Sunday, November 26, 2006
Basics of Self-Editing
I really like Kelly Hrudey on TV; I usually like his Sunday column; and I do not take personal offense in the slightest to the following excerpt, but come on...
Again: I don't care that people have stereotypes about TEH INTARWEB and what goes on here. But what is going on in your own brain when you state an opinion and admit you don't know what you're talking about in the same sentence?
Hrudey's column always has a bit of an unedited feel to it, which I think is part of its charm, but he really could have used a bunch of help on this one: too much of it just doesn't make sense, both in terms of clarity of writing and clarity of thought.
That is simply mumbo-jumbo. A voice is not the same as a right, and wishing something were true doesn't make it so. Does the CBA give certain "rights" to Chris Pronger but not Gary Roberts? And whose voice is that when the player signs the contract in the first place?
Like, criminally? People who make shit up on the Web lose credibility and then readership, so they are accountable in at least one sense.
How so? Chris Pronger has a highly paid agent to speak for him and defend him, and there's about 400 (or 4000) media outlets who would, and do, gladly reprint his comments verbatim. As for the unwitting individuals, I certainly do have sympathy, but "defenceless" is not accurate. At worst, they have access to the very same methods (e.g. the application I'm using right now) as the IBP* (*Internet Blog People - why yes I do find that catchy, and I plan on continuing to use it).
"Mr. Fenwick, you are charged with the heinous crime of suggesting Chris Pronger banged a TV reporter. How do you plead?" Not guilty -- but even if I was, there's already perfectly good legal channels through which libelled parties can sue for damages. This is how Hrudey wraps up:
This is where, if I'm his editor, I say, "OK, so, correct me if I'm wrong, but does your whole point rest on the notion that (A) Edmonton fans are pissed at Pronger leaving because (B) there are rumours that he cheated on his wife? You know it's the other way around, right?"
There is absolutely, positively a lot of room (hell, need) in the hockey world for a column that is unapologetically pro-player. I really hope Hrudey's future efforts are better than this one.
Footnote: today's reading for extra credit is the problem with the word "voices".
But it seems -- and I'm stereotyping here -- these Internet blog people (I admit, I don't know much about blogs) are allowed to create rumours and allegations that are mean, baseless and irresponsible, in my opinion.
Again: I don't care that people have stereotypes about TEH INTARWEB and what goes on here. But what is going on in your own brain when you state an opinion and admit you don't know what you're talking about in the same sentence?
Hrudey's column always has a bit of an unedited feel to it, which I think is part of its charm, but he really could have used a bunch of help on this one: too much of it just doesn't make sense, both in terms of clarity of writing and clarity of thought.
All players, stars or role players, deserve a voice concerning in which city they earn a living.
[...]
They own that right, like we own the right to tell our employers, "I don't want to work here any longer."
That is simply mumbo-jumbo. A voice is not the same as a right, and wishing something were true doesn't make it so. Does the CBA give certain "rights" to Chris Pronger but not Gary Roberts? And whose voice is that when the player signs the contract in the first place?
They [The Internet Blog People - ed.] should be held accountable for spreading false information.
Like, criminally? People who make shit up on the Web lose credibility and then readership, so they are accountable in at least one sense.
These allegations not only harm the intended target but unfairly drag unwitting individuals with no connection to these stories into the fray.
The people dragged through the mud are defenceless.
How so? Chris Pronger has a highly paid agent to speak for him and defend him, and there's about 400 (or 4000) media outlets who would, and do, gladly reprint his comments verbatim. As for the unwitting individuals, I certainly do have sympathy, but "defenceless" is not accurate. At worst, they have access to the very same methods (e.g. the application I'm using right now) as the IBP* (*Internet Blog People - why yes I do find that catchy, and I plan on continuing to use it).
And, for that reason, those people who start or continue to perpetuate these stories without proof should be severely punished.
"Mr. Fenwick, you are charged with the heinous crime of suggesting Chris Pronger banged a TV reporter. How do you plead?" Not guilty -- but even if I was, there's already perfectly good legal channels through which libelled parties can sue for damages. This is how Hrudey wraps up:
If you don't agree with Pronger and his decision, I can accept that. What's not proper is to base your decision on Pronger asking for a move because of the rumours. [...]
Let's all be more determined to see both sides and not be as influenced by what we read or hear.
This is where, if I'm his editor, I say, "OK, so, correct me if I'm wrong, but does your whole point rest on the notion that (A) Edmonton fans are pissed at Pronger leaving because (B) there are rumours that he cheated on his wife? You know it's the other way around, right?"
There is absolutely, positively a lot of room (hell, need) in the hockey world for a column that is unapologetically pro-player. I really hope Hrudey's future efforts are better than this one.
Footnote: today's reading for extra credit is the problem with the word "voices".
# posted by Matt @ 11:24 am 
Comments:
I think the "unwitting" and "defenseless" party he's referring to is Christie Chorly rather than Orbs. Your point is still valid, though. Just two days after the whole thing blew up, she posted a threatening letter from her attorney on her web page. She's not "defenseless".
This is really good stuff. Good post.
That was an interesting article, thank you for linking to it. I haven't heard of too many defenseless pro-atheletes with their lawyers on retainer.
Another quote from the article:
These allegations not only harm the intended target but unfairly drag unwitting individuals with no connection to these stories into the fray.
To me, this is the point. People shouldn't have to defend themselves from baseless allegations that originated on the internet, and they shouldn’t have to lend any credence to these lies by acknowledging their existence.
Wow to bash the blogisphere and then admit he knows nothing about it....classy.
And I think most Oiler fans were upset in the manner in which he requested his trade, not the reason. He ducked out to Mexico, the agent leaked it to the media first before the Oilers received the official request and he never addressed the reason for leaving (of course, all this happening within days of losing game seven).
Hrudey should do a bit more reading on this subject before speaking and making himself look like an ass.
Great post, Matt. My problem with Hrudey's article is that he ends up doing the same thing that the people he bashes have done: make an argument based in ignorance. The doozy is that he even admits it.
As for the "bloggers", I don't know who he is talking about. I think the criticisms made by Matt and I, for example, were fair, and they only covered the Prongers. We never wrote about the Chorley rumour. In fact, we deleted many, many comments that were over the top. But there were MSM articles that hinted at the Chorley angle. Yet no mention of them.
I also like how Hrudey tried to portray himself as a fan, just like the rest of us. Like he has no vested interest or bias as an ex-player. No, no, he watched the Eskimos when he was a kid, so he's got street cred.
But it seems -- and I'm stereotyping here -- these Internet blog people (I admit, I don't know much about blogs) are allowed to create rumours and allegations that are mean, baseless and irresponsible, in my opinion.
But it seems -- and I'm stereotyping here -- these hockey players (I admit, I don't know much about hockey) are allowed to make millions, be spoiled , commit crimes and be irresponsible, in my opinion.
Pretty much the same thing, isn't it?
hat is with the CBC. Do they give all the commentators head shots until they do they don't make sense. Maclean painted Raffi as repeat offender in his headshot campaign. That makes no sense. I think the term track record was used.
Based on this two pieces of commentary the CBC these guys have the let the game pass them by.
In response to Hrudey's concern about the bloggers acted it out after "Everfresh" hit the road. It was the fans way of healing. Nobody was actually hurt some of them were actually pretty funny. But hey what do I know...
Post a Comment
<< Home
I think the "unwitting" and "defenseless" party he's referring to is Christie Chorly rather than Orbs. Your point is still valid, though. Just two days after the whole thing blew up, she posted a threatening letter from her attorney on her web page. She's not "defenseless".
This is really good stuff. Good post.
That was an interesting article, thank you for linking to it. I haven't heard of too many defenseless pro-atheletes with their lawyers on retainer.
Another quote from the article:
These allegations not only harm the intended target but unfairly drag unwitting individuals with no connection to these stories into the fray.
To me, this is the point. People shouldn't have to defend themselves from baseless allegations that originated on the internet, and they shouldn’t have to lend any credence to these lies by acknowledging their existence.
Wow to bash the blogisphere and then admit he knows nothing about it....classy.
And I think most Oiler fans were upset in the manner in which he requested his trade, not the reason. He ducked out to Mexico, the agent leaked it to the media first before the Oilers received the official request and he never addressed the reason for leaving (of course, all this happening within days of losing game seven).
Hrudey should do a bit more reading on this subject before speaking and making himself look like an ass.
Great post, Matt. My problem with Hrudey's article is that he ends up doing the same thing that the people he bashes have done: make an argument based in ignorance. The doozy is that he even admits it.
As for the "bloggers", I don't know who he is talking about. I think the criticisms made by Matt and I, for example, were fair, and they only covered the Prongers. We never wrote about the Chorley rumour. In fact, we deleted many, many comments that were over the top. But there were MSM articles that hinted at the Chorley angle. Yet no mention of them.
I also like how Hrudey tried to portray himself as a fan, just like the rest of us. Like he has no vested interest or bias as an ex-player. No, no, he watched the Eskimos when he was a kid, so he's got street cred.
But it seems -- and I'm stereotyping here -- these Internet blog people (I admit, I don't know much about blogs) are allowed to create rumours and allegations that are mean, baseless and irresponsible, in my opinion.
But it seems -- and I'm stereotyping here -- these hockey players (I admit, I don't know much about hockey) are allowed to make millions, be spoiled , commit crimes and be irresponsible, in my opinion.
Pretty much the same thing, isn't it?
hat is with the CBC. Do they give all the commentators head shots until they do they don't make sense. Maclean painted Raffi as repeat offender in his headshot campaign. That makes no sense. I think the term track record was used.
Based on this two pieces of commentary the CBC these guys have the let the game pass them by.
In response to Hrudey's concern about the bloggers acted it out after "Everfresh" hit the road. It was the fans way of healing. Nobody was actually hurt some of them were actually pretty funny. But hey what do I know...
Post a Comment
<< Home
