message boards

[kevinmitchell]

Good article by PJ Star Sports Editor Kirk Wessler about message boards, reader feedback, etc. Thought some here might be interested.

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/101707/KIR_BELLSDH7.073.php

[RoyalShock]

It's interesting that he doesn't like the anonymity aspect of message boards. I don't blame him, but it's the nature of the beast.

However, I wonder if he regularly complains to his editors about those anonymous editorials in EVERY edition of EVERY newspaper.

[CharlieHog]

Same song everybody in the print/tv/"real" media sings.

What they need to understand is that message boards don't exist to give him feedback. They don't exist to give the athletic departments feedback. They exist for fans to chat about a common interest. And you don't need to know who somebody is in real life.

I love how he says that they are now "allowed" to post on message boards. Members of the media can post on any board they want. Pick a screen name and start posting your opinions and interacting. But what most in the media really want is that "celebrity" status that comes from having Joe Q. Writer beside everything they write. It makes their opinions more legitimate.

The truth is I get more interesting and in many cases more well-written commentary from the internet (message boards and blogs) than I do in newspapers.

Also I think complaining about "cussing" is sort of silly but maybe that's just me.

[kevinmitchell]

I dont think Kirk is complaining about message boards at all. In fact, he is pro message boards.

I think his complaint, and I think its valid, is that if you have a problem with something the Journal Star wrote, said, or did, just write him, call him, or email him.

Why is that such a hard thing to do? I think we've all kind of earned that respect.

[MoValley John]

Just so we can have a civil discussion, my real name is Howie Feltersnatch.

[CharlieHog]

I dont think Kirk is complaining about message boards at all. In fact, he is pro message boards.

I think his complaint, and I think its valid, is that if you have a problem with something the Journal Star wrote, said, or did, just write him, call him, or email him.

Why is that such a hard thing to do? I think we've all kind of earned that respect.



yeah some of my comments were more general, not specific to this...guess I just get tired of hearing writers/coaches/etc complaining about the internet.

[DUBulldog]

It's interesting that he doesn't like the anonymity aspect of message boards. I don't blame him, but it's the nature of the beast.

However, I wonder if he regularly complains to his editors about those anonymous editorials in EVERY edition of EVERY newspaper.

I like the way you think, Royal....I had posted that same thought on another message board (http://www.bradleyfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5325)this morning.

As far as the anonymity thing goes....does it really matter? For instance, if I knew MoValley John's real name (Howie Feltersnatch :lol:), would it really have any more meaning to me than the name MoValley John?

If any of us were public figures, the real name might carry some weight. But, knowing GoSMSGo's real name wouldn't have any bearing on what he posts, or how I interpret or react to what he posts.

Many newscasters and radio people have "stage names"......so they are, to some degree, hiding anonymously behind a "screen name" to put it in message board speak.

[MoValley John]

knowing GoSMSGo's real name wouldn't have any bearing on what he posts, or how I interpret or react to what he posts.


Go's real name is Hugh Jazz.

[RoyalShock]

The obvious reasons journalists don't like the internet/message boards are money and pride. Pride because they are getting scooped. Money because people are realizing that the traditional media formats are inferior, using them less and less. I think they know they must adapt, but are fighting it tooth and nail. If they get left behind due to their refusal to change their business model, too bad.

I fully understand why coaches hate it. They have to spend time defending comments made on message boards that they have nothing to do with and no control over. When I introduced myself to Gregg Marshall last night and told him I run ShockerNet, he didn't know what it was. And I think that is a good thing. It hopefully means he hasn't run into a recruit asking about comments made there. I do think coaches can develop their own canned response to message boards when talking to recruits: "Every team has fans with positive and negative attitudes. But representatives of those attitudes don't necessarily post on message boards. You can be assured that they are still out there."

I think the schools and athletic departments should try to maintain a healthy relationship with fan sites. But the individual programs (coaches, players) should keep themselves distanced or it can become a distraction.

[DUBulldog]

I think the schools and athletic departments should try to maintain a healthy relationship with fan sites. But the individual programs (coaches, players) should keep themselves distanced or it can become a distraction.

I would guess that most coaches tell their players to stay away from the message boards. But, I also know that a lot of players (and players' families) do read the boards and, in some cases, post on them.

[kevinmitchell]

I like the way you think, Royal....I had posted that same thought on another message board (http://www.bradleyfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5325)this morning.

As far as the anonymity thing goes....does it really matter? For instance, if I knew MoValley John's real name (Howie Feltersnatch :lol:), would it really have any more meaning to me than the name MoValley John?

If any of us were public figures, the real name might carry some weight. But, knowing GoSMSGo's real name wouldn't have any bearing on what he posts, or how I interpret or react to what he posts.

Many newscasters and radio people have "stage names"......so they are, to some degree, hiding anonymously behind a "screen name" to put it in message board speak.

I agree DU. I dont care who you guys are--no offense. But I agree with Kirk that if you are going to critique his work (or anyone's work) why not just do it directly? Especially when given the information/means to do so.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I agree DU. I dont care who you guys are--no offense. But I agree with Kirk that if you are going to critique his work (or anyone's work) why not just do it directly? Especially when given the information/means to do so.

Whats the difference between a message board and a water cooler though.

Does it make ones take on the article less valid because he doesnt take it to the source but instead posts on www.ihatethisfreakingjournalist.com.

And if he is out there reading message boards hes still getting the same message that anybody could send him via email. Albeit sometimes in more of a "crass" manner but he cant take that hes in the profession.

[DUBulldog]

Whats the difference between a message board and a water cooler though.

Does it make ones take on the article less valid because he doesnt take it to the source but instead posts on www.ihatethisfreakingjournalist.com.

And if he is out there reading message boards hes still getting the same message that anybody could send him via email. Albeit sometimes in more of a "crass" manner but he cant take that hes in the profession.

I agree with what you say, except for the last sentence. A direct e-mail to the writer is likely to be more crass......if it is crass on a message board, it will probably be deleted (or edited).

To me, pissing and moaning on a message board isn't any different than tossing back a cold one with friends while b*tching about what Digger Phelps said last night on ESPN.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I forgot to put "wrong" in the last sentence.

But your right.