SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.since67 said:too many folks here who, if they don't agree with someone, hurl an insult.
Pat_Nasty said:Anyway, I believe I do know what I'm talking about. I am, at present, a working (usually) writer and reporter. As a young guy trying to get into the game, I am frustrated at the direction journalism is going in now, whether it's politics, sports, or entertainment. It's all about access these days. The Whitehouse heavily favors reporters who support its agenda with it, and take it away from those who refuse to let the government control what they print.
Pat_Nasty said:Wow. That was... uh... over the top. So far I'm batting one thousand here... one post, one inspired hissy-fit.
Pat_Nasty said:Anyway, I believe I do know what I'm talking about. I am, at present, a working (usually) writer and reporter. As a young guy trying to get into the game, I am frustrated at the direction journalism is going in now, whether it's politics, sports, or entertainment. It's all about access these days.
The Whitehouse heavily favors reporters who support its agenda with it, and take it away from those who refuse to let the government control what they print.
Look, I'm not saying that Reiss doesn't work for his living. He does, very hard I'm sure. I'm just saying that by giving up some independence in terms of what he chooses to write in return for greater access to the team and information, he's working a little less hard than maybe he should be, and, what's worse, guys like him make it harder for everybody else, who aren't the "pet" reporters of whoever controls the access to whatever it is they're trying to cover.
njpatsfan said:Ah, an idealistic journalism major. Let me let you in on a little secret that the lib journalism profs never told you: reporters are whores. It has been that way since time immemorial. If you're not ready to lay down, you're in the wrong business.
PUH-LEESE. That must explain all the pro-Bush articles I am always seeing in the paper. Do you really think think that the current administration INVENTED access ? The last one raised raised it to a fine art, practically pedaling access for cash, along with the Lincoln Bedroom, cabinet positions, 'executive orders' and photo ops. After the Lewinski story broke (on the Internet, after the story was suppressed by Newsweek), Clinton didn't have a public press conference in over a year - but plenty of softball 1 on 1 interviews. Where were the hand-wringing journalists decrying access then ? Not a peep.
If you think that GWB is the biggest threat to journalism, you are seriously naive, deluded, or both. Ever heard of Jason Blair ? NY Times reporter who made up stories while sitting in his apartment high on crack ? He wasn't caught for years because the stories all had perfect liberal spin. How about the CNN executive, who admitted that they didn't air stories about Sadaam Hussein's genocide against the Kurds, because it would have precluded getting interviews (access) with him ? How about the obviously fake National Guard documents that CBS tried to smear GWB with a few weeks before an election ? How about the AP photojournalist who was just caught doctoring his photos to make them more dramatic (and anti-Israeli) ?
patchick said:I share everyone's deep appreciation for Mike Reiss. He covers the team in a way that no other reporter does. But off the top of my head I have to admit I can't think of a single time he's published any information that would have even slightly annoyed the team. That could be simply a conservative journalistic approach--Mike doesn't do the rumor beat, his style so far is a straightforward chronicling of events. But I suppose it could also mean he's sat on some info to keep getting access to more. There's no way for any of us to know.
Seymour93 said:What do your rightwing politics have to do with Mike Reiss? Save the political rants for the political forum.
I agree with since67 who said insults are thrown around wayyy too much on this forum (especially at new posters). Here we have a well-reasoned critique of a reporter, and what does that get in response... scolding, name-calling, you name it, by what seems to be members of the Reiss family. I ask these forumers, why is Reiss above criticism? And why the hell do you care so much about him that you feel the need to make yourself look like an irrational ********?
Pat_Nasty said:Wow. That was... uh... over the top. So far I'm batting one thousand here... one post, one inspired hissy-fit.
Calm down, dude. Seriously.
Anyway, I believe I do know what I'm talking about. I am, at present, a working (usually) writer and reporter. As a young guy trying to get into the game, I am frustrated at the direction journalism is going in now, whether it's politics, sports, or entertainment. It's all about access these days. The Whitehouse heavily favors reporters who support its agenda with it, and take it away from those who refuse to let the government control what they print. In entertainment, you're either a shill like Entertainment Weekly, giving everything glowing reviews and conducting soft-ball "blow job" interviews to appease studios and publicists, and you get all the access you want-- or your a muckracking tabloid, and have to use the sleasiest tactics available and compromise your ethics in other ways, because you get zero access from anyone -- without serious coercion.
The same is true in sports. Just look at today's chat -- when asked about an injury, Reiss doesn't have anything to say that hasn't previously been reported, or isn't a cop-out "well, he looks pretty good, but we'll have to see" kind of non-answer. He's around the compound constantly. How has he not gotten an anonymous quote from a trainer or medical guy about players' conditions? Tomase did on Bruschi, and he's got half the access Reiss gets.
As I said in my original post, I understand that at this point in the media environment, you need guys like Reiss. But don't tell me his job is harder than somebody like Tomase's -- because I know. It's 10x harder to consistently get "scoops" that aren't stamped for approval by the franchise media reps, especially when you've got a history of printing things that obviously cheese off the FO -- like anything having to do with a Patriot injury, ever.
Look, I'm not saying that Reiss doesn't work for his living. He does, very hard I'm sure. I'm just saying that by giving up some independence in terms of what he chooses to write in return for greater access to the team and information, he's working a little less hard than maybe he should be, and, what's worse, guys like him make it harder for everybody else, who aren't the "pet" reporters of whoever controls the access to whatever it is they're trying to cover.
Miguel said:Mike Reiss has consistently opined this offseason in his Ask Reiss/chat sessions that he thought that the Pats should have been more proactive in their dealings with Adam and Givens.
patchick said:Very fair point, thanks. (Though it could be argued that offering an opinion is different from revealing information.)
Miguel said:I totally agree than offering an opinion is different from revealing information. I just wonder what negative information did Reiss not reveal that other writers did.
Pat_Nasty said:As I said in my original post, I understand that at this point in the media environment, you need guys like Reiss. But don't tell me his job is harder than somebody like Tomase's -- because I know. It's 10x harder to consistently get "scoops" that aren't stamped for approval by the franchise media reps, especially when you've got a history of printing things that obviously cheese off the FO -- like anything having to do with a Patriot injury, ever.
njpatsfan said:Ah, an idealistic journalism major. Let me let you in on a little secret that the lib journalism profs never told you: reporters are whores. It has been that way since time immemorial. If you're not ready to lay down, you're in the wrong business.
PUH-LEESE. That must explain all the pro-Bush articles I am always seeing in the paper. Do you really think think that the current administration INVENTED access ? The last one raised raised it to a fine art, practically pedaling access for cash, along with the Lincoln Bedroom, cabinet positions, 'executive orders' and photo ops. After the Lewinski story broke (on the Internet, after the story was suppressed by Newsweek), Clinton didn't have a public press conference in over a year - but plenty of softball 1 on 1 interviews. Where were the hand-wringing journalists decrying access then ? Not a peep.
If you think that GWB is the biggest threat to journalism, you are seriously naive, deluded, or both. Ever heard of Jason Blair ? NY Times reporter who made up stories while sitting in his apartment high on crack ? He wasn't caught for years because the stories all had perfect liberal spin. How about the CNN executive, who admitted that they didn't air stories about Sadaam Hussein's genocide against the Kurds, because it would have precluded getting interviews (access) with him ? How about the obviously fake National Guard documents that CBS tried to smear GWB with a few weeks before an election ? How about the AP photojournalist who was just caught doctoring his photos to make them more dramatic (and anti-Israeli) ?
Do you know what 'stringers' are, and how they are used ? Those are the unheralded underpaid people that actually DO the legwork, interviews and fact checking (what reporters are SUPPOSED to do), which is then turned over to the 'star' national reporter to actually write the article that will be published (with the correct editorial spin) with that reporter as the only one in the byline. Isn't that extermely dishonest ? The person telling you the story is telling you facts that he or she didn't collect themselves, but pretends that they did ? Your probably too young to remember, but prior to the journalism scandals, you NEVER saw the stringers get credit. Now at least, you will see a little blurb at the bottom, saying so-and-so 'contributed' to the report.
My guess is that your journalism profs didn't spend much time on these issues. Journalistic ethics as it is practiced by today's MSM is an oxymoron.
You decry tabloid and entertainment journalism, but then criticize Reiss because he doesn't engage in it. Far be it for me to suggest that journalists engage in hypocrisy.
We like and trust Reiss because seems to present a balanced set of facts that coupled with a reasonable knowledge of the game of football. He clearly states when he is stating a fact and when he is giving an opinion. He doesn't engage in sensationalism for it's own sake to sell papers or self-aggrandizing. Case in point - when most of local and national media sensationally reported that Tom Brady had criticized the FO re: Branch, Reiss reported the ENTIRE interview, which clearly showed that he was misquoted and taken out of context. He obviously puts in a lot of work, as his Blog clearly shows.
Sounds like spoiled grapes to me. You could learn a lot from Reiss.
Of course thanks to the Internet, people like us aren't wholly reliant on people like you to spoon feed us information - information that YOU feel is important and presented in a way YOU feel like presenting it. Gone are the days when a few monolithic (liberal) media outlets monopolize what we know and think. We can get information from a variety of sources, judge them on their merits, and make our own decisions.
R