Any man that uses the phrase “Say what?” is clearly more responsible a journalist than you. You can tell, because he gives specific sources for his anecdotes. His “some friend” thinks you’re not responsible. Therefore, you’re not. Really, what don’t you understand?

Eggers and Mark Cuban should get together and have a party. I dare either of those men to make less sense.

I will not read him anymore.

Gets harder to accept as the years go by, plain & simple.

Writers in all facets of print media are now bias/agenda driven. We all know this. That is why we turn to blogs. And why I no longer trust/rely what the main street media tells me.

Too bad for you Kerry. Get used to it., or get out of the way.

The truth is that recent generations are rejecting the notion that print media and other forms of media are in any way responsible or unbiased. As it turns out, we are seeing more and more traditional media sources becoming the lapdogs of those maintaining the status quo, pretty much across the board.

Just look at the “objective” reporting leading up to the Iraq invasion. The one chance mainstream media had to make a difference and show off their “responsible journalism” they completely screwed the pooch and left us holding the bag.

Traditional media, now forever linked to maximizing profit margins with the formation of media conglomerates, is dying before our eyes. They will never hold the relevance they once had because the conditions that created that relevance in the first place (public service on the airwaves, etc.) are no longer in place.

The newer generations are much more media savvy than our masters would think.

Weird!

worse, Mr. Eggers’ statements stand directly in the way of good sportswriting. In attempting to delegitimize all bloggers he, in turn, moves to silence them.[/quote]

I was completely on your side until you slipped in this remark, Ben.

We all know that there is no going back to the pre-blogging era. At the same time, we all know that the blogging process, along with the comments from yay-hoos such as myself, can be greatly improved (which is to be expected - it’s still in its infancy).

Critiques such as the one by Eggers, wrongheaded and broadbrushed as they are, will ultimately help to make blogging better and more accepted. To the extent that he is incorrect, this will shine a light for those who are blindly ignorant. To the extent that he is correct, the medium is certainly young and versatile enough to adapt.

Eggers is just giving his opinion. Show him he’s wrong and leave it at that. Let’s not make him out to be an Al Campanis or a Joseph Goebbels, for crying out loud.

What’s worse, Mr. Eggers’ statements stand directly in the way of good sportswriting. In attempting to delegitimize all bloggers he, in turn, moves to silence them.

your writing is first rate. You shouldn’t be too concerned about this. Sometimes a person has to say something out loud, or in the case of a journalist perhaps, read it in print to see how silly it is.

Old media is quoting new media all the time. That is evidence enough of its quality and worth. As example I give you Dave’s work on player salaries.

Your own writing is a very enjoyable read. Your piece about the bunker during the draft reminded my of my favorite sports writer, now deceased, Hunter Thompson. More of the same please.

I thank both you and Dave for the pleasure you have both given me in reading your stories. I am older than most Edgers and grew up newspaper in hand. The writing here is easily as good and probably better than ninety percent of what I have previously read.

I wouldn’t stop reading Eggers. You can disagree on an issue and still respect his writing. Perhaps someday he’ll realize that his position on blogging is off base.

can give me as much insightful commentary as this site does, he’ll get as much support as this site does.

Even if the magical newspaper credibility fairy has given him “special credibility”, as he believes.

...and engaging communities, like this one, as well as poor bloggers and unappealing communities. I don’t like Mr. Egger’s conclusions or his perfunctory dismissal of an entire medium (probably because it is threatening his industry, if they refuse to change).

However, part of what would make for better blogging is a little bit more structure, as well as possibly better editing and some writing guidelines. I think BlazersEdge does a good job of “self-editing” (mostly because Dave and Ben are good writers) but also because the readers of the blog have such immediate input and say. Take, for example, the “Anatomy of a Pritch-slap” the other day. The community immediately let Ben know that his article had opened up a huge can of worms, and he revised it to clarify his position. That only happens if the community is an intelligent one.

And while I’m at it I might as well throw some constructive criticism Ben’s way…I, like PippenAintEasy above, do think Ben could trim his articles down a lot. He could probably make his point in about half the words. Dave does a very nice job of that, which is impressive considering he’s not a 9 to 5 writer. But I enjoy Ben’s writing too, just think he could cut out some of the verbosity. That also goes for some of the commentators here too….

religiously knows that this is the best site of all for following the Blazers. Sure there is some off the wall stuff but if you scroll through the postings you will quickly form the opinion that over all its pretty good. I for one am proud to be a tiny part of it and this site is the only site that I go for Blazers news and comment.

I love David Halberstams writing, he is my absolute favorite. I’m reading Playing for Keeps and the book is nothing short of amazing. I can honestly say there are bloggers on Yardbarker.com that are better than the ESPN “experts”. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to stop reading in the middle of a sports column because of sheer boredom. I also believe Mike Barrett’s blog on the Blazers official website is one of the best. He may have the credentials of a journalist but it is still called a “blog”. I really hate how the egg head tries to turn the word blog into a bad word.

My wife and I rented Ratatouille over the weekend. One of the main themes of that movie is that “Anyone can cook”. This doesn’t mean that everyone can be a great cook, but that great cooks can come from anywhere. It seems that some newspaper-people haven’t realized that the same thing applies in sports-bloggery.

...I wouldn’t stop reading Eggers. The time’s they are a changin” and Eggers sounds threatened. Without getting too much into it, he can have his opinion about Blogs and Bloggers and so what? It’s the times and technology which we are simultaneously blessed and cursed. With the proliferation of media outlets and forms of opinion the internet allows of course you are faced with a almost infinite scope of quality, Of course there are standards and protocal that a print journalist must follow that a casual blogger does not necessarily have to follow. I think this “freedom” threatens some old school journalists that now see the “breaking” story leaked in blogs and forums before they can get the message out. But there’s no going back. Blogging Lives! I really think neither entity should be threatened by the other, I think there’s room and need for both. It’s communication and I have faith in the readers and journalists and bloggers.

I’ll give an example.

I recently applied for a job with a company and before I did I thought I would google them to see if there was anything negative written about them. Little did I know there would be message board after message board both pro and con.

What was disappointing and also enlightening was that it was pretty obvious that many of the negative posts were clearly from competitors or bitter ex employees.

I did my due diligence and got to the bottom of each and every claim and eventually took the job. I won’t go into details but it really angered me that anyone could go on these message boards or blogs and spread whatever lies they wanted with complete anonymity, and with it no accountability. I asked my employer if they were aware of all of the negative message boards and they said that they figured that those message boards cost them roughly a million dollars a year in canceled orders. Due to the lack of accountablity they cannot sue for slander. Me working there I delved deeper to get the truth. A would be customer sees that and run for the hills.

I too wish there was more accountability with blogs or anything posted on the internet as it is just too easy for “posters” to start a rumor and really hurt someone.

Like that picture of me wearing my wifes bathing suit. Totally photo shopped.

Mr. Eggers is just frightened of the internet. I think the chorus from the song Old Hippie by Bellamy Brothers sums it up best.

He’s an old hippie and he don’t know what to do
Should he hang on to the old
Should he grab on to the new
He’s an old hippie…his new life is just a bust
He ain’t trying to change nobody
He’s just trying real hard to adjust

I want to learn his workout. Here is my favorite quote from the original article:

I like to have a newspaper while I sit and do my workout,

I’d like to do a workout where you sit and read the paper. Sign me up.

many years ago. It was written by an “old guard” columnist/sports writer in the Houston Chronical and it dealt with women sports writers in the locker rooms. This was back in the 70s when Houston had a women’s pro basketball team in a long defunct league.

This writer talked about how he and another writer received invitations to interview the ladies in their locker room after a game. I paraphrase, “We wasted no time in telling them, ‘No, thanks!’”

My first reaction, being a young man at the time, was, “Dude! I’ll go in your place!”

But my second reaction, the one that has stuck with me all these years, was… Hey, this guy is not doing his job. His job is to gather and spread all the news he can about local teams in any way possible and he isn’t doing it.

If Kerry doesn’t start using all the tools at his disposal, I suspect the game will soon pass him by.

As a working journalist and someone who got into journalism before the word “blog” existed, I can see many of Eggers’ points as seemingly valid. Yes, there is bad information on blogs. Yes, the information is not filtered through two or three layers of editors before being published. Yes, the reader needs to be more discerning about what amount of validity they give a blog than perhaps a newspaper. HOWEVER, saying “blog” should never mean ALL BLOGS. There are semi-reputable on-line and print publications that I do not bother to read because I know the information to be suspect, the opinions overbearing and really just not worth my time. That said, there are very reputable blogs with remarkable research and care given to each entry (blazersedge.com for sure … and that’s not a$$ kissing, it’s just true) that I find illuminating, if not occasionally overwhelming.
Mr. Eggers, I suspect, is having the same knee-jerk reaction I had to blogs 10-or-so years ago. Can we trust these people? Yes and no. I love that the reader has to decide for himself. I wish those FOXnews-watching drones would try that once and a while.
As for “me-me-me,” yeah, those stories can get old. And for the most part, a good writer realizes the reader could care less about the interesting thing that happened at breakfast and is much more interested in what happened to Mr. Lincoln at the opera that night.

Mr. Eggers is just being an old coot. Continue to enjoy his stuff (if you deem it reputable and a valuable use of time). But watch out for the tobacco spit.

You are so right, when you said that the content of a given blog makes the difference. If someone is so stupid that they would read something and blindly believe it without considering its validity or researching it then that person is stupid not the writer. The truth is in the words. If you write in your blog that you think Jarret Jack should be traded because he makes too many turn overs and another guy writes that Jarret Jack should be kept because he has alot of heart, who is wrong. Niether is wrong, because they are both valid points, it is up to the reader to decide for his or her self what they feel. You don’t have to have credentials to have passion about something and you don’t have to have credentials to write about it. The quality of the writing is subjective to the readers, you either connect with the auther or you don’t but either way it does not make the auther wrong or you wrong.

...in that there are so many of them, and their subjects, their approaches and the skill of the writing differ wildly. But at their best, as many of us know, they can be wonderfully written and very enlightening-for instance, I’ve never gained from any local print columnist the understanding of salary-cap issues that I’ve gained here (where, one might add, those issues can be explored in far greater depth than in the pages of the Tribune). And (to plug one of my other favorite blogs) the writing, conceptual brilliance, wit and generous spirit at a site like Locust St. (a glorious MP3 blog) is a continuous delight.

Seems like you’re taking this personally. I believe his point is VERY valid.

Blogs are only as good as the people writing them on the day they’re writing them and no one enforces accuracy or quality as a double check/fail safe. A bad day or a tired day and it’s okay to be lazy and so misinformation may be sent out. blogs may be emotionally oriented, and blogs have more leeway with rumors and assumptions.

A rumor repeated often enough becomes common knowledge even though it’s false. “All sharks have to keep moving or they drown.” is actually false, but fairly common knowledge and not unlike something that you’d hear repeated. Blogs can be a source of rumor, but what happens when that rumor is accidentally or purposefully reported as fact? It then starts to enter the “common knowledge” domain.

I think we saw some rumor and assumptions in play with the “KP had deals set-up with two teams during the draft and shafted one of them.” To date I haven’t seen firm source related confirmation one way or the other (I haven’t been online in 3-4 days so I may have missed it), but more of a “I feel this is true because it sounds better/right”.

There IS a different level of accountability. A blogger may choose to not say whatever they want, but they CAN say whatever they want and if someone wanted to manipulate people they COULD do it in a very subtle infrequent manner. I’ve seen examples of what I’m talking about and only spotted it because I knew the subject matter discussed better than the blogger manipulating people. (also note that I haven’t provided a link to the source of this statement and could very well be making it up but someone who trusts me could simply assume I’m telling the truth)

So, that said I can understand the concern with the bloggers. With no checks and balance and an assumption of trust by the readership, the few times purposeful or accidental misinformation is tossed in, it could very easily be assumed as true when in fact it’s not. It may be accidental or on purpose, but the POSSIBILITY does exists for abuse and that can be of grave concern if you’re looking for reliable information. Same with Wiki. I don’t have a single college professor that would allow Wiki information on a report. I would have to pull the source information and use that assuming it’s a reliable source.

I know that I very rarely spend the effort to link to information that I’ve heard. It’s then been left open to interpretation and I may have actually been wrong when I made the statement “the blazers are rebuilding again this year and don’t necessarily expect to make the play-offs – per KP”

Had I linked and done my homework properly I’d have kept that source information and been able to refer others to it and I would have double checked the information I was putting out there to ensure it was accurate.

So he personally doesn’t trust blogs based on the above items, and I can’t say I blame him. I tend to be skeptical about standard media because of what is chosen to be reported, how it’s reported, and the language/connotation associate usage. I’m even MORE skeptical about blogs.

Your statement of “the body of work speaks for itself” is true unless someone builds up a body of work with the sole purpose to manipulate in the future and in subtle ways. A dbl check and accountability are important. Maybe the readership catches it, and maybe they don’t. The risk is there and I can completely understand why someone bread in the world of proper journalism and who takes great pride in that field and the element of free speech would feel that “lazy blogging” is junk.

I feel the same way about talk radio. Little bits of good points and information surrounded by opinion and information that only supports said opinion and mocks all other lines of conversation so that the people listening are simply yes men and the uneducated on the particular issue being discussed can’t identify which parts are which.

are expressing how I feel … #1 that Eggers lumps all bloggers into the same dung heap. #2 that some of Eggers’ points are correct. The key words are SAME and SOME. There is a difference. Some blogs are dung heaps. But because some (many) are, it doesn’t mean all are.

Blogs have a place. For example, neither the Tribune or Oregonian … or any print media that I know about … has published the extensive work on salaries, cap space, free agency, Darius Miles, etc. that I have seen here in the last week. They can’t link to StoryTeller’s site. They might say “go to this site” – but there are lots of people who aren’t online and simply cannot do so. Here we can click a link and see all the numbers.

Blogs are in real time. Print media cannot compete with that.

We had extensive discussions previously about beat writers & columnists having blogs. Quick, Canzano, Hendrickson all do. KEggers (couldn’t resist that one) is a local anomaly, Usually the blogs just expand what was in the story or column (which has a limited number of inches available) touches on. I don’t read that many so I don’t know about the me-me-me part. (I’ve read plenty of me-me-me ones, but those were intentions of the blog in the first place … I am an artist and this is what I’m working on…)

I’ve also taken exception to some of Ben’s points, but I need to go back and read the main post again and maybe write offline so I can easily see everything. That will be for later.

Many of the old-school journalists are jealous and bitter about bloggers. It’s the old guard being replaced by the new, and it’s totally understandable if a bit childish. I read Kerry Eggers in the Trib from time to time and he hasn’t provided any new info in forever.

...as “blogger” refers to the medium, not the job.

Kerry Eggers is a journalist. He does reporting and writing as his profession; he is credentialed as a reporter, and he publishes regularly.

The same is true for the Oregonian’s writers such as Jason Quick.

The same is true for Henry Abbott.

The same is true for Ben and Dave.

There are two primary differences:

1) The medium. Eggers, Quick both work for print newspapers; and their columns are delivered as ink imprinted on newsprint as well as electronically. Abbott works for ESPN; he is only published electronically. Ben and Dave free-lance; and are not compenated for their work.

2) The presence of independent editors. Some reporters have to get their writings approved by an editor prior to publication; others are expected to be their own editors. Some consider this a crucial difference—but others seldom notice any difference in the quality or integrity of the writing between an edited journalist and a self-editing one. Peter Vescey has an editor, but judging from the quality of his writing, his editor wields little more than a spellchecker and a rubber stamp. Abbott’s writing is of the upmost quality.

A number of people wrote about his “resistance” to accepting blogs and his lack of actual experience with them. There was a sense that he is resistant and so automatically doesn’t read them. So I reread.

You know, I believe people could be right.

Rereading I could see the “old guard” vs “new guard” mentality. He didn’t sound open to the benefits as listed by a number of bloggers here.

1.) Active commentary/participation
2.) Real time debate
3.) instantaneous
4.) In depth coverage
5.) Passion
6.) Pure expression of free speech

and I’m sure other benefits.

That said, I think the attack on the KEgger for his point of view rubbed me the wrong way, particularly when I could see where he’s coming from. Not everyone will agree, but shouting out “I’m right and you’re wrong” and then flipping them the bird won’t help bring people together and I felt like that was what this post did. I feel the bird was the “I’m no longer reading”, and wasn’t needed. In all honesty, I think that turned me off of the rest of the commentary that was being made. I immediately went into the “defend the kegger cause I like beer in my milkshakes and this post feels wrong, but I haven’t put my finger on the why yet” mode.

The conversation and debate itself is something that I always feel is awesome. Our society should have civil debates more often. Frankly that’s a reason I love the BEdge. We may all disagree but we tend to be civil about those disagreements and the debates tend to be very thoughtful. I love them.

Anyway, back to the KEg. People, as a group, resist change particularly if they feel threatened by it in some manner. They always have and they always will. I’m not going to hate someone for that. There are excellent arguments on both sides of the conversation and really people should be redirecting the conversation to “how can we fix the valid concerns about blogs and make them even better?”

Superb response to a rediculous attack.

as long as it supplied the necessary pulp needed to keep his job.

But one way of being accountable is by having your real name accompany the work you do. Most bloggers do that, and most teams are aware of bloggers that cover their teams as they hold a certain amount of sway with a portion of their fanbases’. As always, and I’ve seen the attack made by Eggers before, it shows a poor knowledge of the problem that the print media has in the “me-me-me” world, and they’re blaming blogs for the demise. It’s a classic exampe of blaming the chicken for the egg and vice versa while saying nothing about problems that print journalism has had over the years.