Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

SNYRangersblog


Phil

Recommended Posts

Not a bad blog for updates and shortish articles on the club, but can someone please explain to Adam Rotter that this...

 

 

Screen%20Shot%202012-07-31%20at%207.02.11%20PM.png

 

 

is not journalism?

 

I really hate "blogs" that just cite a source, add absolutely no thoughts or information of their own, and then link that information to their readers/followers as though they're incapable of finding that information on their own. It's such a cheap ploy for hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind it. If I'm out and can only look at shit on my phone, it's a good 1-stop place for quick information.

 

Download Twitter, dude. One-stop place for all info.

 

This is just blatantly lazy, disingenuous "journalism".

 

It's not as though he never puts thought into anything. I've seen him write out carefully pieced together, well-sourced articles before. This is just flat out lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad blog for updates and shortish articles on the club, but can someone please explain to Adam Rotter that this...

 

 

Screen%20Shot%202012-07-31%20at%207.02.11%20PM.png

 

 

is not journalism?

 

I really hate "blogs" that just cite a source, add absolutely no thoughts or information of their own, and then link that information to their readers/followers as though they're incapable of finding that information on their own. It's such a cheap ploy for hits.

 

He has been called out for similar stuff like this in the past. Last summer Cerny went all out on him on Twitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has been called out for similar stuff like this in the past. Last summer Cerny went all out on him on Twitter.

 

As well he should. It's absurd. There's no excuse for it. This is exactly what not to do as an aspiring journalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Download Twitter, dude. One-stop place for all info.

 

This is just blatantly lazy, disingenuous "journalism".

 

It's not as though he never puts thought into anything. I've seen him write out carefully pieced together, well-sourced articles before. This is just flat out lazy.

 

I'm perfectly fine with no Twitter. SNYRangersBlog is perfect for me. I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm perfectly fine with no Twitter. SNYRangersBlog is perfect for me. I like it.

 

Yes, because you want information quickly without having to have a Twitter account (which you could just as soon get here, with Forum Runner). The problem is, it's totally disingenuous to every aspect of journalistic integrity to do this kind of thing. It doesn't bother you, but it does bother anyone who thinks journalistic integrity actually matters.

 

It's called the echo chamber effect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

 

One purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form)[3] until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.[4] A media conglomerate that owns multiple media outlets can produce the same story among "different" outlets, creating an illusion that a media consumer is getting information from different sources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a website giving you Rangers information and throwing out some opinion on different things, whether it be game previews, game recaps, future opponents, rumors, etc. I really don't see what the big deal is. Is every blog about every team supposed to feature writers who overwrite about shit through dry periods in the summer, or even during the season, just to say they pass their opinions out frequently enough? It just passes out information, and is a quick 1-stop place for Rangers news, rumors and information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, but why does this bother you? Clearly, it's for some people and not for others. I like that place.

 

Hell, I'm a journalism major. It definitely doesn't put me up in arms. It's a website giving out Rangers information.

 

Because it's a cheap tactic used by lazy "journalists" to push out information to their followers that is not inherently theirs as a means to boost traffic to the site. The fact he's citing literal tweets means he could just as soon re-tweet—a tactic designed SPECIFICALLY for this type of thing—but doesn't, and instead takes the time to copy that information over to his own blog, which means he's doing so for the sole purpose of driving traffic to his site.

 

It's a website providing Rangers' related information that's simply echoing pre-existing opinions and informational sources. It's redundant, and disingenuous. That's why I don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Phil here, and I'm also a journalism major. If you can't write your own stuff, or have no desire to, then why would you be a journalist? It's weak, and actually semi-offensive to anyone who actually does have integrity as a journalist.

 

Exactly. It spits in the face of anyone who's actually taking the time out to research and piece together an article or story by actually doing work because it's attempting to (and often succeeding in) capitalizing on the propensity for a user to click into a site after reading an enticing headline, but unlike the former, fails to provide that reader with adequate information on the subject.

 

It's why I require a link and only a PORTION of any article to be posted here when articles are cited or sourced. Integrity matters (to me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it's semi-offensive. I believe it's quite the opposite. I'd be flattered if someone else used my work. The writer is basically saying that I summed everything up so well that he had no desire to change what was written.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it's semi-offensive. I believe it's quite the opposite. I'd be flattered if someone else used my work. The writer is basically saying that I summed everything up so well that he had no desire to change what was written.

 

No, he isn't. He's saying "I'm too lazy to actually put the work in myself because I fear it'd take too long for me to write my own story based on information I'm not privy to, and that users wouldn't care to click on my links after they've already read the glut of the information elsewhere, so instead of taking that risk and putting my neck on the line, I'll just pass off piecemeal information with an enticing headline so everyone thinks I'm actually a reliable source of information that's not actually disingenuous and borderline plagiarism."

 

Give or take.

 

Or maybe I should have just found someone else's tweet that had something to do with this and written:

 

No, what he's saying is:

 

 

READ MY POST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he isn't. He's saying "I'm too lazy to actually put the work in myself because I fear it'd take too long for me to write my own story based on information I'm not privy to, and that users wouldn't care to click on my links after they've already read the glut of the information elsewhere, so instead of taking that risk and putting my neck on the line, I'll just pass off piecemeal information with an enticing headline so everyone thinks I'm actually a reliable source of information that's not actually disingenuous and borderline plagiarism."

 

I see what you're saying as well and I agree that it is lazy, but I don't think someone would pass off someone elses information and then defend their article by saying it wasn't their information. Like you said, it looks extremely lazy and by using someone elses information, you are basically agreeing with what they had to say and passing it along because you do in fact agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a blog and we're not calling ourselves journalists.

 

But that's part of being a journalist though, no? You talk about everything. Is all of his stuff the same way? I didn't get a chance to look at it. I mean regardless of that, I personally believe he is entitled to site something he read and discuss about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you write something, it will be cited. It's not like it'll be hidden. I just don't get how what he's doing is different than what we're doing. When someone reputable writes something, we post it here and talk about it openly. So does he. Whats the big deal?

 

Answer below:

 

This isn't a blog and we're not calling ourselves journalists.

 

Quoted, and sourced. And I'm not even a journalist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...