprit here. That's a pretty stupid mistake. But it was corrected. Move along, Arguello.

 

Eh, I'm not sure who is to blame there. Is CBS supposed to be aware of every blogger who might Tweet out a pic (especially if it's already a somewhat known blog that Tweeted out Arguello's pic seemingly without crediting the source)? It's not like it's hard to hit re-tweet. It's actually a lot harder to Tweet that pic out without linking it to Arguello's Tweet.

 

and i think everyone here knows how not a fan I am of Arguello's work

 

Yeah, it's just a weird situation. Arguello overreacted with his hissyfit but I can understand why he'd be mad that he didn't get credit on a higher traffic site. That said, I can't blame BornOn3rd too much unless he was intentionally doing it. He probably just saw it and thought it was some mainstream picture from the Cubs. I think the obvious solution would have been to take care of things a little more quietly instead of making a public display out of it and getting your follower army ready for war for what was probably an honest mistake. And yeah, a small watermark probably would be best. I swear I could throw together a normal looking watermark on my IPhone in 2 seconds that's better than whatever he attempted.

[Gilby]

It doesn't matter who first took the picture and where it originated from; all that matters is where it ended up. Arguello should know that.

[imb]

the born on 3rd guy also melted down, very entertaining horsefeathers

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[imb]

lmao this guy actually caught a lot of horsefeathers

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[jersey cubs fan]

Hahaha, you either retweet something you like or you post your own. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

 

 

In an mri tube

[imb]

this is great, now he's posting his x-rays

[Sammy Sofa]

horsefeathers, I hate it when Derwood is right.

[Derwood]

[expletive], I hate it when Derwood is right.

 

Lucky for you it doesn't happen often

[Cubswin11]

Sounds promising, though too bad Brett Morgen wasn't involved. June 17th, 1994 is amazing.

That's my favorite 30 For 30 and it's not even close

[RammyFanny]

The weird thing is that Arguello and him are apparently friends and have met up together on a few occasions, yet Arguello immediately threw him under the bus and assumed it was some diabolical vendetta to make people think bornon3rd was the actual photographer. The picture looked like it was ripped from a Cubs.com article and it's easy to think it's just another mainstream picture if you only see Arguello's tweet pop up on your timeline. Arguello going off about how he thought they were cool and he thought he knew him better had me cracking up like this was really some premeditated attack on him. It was clearly an honest mistake worthy of a DM.

 

Lol

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[CP_414]

The majority of posts on Arguello's website include pictures he did not take, but he doesn't seem to source any of them.

 

I can't stand him. He should go back to pretending he's a scout without basic addition skills, and worry less about how the unmarked image he posted on a public forum is being shared by the public.

[RammyFanny]

I only quickly glanced last night so maybe I missed something but I'm pretty sure someone innocently tweeted the picture at Heyward and said something along the lines of "looking good in Cubbie blue!" and Arguello replied "photo property of @CubsDen" or something haha.

[Banedon]

[expletive], I hate it when Derwood is right.

 

What did I miss here? What was Derwood right about?