Damn blogs! Oops -- I thought I was at CynicalHacks.com for a second. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Merry turkey to the Americans in the audience.

I am not surprised by this, journlists are no different from any other profession who carefully guard their turf. I have never attended a major league game as a member of the media, but I am sure that journalists are not impressed by bloggers. Journalists, as Aaron describes, have to go to college, and then work their way up the food chain, starting with covering high school sports for a small town paper until they finally get to cover a big league team. They could not be impressed by "amateurs" threatening to invade their turf.

I think the quality of blogs, or the criticism of professional journalists by bloggers, are side issues, turf/job protection is the big issue.

That leads to the big question, should journalists be worried? Will blogs ever lead to job losses for journalists? I don't see it in the near future, the majority of people still get their daily news from the newspaper or television, the numbers getting their news from blogs is not huge, yet. I think the future of journalists is tied more to the general delivery of news than it is to blogging or not.

If, in the year 2025, the majority of the population get up and read a tablet PC over breakfast with their customized news on it, then journalists should be worried, as long as paper newspapers rule, so will journalists.

Without the benefit of having yet read what is undoubtedly another fine piece by Aaron, let me offer this syllogism:

Some journalists are bloggers.
The vast majority of bloggers are NOT journalists.

There is, in fact, a code of journalistic ethics; it's not precisely a Hippocratic oath, but it's there and professional journalists adhere to it and are, if not bound by it, guided by it.

A recent scene on "The West Wing" -- Josh Lyman gets on the phone with a popular blogger and rants "This is Josh Lyman and this i off the record. (Insert rant)" ... as he is yelling into the phone, his words are appearing on the blog. Toby shakes his head and says "She's not a journalist. Off the record doesn't mean anything to her." Or something like that.

There's also the sitution of people confusing opinion with reporting; this already happens at a disturbing level of frequency in "traditional media" like newspapers and TV news.

Here on Da Box, there's a disturbing tendency for occasional or even new visitors to post complaints that the threads here are biased or worst. Of course they are. When you get down to the facts of tne matter, this is not a news site, though news will be reported here (usually through links to more traditional sites) nor is it, for the most part, even a site with any kind of editorial policy direction.

The members of the roster have never once sat down, metaphorically by e-mail, and decided "OK, we are pro-Richardi" or "Let's stop slamming Doug Creek, because one frequest contributor knows his mom" or anything like that. It's a place for opinion built by a group of people who happen to share similar views on most topics ... just like most blogs out there.

That's NOT journalism. Journalism isn't, as some would like to believe, opinion-free or protected from advertisers or bosses "suggesting" direction on a topic, but it's a damn sight closer than ANY non-gatekeeper blog will ever be.

This is horribly ironic given the topic, but I feel the need to add it: the above post is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions held by the other members of the Batter's Box roster or reflect any overarching site policy.

Without the benefit of having yet read what is undoubtedly another fine piece by Aaron, let me offer this syllogism:

Some journalists are bloggers.
The vast majority of bloggers are NOT journalists.

Sorry, Mick--that's not a syllogism. (No big deal here, I expect; but it could mess you up somewhere else.)

I wrote a post on my business blog about Aaron's column about the John Bonnes situation.

Blogger bounced from mainstream newspaper

I also receive quite a bit of "off the record" information that I do not publish. The off the record stuff is mainly about business, but I honour the "off the record" request.

And I am a blogger.

As I posted over at primer, I just don't see this as a good article. John said he was pressured out of the job because, as John himself said, the other journalists were concerned that he was not in the union and not being paid a union wage. This, in my opinion, is a very valid and serious concern. However, in the very next sentence Gleeman simply decides that John must have been pressured out because the journalists were being petty about a blogger encroaching on their turf. Moreover, he provides absolutely no evidence for this statement.

I know if I were a journalist at a paper and a blogger came in who wasn't part of the union and was being paid considerably less than union wages, I'd be bloddy pissed off. It would have nothing to do with the fact that the guy was a blogger, but that he was undermining the union.

If anyone is setting up an us against them scenario, it's Gleeman. By attributing a motive to the journalists without providing evidence for it and simply ignoring the valid and credible motive that had already been explicitily stated (by the 'injured' party no less) it looks to me like he's the one with an agenda.

That's NOT journalism. Journalism isn't, as some would like to believe, opinion-free or protected from advertisers or bosses "suggesting" direction on a topic, but it's a damn sight closer than ANY non-gatekeeper blog will ever be.

This doesn't make sense. Gleeman, as an example, takes direction from no one about what he writes. It seems impossible to me that he is pressured by advertisers. I'm not sure if this came out the way you meant it, but it seems to be an assertion not supported by the rest of what you said.

http://www.hardballtimes.com
Vern, since it appears as though you are also "A.C. Slater" on Primer, I'll repost what I just posted in response to you there:

Um, so Gleeman just skips the very valid union concern and decides to blame the fact that John was pressured off the paper for a reason he'd prefer to think was the case and for which he gives no evidence. Yeah, good journalism Gleeman.

First of all, what I wrote on my blog is no more journalism (or "good journalism") than some guy on a message board making a snide comment about me using a fake name. It's just a comment, an opinion.

Second, John addressed other issues he dealt with in his farewell column, which I'm guessing you didn't read. For instance, he wrote: "In the bigger picture, a divisive presidential campaign increased tensions, when biased bloggers would take shots at mainstream media coverage. Many journalists ended up reacting to bloggers the way pharisees reacted to self-proclaimed prophets."

What John refers to as "the bigger picture" has absolutely nothing to do with union concerns.

Third, I have talked to multiple people who are close to this situation and that helped to shape my opinion on the matter. I did not "skip" over anything and though I did not give direct evidence, this was not written without having heard evidence myself. I simply decided to comment and discuss the portion of the issue I have knowledge of. Not that you care, of course, since it's more fun just to be sarcastic and dismissive.

PS -- You suck on that show with Dick Clark.

Vern: "I know if I were a journalist at a paper and a blogger came in who wasn't part of the union and was being paid considerably less than union wages, I'd be bloddy pissed off."

Why?

I don't understand this. You'd be pissed off that some guy wasn't making as much money as you are? Please explain. I am part of a union and I couldn't care less if people were to come in and work while not joining the union.

Ryan, the idea is that the paper (or in this case, the paper's website) is a "closed shop". That is, that no one has the right to produce content in competition with the union's members, allowing them a monopoly over content and therefore the right to extract a much higher price for their product.

Allowing others to produce content cuts the share of the paper's content that the trade journalists are paid to produce, and it creates competition on pricing as well. It breaks up the monopoly, to a greater or lesser degree. It's why unions everywhere seek a closed shop.

Newspapers are not in fact a closed shop for content, strictly speaking. Non-journalists produce copy for them all the time, though it is not journalistic in nature (i.e. it's stuff that doesn't require the specialized qualifications and skills of journalists). But that doesn't alter the fact that the journalists on those papers would like it to be so.

Craig, I get all that, but I still don't really get what the journalists would be bitching about. It's not like they are suddenly going to be making less money because a blogger is working for minimal amounts. And it's not like the blogger is providing the same content that the journalists are.

PS. Did you send me my book? :)

Ryan,

I think the issue is because it's a slippery slope. To be simplistic: There's a finite amount of content. You let one blogger in and it's fine. But then you let another and another in and eventually there are fewer jobs for union members. With fewer jobs there is more demand among journalists. Hence, wages go down.

Craig, I get all that, but I still don't really get what the journalists would be bitching about. It's not like they are suddenly going to be making less money because a blogger is working for minimal amounts.

Suppose that I am a newspaper publisher, and I need a page of baseball content a day. Before the advent of blogging, I would have needed to hire two or three baseball writers to provide my daily baseball content.

However, if there are bloggers that are willing to provide content for less than what a journalist makes, I might be tempted to hire these people for less money, and toss one or two of my baseball writers out of work.

...which is basically what Vern said. I have to learn to write more quickly. :-)

Leaving aside the union issues, both journalists and newspapers would do well to look at why people are reading these blogs, and why the bloggers gain such (relative) popularity. In many cases, the mainstream press just doesn't offer what many people want.

I don't have any doubt that Batter's Box offers the best Blue Jays coverage around. There are obvious weaknesses - such as not having easy or regular access to players and management - but the sheer breadth of content, subject and opinion puts the "real" media to shame.

There's jealousy and possessiveness in every industry. I've been guilty of it, too. When you dedicate your life to something, there's a pang that you feel when someone else does it for kicks, and a much bigger pang when they do it well. And, of course, righteous indignation when they do it poorly and then blame their technology. ;)

However, if there are bloggers that are willing to provide content for less than what a journalist makes, I might be tempted to hire these people for less money, and toss one or two of my baseball writers out of work.

That still doesn't make a whole lot of sense because Bloggers do not offer the same kind of content that journalists do. Bloggers can't survive without journalists, because journalists are the ones that report the news. Bloggers don't report news, they just analyze it.

Simply put, I just don't think that bloggers can replace journalists, nor do they intend to.

Which...is what Aaron was saying I think.

That still doesn't make a whole lot of sense because Bloggers do not offer the same kind of content that journalists do. Bloggers can't survive without journalists, because journalists are the ones that report the news. Bloggers don't report news, they just analyze it.

No, but bloggers can effectively replace columnists, who are still (I think) technically "journalists" and a part of the union.

Even if their content is different, there are still only so many pages in a newspaper. If before journalists were filling 20 and now bloggers take over 5, those are 5 fewer pages for journalists to fill. Hence you get rid of some of your staff of journalists.

Moreover, I expect that the content would kind of merge together. How is some Buster Olney piece about productive outs any different content wise than a Gleeman piece about GPA?

Well said Ryan. I would be more than happy if the Star hired a stable of bloggers, say five or six, to contribute a column once a week based on their own particular strengths. not that it would happen but it would be fantastic. Not only because in this case it would work to offset the doom and gloom generally reported in regards to the Blue Jays. But also, simply more Jays coverage for my dollar (in Waterloo tey actually charge a dollar). During the seaon, one would be lucky to find more than two articles. One generally being a game re-cap. and the other a depressing peice on why the Blue Jays will not be successful.

To quote Aaron Gleeman; "I have no interest in reading a recap of the game, because I saw it with my own eyes, but what I do want, and what I wasn't getting, was information about how things happened, why things happened, and what might happen in the future."

It is this commentary which is currently lacking on a day to day basis in Toronto papers, and why I visited this site everyday as the season wore on. That, and because I am a die hard Jays fan.

"How is some Buster Olney piece about productive outs any different content wise than a Gleeman piece about GPA?"

I'm not sure. But there is a significant difference content wise between and article about DIPS, VORP, or Winshares, and a Richard Griffin article about J.P.'s lack of people skills (to take an extreme example).

How is it different, other than one is "soft" analysis and the other is "hard" analysis?

Analysis doesn't require quotes, or being an "insider". A Griffin article about JP's ability based on certain moves, made or unmade, is no different from what this site produces every day. Additionally, once a newspaper gives their stamp of credibility to a blogger by running his column on their website, it's probably a lot easier to get access to decision makers for comment.

I'm a little confused though by something. Was this blog running in the paper? If not, I have a harder time understanding why the union would be so upset. If it was just being posted on the website, I give more credence to the turf protecting theory.

There is, in fact, a code of journalistic ethics; it's not precisely a Hippocratic oath, but it's there and professional journalists adhere to it and are, if not bound by it, guided by it.

Well, in light of recent examples of journalistic ethics at play - Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Dan Rather - I'm not sure bloggers come off so badly in this comparison. Especially since in the latter two cases, it was the bloggers, and not fellow journalists, who stood up for journalistic ethics. Where were the mainstream journalists when Dan Rather was besmirching the entire profession?

The disconnect between the upholding of journalistic ethics and trade unionism is too great to be reconciled, I think. More to the point of this debate, when union solidarity appears to take precedence over advancing the aims of good journalism - providing meaningful, accurate information in a format that the readership appreciates and finds accessible - it's hard not to take the sides of the bloggers.

What do journalists say for public consumption when criticizing bloggers (when not accusing them of wearing pajamas and writing from their mother's basement)? That, being liberated from the rigourous checks and balances of the newsroom, they play fast and loose with the facts, and are unaccountable. So here they actually have one in their stable, where presumably he is subject to at least some of the standards of accuracy and responsibility promoted by some of our better newspapers (and given my familiarity with the observations of John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson, I'm not sure the Minneapolis Star Tribune qualifies), and they force him out. That tells me quite a bit about these journalists.

Inmany ways, the union membership issue is a red herring.

Any blogger hired to add analysis to a newspaper could simply be required to join the union, as in any closed shop.

I would think any blogger would be more than happy to accept union wages and benefits for writing about their interests.

Journalists in the mainstream don't have a monopoly on "facts" as we see regularly in the newspapers and see on television. Those regular beat writers are often discussed, and taken to task, here and on other baseball message boards.

Their badly written, and poorly fact checked articles get past those much ballyhooed "gatekeepers" too. If some journalists can get some of their inncorrect "statements" past the editors, how is that any different from a blogger who lacks an "editor"?

Bloggers aren't intending to replace journalists. They simply want to be given some much deserved credibilitym as another emerging form of media.

FWIW, if you Google "is blogging journalism?, you get about 470,000 results.

On the case at hand, we first would need to get "real jouranlists" to leap the divide they've created in their minds that "sports journalism is an oxymoron" before we could get to the more salient question which apparently tens of thousands of people are struggling with already!

That still doesn't make a whole lot of sense because Bloggers do not offer the same kind of content that journalists do.

No. In many cases, they offer better content. Personally, I no longer read what newspapers say about the Jays--unless someone at Battersbox tells me there's a worthwhile article out there.

I've got nothing really intelligent to add other than to say all this makes me smile. Everyone has an opinion on how economic policy should be run in a country, no matter what their formal economic training is. So this 'outsiders vs. insiders' is something us economists have to deal with every day. The funny thing is, I've noticed the more you've studied economics the more likely you are to say "I'm not sure" or "It depends" when someone asks you your opinion on something like the minimum wage. :)

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/11/25/730128.html
Good discussion. Ironically a top Canadian sports writer, Scott Taylor, was fired yesterday for plagiarism(comm).

Personally, I just love living in this era of the internet,what with blogs, internet versions of newspapers and magazines, the amount of information now available is astounding.

I agree with Wayne H. The union issue is a red herring. I'd be delighted if Aaron Gleeman, let's say, were hired by a Toronto daily newspaper, joined the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild, and provided the same quality of commentary to newspaper readers that he does on his blog.

Journalists come from all walks of life, and daily writing of a quality blog is as good an entree as any. Writing is writing.

Adjustment to technology often takes a generation, and that is what I think the issue is here.

I'm shocked by that Scott Taylor story. Regardless of whether he did it or not, I've enjoyed his writing in the past. I hope he ends up at another Canadian daily, and manages to rehabilitate his credibility. If he didn't do it, he should consider suing the paper for libel-it's hard to think of anything more damaging to a reporter than something like this.

Writing is writing.

Would that it were so. I have written for books, magazines, newspapers, ad copy the whole deal. But 90 percent of my published work is online. When I go into job interviews with printouts and URLs, I am inevitably asked "Great stuff. Do you have any REAL clips?" (Translation: "haven't been able to convince anyone to publish you for real in print, huh?") I have to grit my teeth when I say "yes" because I'd rather contest the question, but that's not smart business.

National Post columnist Colby Cosh has a nice little piece on how the CBC covered the Scott Taylor situation. (Warning: May offend those who dislike it when Post writers criticize the CBC)

Following the Jays from Germany is that without this blog I wouldn't care about baseball anymore at all. We were able to watch some games via AFN ( black and white w/out sound) and one game a week on a private sports station with horrible commentry and all world series games live starting at 2/3 in the morning. That changed in 1994/5. Now you can only watch baseball via pay-tv which I don't have. So I completly lost touch with baseball. I became a fan in 1987 aged 8 when I visted our friends in California ( first AB- George Bell hit a HR so I am a Jays fan ever since) and got back into baseball via the internet and the 2003 season with mlb.com was ok but since I found out about Da Box ( Mike Green put a link on the Jays mlb forum- many thanks, Mike!) I had no season I enjoyed following the Jays as much as the Season from Hell. Only because of reading the Box I have an opion (could be very wrong of course but I have one) about our Rookie League players and feel a hype about Yuber Rodriguez. And all that only comes through this obe blog ( actually reading Spencer Fordin's daily beat about the Jays is just the perfect addition to the Jays coverage IMO) but I would never follow the Jays reading online articles at the Toronto Star etc. Griffin's writing ( for example ) would never lead to any desire for me to follow the Jays.

I feel that some people miss the point of blogs entirely.

The idea that a group of people can comment on a post immediately after reading it is a key part of what has made blogging so popular. In my opionion, bloggers most likely wouldn't take such an interest in maintaining their blogs without knowing they'll recieve feedback on the entries. I also feel that the blog readers read the blogs because they always have the comfort of knowing that if a comment in a blog really hits them they can praise or refute it.

Journalists, for the most part, write articles that will recieve little or no comment. On occassion, writes throw things out into the media that is intended to stir up readers (ex. The White Jays) but the only way for them to really recieve feedback from their true audience is, apart from letters to the editor, to come on to a blog like Da Box and see what people are saying... SF does it all the time.

This relationship; journalist writes, blogger reports and retorts, readers give their two cents; often createsi a harmonious kinship that just goes to show why they internet is such an incredible tool.

I think once you skip over the major issues of Unions and Journalists, the question, to me, really is... Will the blogger make a good journalist? He must take into account that he'll no longer have such a devoted and true audience commenting directly on his work and he must ask himself, does he really feel that his writing style will meet the standards set by the journalists in the field of writing he is about to enter...

---

On a side note, I think that the majority of roster members at the Da Box take the site for what it is, a blog... they know that they're not journalists and treat the site accoringly (ie. Generic Offseason Article). However, I do feel that many of Da Box roster members take what the blog a little too seriously at times, to a point where it almost becomes comical. Just remember, this site would be nothing if it weren't for the people who flock here for it's great PERSPECTIVE on baseball from a Canadian POV. Readers must always keep in mind that this is a BLOG... nothing more, nothing less... everyone has right to their opinion and this is what a blog is designed for... letting people share their opinions.

End of Rant. Apologies if that made no sense whatsoever.

I just want to say that I found that really demeaning and insulting. If what we do is so little appreciated, why am I bothering to keep this site going?

I just posted this comment to the Hijack thread, and normally don't like double-posting a comment in two places, but it seems markedly relevant.


This thread [Hijack) is exactly the reason that blogging will never be confused with journalism, to further the points being made on another thread [this one you are reading now] currently active.

The very point of journalistic gatekeepers is to cull the news and present what matters. While this thread started with some really interesting and entertaining news and speculation, more than a third of the posts in the thread are about the thread itself. Ugh. It's partly the space limitations and partly the lack of participatory options and immediacy that are limitations of print that not even the most tightly controlled electronic shared spaces -- of which Batter's Box most assuredly is not one, at this point -- can completely overcome.

I think probably a good deal more than half of the really interesting writing on BB is provided by people other than the roster. But combining that more than half with the roster contributions, the total pales in comparison to the electronic detritus that can accumulate.

But, then, I'm an elitist writer/editor print media snob, and well aware of that fact. I would LOVE to see BB put together and publish the equivalent of THT Book just made public, but the interactive nature of the discourse would make that virtually impossible (pun intended).

Oops, forgot to close italics. Hope that did it.

Well, Craig... I'm very sorry you feel that way. However, I did make it very clear that this was one man's opinion and if you were humble to what this site is, why would you be insulted?

See no reason for you to be offended...

My comments on how serious some of you take this site, and how it is at times comical, stems from a instances where posts have been deleted for questionable reasons and the posts that these deletions lead too, nothing more.

The CONTENT of this site is UNPARALLELED. The interviews, round ups, and fact-based articles are all wonderful... an amazing weblog of information... An online log of thoughts and ideas related to baseball.

I'm curious to know what your definitions of this site are now? If only because I didn't mean to offend anyone with, what I thought, was a harmless rant on blogging...

Just remember, this site would be nothing if it weren't for the people who flock here for it's great PERSPECTIVE on baseball from a Canadian POV. Readers must always keep in mind that this is a BLOG... nothing more, nothing less

It may not quite as vibrant without the vast readership, but it is absurd to suggest that it would be nothing. We are lucky to not be paying for some of the stuff we read here. While reader commentary undoubtedly add a great deal, for many the articles and explanations are really valuable. Some might argue that it may be better off without a lot of the chatter that doesn't add anything at all (stop looking at me, I know...). Plenty of sites operate quite successfully without allowing the kind of instant feedback that Da Box does, even those that don't qualify as journalistic (Gleeman's, for example).

And it's a Pena (someone insert punctuation, please).

Craig, I suspect that in particular you were offended by the "this site would be nothing if it weren't for the people who flock here" comment. My interpretation of this line was actually the very opposite of yours, that is, what you do is very appreciated. Seeing as no profit is made from this site, it is clear that roster members enjoy it, and consider it both work and leisure. Now the relationship between blogger and reader would resemble, to use an seemingly appropriate analogy for this site, the relationship between fan and professional baseball player. Without the fans, the athlete is, to a certain extent, nothing. Their livelihood comes from the appreciation of the fans. Otherwise, they are just like me, playing the game because I love playing (which most of them do too), but not seen by anyone. Now, this site may have begun like that, just a group of people who enjoyed talking about baseball, and thought it would be nice to let others do the same. However, it obviously made an impact as it seems to have reached a large number of people, which speaks to the quality of material here (ie. people go to watch the Jays, not good for nothing me play baseball). But without the readers, it is just a small group of people who enjoy analyzing baseball for their own leisure, which of course is perfectly noble. The readers are by their very presence indicating their appreciation. They are responding and thus feel your contributions are worth their time.

To quote Bob Dylan: "The times they are a' changin'".

To quote "The Jeffersons" theme:

"Well, we're movin' on up (Movin' on up). To the east side (Come on, movin' on up). To a deluxe apartment, in the sky-i-i" .

Enigmatic, I know. But all will become clear.

, I think that the majority of roster members at the Da Box take the site for what it is, a blog... they know that they're not journalists and treat the site accoringly (ie. Generic Offseason Article). However, I do feel that many of Da Box roster members take what the blog a little too seriously at times, to a point where it almost becomes comical.

Bird Droppings, I know you mean well, but geez.

With Christmas season coming up, let me explain how I spent my entire December/January time off from school last year. I dedicated the whole time to writing this, this, this, this, this, and this, so that I could submit them to Batter's Box and hope that maybe either Coach, Craig or Jordan would ask me to join the Roster.

I knew that if my submissions were good enough to garner a set of keys to the back door of Da Box, then I could write about baseball, which I love, in articles such as this, and
this.

I think that some roster members are "strict" towards some posters responses or their nicknames is that this site doesn't turn into oe of those horrible mlb/espn forums. That would really suck and destroy a lot so some say here: be respectful or go to espn/mlb forums.

I feel that some people miss the point of blogs entirely.

Boy, you got THAT right. (Hey, if Robert can be enigmatic, so can I.)

they know that they're not journalists and treat the site accoringly

Actually, in several cases, that is not correct. I believe a (narrow) majority of roster members are, in fact, involved in some sort of professtional writing, editing or photojournalism in their "real jobs." Of course, that doesn't make Batter's Box journalism. It is not.

I have made it clear that I think the writing here is exceptional and for you people to ignore that is bewildering.

So what if ONE person views this site as a blog? Why is that a negative thing? I sure don't look at blogs with any negative light... It's great that the general populace of this site can have an opinion on the topics that you folks write about... If this is about being "writers" and not "bloggers" then honestly, that's not what my post was about... It was about why blogs are important and how they relate to the media and the readers and how great it is. My insight to what I think Da Box is, was that it's great place to gather other peoples perspectives on baseball with, for the most part, great articles.

On a side note, my original point about how serious you take yourselves has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the writing on this site... I just wanted to point out that you could be setting a dangerous precedent with the entire nickname & post deletion policies that are popping up.

Overall, I'm sure you guys write to be read... if that's not the case, clearly I'm wrong about all this. However, if you do write to be read, then you can't just ignore the fact that you sometimes alienate your readership by sometimes creating a fear causing people not to post. This site is way to good to have people shying away from it... Note that I'm factless on all of this, and for all I know, the recent policies have had no impact whatsoever on readership numbers and posting decreases...

Who works as a Photo Journalist on the site? Whoever it is, that's far out...

This may be stating he obvious, but personally I don't see this site as a blog.

I see it as an active forum, run by intelligent baseball fans, but allowing a full discussion on wide ranging topics surrounding the Jays (and occasional non BJ subjects).

I think the number of "thread starters", for want of a better phrase, keeps the discussions wide ranging, but most threads seems to start from a small premise rather than a big article.

If you compare this to say Aaron Gleemans site I think anyone can see the difference..

I just wanted to point out that you could be setting a dangerous precedent with the entire nickname & post deletion policies that are popping up.

Are you talking about the whole "Don't call players insulting names" thing, or the post that got deleted that compared a human being to a pile of excrement?

We don't want anyone to fear posting. All we'd like is a little compassion, civility, and understanding when it comes to discussing the players, as many of their families read the site (we know they do, because they e-mail us all the time). So if I'm talking to say, Vito Chiaravalloti's mom over e-mail and then the next day some guy posts under the handle of "Moffatt" and says rude, insulting things about Vito's character, do you not see how that could give me all kinds of unnecessary headaches?

I know some of the things we do might seem heavy handed at times, but that's probably because you don't see all the issues we deal with behind the scenes and some things that may seem small on the site end up giving us a lot of extra work.

http://me.woot.net
A lot of the roster members, myself included, see this as an intelligent baseball discussion site, not a blog or a chat forum. We produce a lot of really great original content to encourage intelligent discussion about it. That's why some of us might be offended that people don't take us seriously: we want to be serious.

Some journalists are bloggers.
The vast majority of bloggers are NOT journalists.

As a newspaper journalist I kind of feel like I should comment. I think the best thing that can come out of blogs like the Batter's Box is that it raises the bar for "professional news sources" like newspapers and sports networks (and it is worlds above MLB.com, which is sadly lacking in comparison to how great it could be). Frankly, for almost all baseball related news and other things, I look to the Box first and then to the other places. And I am proud to offer content when given the chance (although, sadly, I am not a roster memeber)... If I had asked my editor for 30 inches to write a Rule 5 draft preview, I would have been laughed at... I doubt I would get even 15, if any at all. The Batter's Box has a lot more freedom and space to do things newspapers and television stations can only dream of... the only negative the Box faces is budget, which (I imagine) cannot compete with The Sun, Sports Net, etc.

Journalism isn't, as some would like to believe, opinion-free or protected from advertisers or bosses "suggesting" direction on a topic,

Sad but true. In this day and age all news sources are owned and operated by two or three companies (he says treading softly as an employee of one of the largest news chains in Canada). And there are company mandated operating procedures, including editorial decisions.

I will say, though, if a untrained journalist wannabe is a proven expert on baseball (or another topic) and a good writer, I see no reason why they cannot be hired to write a column, if there is no one else who can do it on staff. I don't think I would want to let them write news though... But something like sports or entertainment, sure.

There's very little on this site that would really qualify as "journalism". But then again, I don't consider a lot of sports reporting to be real journalism, or at least very good journalism. The reliance on "unnamed" sources - it's always "AL executive" or "clubhouse source" - takes a lot of credibility out of it. If you know a trade is going down, or you want to badmouth a player, you should put your name to it. But lazy reporters run these "so-and-so is a problem in the clubhouse" quotes from anonymous "sources" because they value story over truth and reliability.

In contrast, the Box is pretty responsible in this area. If "JaysForce5" or whomever wants to start baseless rumours, he's going to get called on it. As the internet proves on a daily basis, anonymity makes people feel like they can say anything without consequences; it's nice that the Box staff - unlike, say, the editors at a lot of papers - try to reign this in.

Lastly, while I think the responses are usually a great part of the site, the original content alone makes it worth coming back to the Box repeatedly. The subsequent discussions, debate, and general insanity are fun, but I think that's largely a result of the intelligence and quality of the original articles. If there was no commenting option, I'd still come back here on a daily basis.

By the way, Marc, I've been reading your Rule V Draft preview in little chunks, just because I can't find a large enough single block of time to read it all. Much appreciated, it gives me a lot more of a handle on what, to me, is a total mystery. Thanks.

Ryan, I think the comments are valuable. There's nothing like debating an article with the author. Hard part is, like you say, reigning them in.

I didn't mean to suggest they aren't valuable. It was more of a response to the "the site would be nothing without the readers" comment. It's the original content that brings me back daily, but the subsequent comments that have me checking the site hourly (or more).

Oh, I know, sorry...didn't mean to imply that. I was just opining that the comments are an important part of what Batter's Box is.

I didn't mean to be petulant. what I meant was the idea that we shouldn't take the site seriously, because it's not a serious thing.

It *is* serious. Yes, it's also silly and often lighthearted at the same time, but I think that while it's not serious like cancer, it's serious (to me) like baseball.

Now I don't think that the rest of you need to be all serious about it, but if it meant nothing to everyone then the money and (especially) time I spend on Batter's Box would be best spent elsewhere.

I'm not sure that was what was meant, and obviously I'm not threatening to pull the plug on this place, but it doesn't make me feel good.

This has nothing to do with the above conversation but everything to do with the newspaper industry.

Is there some kind of subscriber war going on? I spent Monday morning working at home, and in the space of an hour I got calls from both The London Free Press and The National Post asking me if I'd like to subscribe. Us Ivey folks get free copies of both the Post and the Globe, so it doesn't really interest me.

Other than that Monday, I've spent little time at home between 9am and 6pm, but when I get home and check the machine there's always 2 or 3 "hang up" messages. It's nobody I know because they know if they want to reach me during the day, they call my cell. So I assume that these hangup messages are from telemarketers, and quite possibly selling newspaper subscriptions.

What in the name of Gutenberg is going on? Can someone in the newspaper industry let me know why papers are all of a sudden so desperate for my money?

Mike, One reason the calls have increased is due to the fact that it is the Christmas season and companies are hoping that people might make a subscription an Xmas present. My paper has a subscription sale on right now, for that very reason.

The other reason may be because a couple of the larger newspapers in Ontario are having financial difficulties.

Batter's Box is worlds above MLB.com? That's a sentiment I can't echo or even halfway endorse. I'm not going to comment on the rest -- and probably won't comment here anymore at all. Perspective seems to be irretrievably lost among the posters.

I never thought of the Christmas angle. That's a good point.

Given that most of the calls I get on my landline are from telemarketers, I'm very tempted to cancel my Bell service and spend the money on cable TV instead.

Anyone here give up their landline service? I'd like to get a few opinions on whether or not it's worth it.

SF, I meant no disrespect to your work, I think it's great, along with the Jays content you provide... I apologize if I offended you. It is the overall content of MLB.com that I have issues with.
My issues with the Jays site in particular are: the minor league rosters are never up-to-date, it takes forever for links and information to be posted on new players added to the 40-man roster (even when the info can be copied from another team's profile on the player before he was traded, waived, etc). Also I have emailed the site numerous times to ask questions (often pertaining to columns/articles I am writing) and either never get a reponse or it takes three weeks to respond, even in the offseason. Right now I have an email in to the site regarding the triple-A roster (it's not up-to-date and I am curious who is protected for the minor league Rule 5 draft). I haven't heard anything in a week.

MLB.com overall... The minor leagues are not focused on nearly enough, the pages are done and written to appeal to the average to below-average fan and there is not a whole lot for knowledgeable fans. There aren't nearly enough features done on players, especially those who aren't star players and there isn't enough done on interesting things like the Rule 5 draft, the amateur draft (although this is getting better), etc.

Maybe I'm being greedy and unreasonable but I think MLB should be the ultimate source for everything dealing with pro baseball.

Yes -- you're being greedy, unreasonable and borderline unprofessional. Batter's Box doesn't have any of the things you're castigating MLB.com for. In fact, it seems that you're upset because you can't use MLB.com's secondary pages to further your research for a Batter's Box piece -- which is fairly ridiculous. I don't want to get into a pissing match or stain these pages with vitriol. If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to e-mail me.

Patience, Dr. Prisonfence. Some readers think we're better than sliced bread; others not so much. Just like the ballplayers, we try not to get too high when the compliments start flyin' and too low when the complaints roar :)

Underneath it all, there is an interesting story here. It has, as far as I'm concerned, 2 elements:

1. is there any diffence in fact between publishing a thoughtful piece (as you might do through mlb.com or Steve Treder might do on thehardballtimes.com) on the internet or publishing it in a conventional newspaper?
2. what is the effect of the ability for readers to comment immediately?

With regard to the first question, Mick has accurately commented that there is definitely a difference in perception. There is also a difference in reality because of the process. The degree of supervision and control from the organization is usually much less in the internet context than in the newspaper or book context. That has its' positives and negatives. Good writing can emerge in both contexts.

With regard to the second question, not all websites offer readers the ability to comment immediately as this one does. It definitely creates a completely different environment than the other publishing environments.

Anyone here give up their landline service? I'd like to get a few opinions on whether or not it's worth it.

I've been debating the same thing. All my calls come to my cell, the only use my landline serves is as a building entryphone, if that will still work without Bell's service what am I paying them for ?

With regards to the first question, I'd think the topic is much broader than you encapsulated. For instance, MLB.com has a lot more in common with any of the "regular" news outlets than it does with Batter's Box or The Hardball Times.

You can't just lump everything on the Internet together. Some sites have professional writers working for them -- like Salon or Slate -- but most don't. Of course good writing can emerge in both contexts. But most people won't wade through all the amateur stuff to get to the genuine article.

Anyone here give up their landline service? I'd like to get a few opinions on whether or not it's worth it.

Yup, did it. Mistake. As one colleague told me, "You and your wife think you're too connected to have a land line. In fact, if you're 'connected,' you need to have as many ways to reach you as possible." Not sure that 100 pecent true, but we've run into enough instances where it's been a problem to convince me -- however, I am still getting outvoted 1-1 on reinstating the landline.

1. is there any diffence in fact between publishing a thoughtful piece (as you might do through mlb.com or Steve Treder might do on thehardballtimes.com) on the internet or publishing it in a conventional newspaper?
2. what is the effect of the ability for readers to comment immediately?

One obvious advantage of a piece on the web is the ability to edit, correct and update. Someone can point out an ommission to, say, Marc's great Rule V piece, and he can incorporate that almost immediately. It's a live document, as opposed to something published in a book or newspaper.

The web also offers more space. If Marc wants to write up every single player eligible for the Rule V, he can do so. He'd have to organize it properly so readers can find the important stuff without being overwhelmed with a lot of practically useless information, but he can do it.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978077102173&Catalog=Books&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1
For those who love reading about the Canadian newspaper business,just finished a great book by Chris Cobb(comm), detailing the rise and fall of the National Post.

The huge irony in the conversation involving Spencer is that (A) I would wager any member of the roster -- or any poster, for that matter -- possibly excepting Kent who's the "daddy," would dump Box responsibilities for a paying gig at a "brand" site, if forced to choose, almost without thinking. And (B) the conversation cum argument -- particularly its most egregious points (as far as I can discern from SF's posts) have been added by non-roster members. The fact that Fordin's post engages such a reaction in and of itself reinforces the point that the "traditional" news sites carry more weight.

Again, note that I said above that I think more than half of the really interesting written material on the site; I'm not trying to set up a hierarchy. Just pointing out that when the finger-pointing claims that roster members take the site too seriously for the taste of some posters, it's a bit ironic because you can make a pretty good case (maybe not win it, but a pretty good case) that exactly the opposite is true.

"When journalists collide... on the next Batter's Box." Seriously though, SF, I sent you an email.
Everyone, sorry for muddying things in this interesting discussion.

I agree with what Ryan said... one of the reasons I enjoy writing for The Box, is that I have so much freedom (and space), compared to the newspaper I work at. Plus it's just great to talk with so many knowledgeable, passionate baseball fans. For a while there I thought I was the only one...

Unfinished thought in the final graf above:
that I think more than half of the really interesting written material on the site comes from reader contributions (as opposed to solely the articles that start threads)

Since this is starting to sound like a digital cameras vs film cameras argument, I'll ask my favourite question:

Which is better, a hammer or a screwdriver?

I'm at a bit of a loss trying to understand how SF can characterize Marc as being greedy or unreasonable by effectively suggesting improvements to the MLB.com site. He's merely expressing dissatisfaction with what he perceives to be its shortcomings, and given that the purpose of MLB.com is to provide content to its customers - baseball fans - I would think that providing feedback as to what one would like to see is to be encouraged. I know that it's a free service, but it's a promotional tool designed to increase fan interest in the game, and ideally separate the fan from more of his or her money. It's a bit rich to slap down someone who's visiting the site and is providing suggestions on how to make it even more useful. If Marc wants to use that information as a basis for an article that he's going to provide to baseball fans free of charge, all the more reason for MLB to facilitate that exchange.

Which is better, a hammer or a screwdriver?

A well-made screwdriver can get you hammered, so it's a wash. Depends on your bartended, I guess.

Mick,

What is a "brand" site? I wouldn't dump writing for the Box to write for another site unless I was getting paid good coin to write for that new site and they told me I couldn't write for anyone else. Money has away of motivating people, you know.

That has nothing to do with the issue of quality. I'm a big admirer of SF's writing, but there are scores of established print journalists who can't hold a candle to some of the best internet-based baseball writers around.

I would stop writing for the Box (irrespective of any other offers) if I felt the site's readership was not worth writing for.

Four-seamer, that's not exactly what went on there. But thanks for the critique. Mark and I are corresponding in private over the part that riled me up.

Where's the copydesk when you need 'em? Marc and I are corresponding, that should say.

Where's the copydesk when you need 'em?
Working with the print edition!

Robert, the "brand" sites I was referring to are MLB.com. TSN.com and .ca, ESPN.com and the like. The sites that transcend "Web" to "baseball news source" in all media. And given a choice, I wouldn't give up writing for Da Box, either, But if somebody offered me $100 a byline -- and that's what I got way back in 1989 from a non-sports weekly newspaper, so I don't have any idea if it's market value right now -- on the condition that I stop writing competitive articles for any free site, I'd have to at least think about it. Actually, if TSN.com offered me the chance to write what I write for Da Box with prominent placement guaranteed thousands of unique visitors a day that I might could flip into paid radio spots or other income, I'd have to think about it whether they paid me or not.

Does that make me a mercenary? The David Cone "Gun For Hire" of Da Box. If so, so be it. I just suspect most people would have the same reaction.

Thanks, Four Seamer, I appreciate the support.

Exactly, Mick. Your choice is all about financial gain.

I don't think I'd do TSN.ca for free because I know that there are more than enough eyeballs reading my stuff at THT, and I'm not required to write exclusively for them.

I fail to see the irony in choosing to work for pay instead doing the same thing for free if you have a choice. That's just mundane reality.

Let's put it this way - if the best internet baseball writers were all hired to write for pay, that would be an unequivocal good in my book. They would get their just reward for their excellence and hard work, and it would inspire others to write on the net in the hopes of joining the paid ranks.

Since this is starting to sound like a digital cameras vs film cameras argument

FILM! FILM!! DAMN YOU GEORGE LUCAS!!!

Writing "for free" and blogging aren't mutually exclusive either. One of the major ongoing discussions in the blogging world is how to monetize the blog.

There are two schools of thought on blog monetization. One side prefers blogs to remain non-commercial in any way. The other side (of which I am a confessed member) prefers to see blogs become the equivalent of a small business. The writer provides content, and the blog generates income through various sources.

In effect, revenue from the blog writing would provide the best of both worlds. Combining writing on a topic, about which you are passionate, with a steady source of income. Those who oppose blog revenue see the slippery slope to becoming "gasp" like the traditional media.

After all of that digression, I simply wanted to make the point that blogs and revenue are not worlds apart. In fact, income from blogs is an ongoing debate within the blogging community itself.

Blogs as a communications medium are still in their infancy, and constantly evolving. What was true of blogs last year, for example, is not necessarily true today. There is currently a rapid rise of the corprate business blog, making discussions of the "personal journal" moot.

The much referenced teenage angst diary is no longer what blogs are all about, in a very real sense. I still see blogs dismissed by a few people in the mainstream media as such. The much admired (by some) editors rarely catch those errors in the evolution of blogging.

Blogs are simply another emerging form of media, with their own standards and techniques. Newspapers, magazines, radio, and television journalism cover different aspects of a story, and often in starkly different ways. Blogs are providing yet another alternative to them.

Perspective seems to be irretrievably lost among the posters.

Irony? No? Oh well.

I think the ability to respond to articles is a huge part of the value of BLOGs and web discussion forms. I think that is a much larger issue than the publish in a paper versus publish on the web.

To take an example most people here know but aren't as personally involved in:

baseball prospectus

versus

baseball think factory's primer

IMHO Prospectus offers more informative articles and does a good job as a publish only no comments site. And I'm very glad I can read their stuff. But to me, even more valuable, is a space where one can comment and discuss the articles in question in a real time way (I.e., not just through letters to the editors). So if I had to choose just one primer would be what I'd read. Fortunately I can read both + mlb.com + espn.com + batters box + etc.

I would stop writing for the Box (irrespective of any other offers) if I felt the site's readership was not worth writing for.

How would you decide that? By the posters? How would you know, using the same criteria, whether your readership in another medium--assuming you wrote in one--was "worth writing for"?

On this site, it's easy - people post comments and I would judge the audience based on the sum total of comments (not just those in response to my work).

At THT, I get feedback by e-mail. If I got no feedback or none that was of any value, I wouldn't be nearly as motivated to write for them. I'd look for somewhere else to write or something else to do.

But you know, the quality of the feedback really pales in comparison to its quantity. That may be a bad habit I have from print journalism days, but I still hear the voice of an editor telling me "Doherty, as a columnist, if you're getting a ton of feedback and half of it is from people who want to see you get a raise and the other half is from people who want to see you fired -- or hung -- then you're doing your job."

An exaggeration to be sure, but I tell you what ... I still find myself hoping that a thread I post here will have 80 comments rather than eight.

If you're comfortable that your ow work is quality, then the quantity of feedback it sparks is a pretty good measure of how you're doing, almost regardless of the content of the feedback. That said, if I get those 80 responses and 79 say "that was awful," I clearly need to address something. But if those 79 negative e-mails says "you suck," it's safe to ignore it. Ad hominem personal attacks rarely disgukse any more than "I disagree with your fine work and hate the fact that you get to publish it when I am clearly so much smarter than you." Disappointment is much worse than anger in the feedback department.

I don't know if you can ever know your audience sufficiently well to pronounce that it's "worth writing for". To judge it simply by those who choose to or who can respond is skimming the surface. There's a large body of lurkers and (in print media) those who don't write letters to let you have a sense of how you're doing. It's a tough question--prompted by what seemed a certain too-easy dismissiveness in Robert's first post. Except, of course, for outright foolish responses, I think I'd go with Mick's apparent attitude here: it's more pleasant to participate in some sort of dialogue than it is simply to be a dispenser of insights. At least it is for me--and everybody's different. That very multi-facetdness is a large part of the Box's appeal to me.

Willy, of course, you know that deep down, I believe I really am a dispenser of (quite brilliant) insights. Heh.

We live in a world of imperfect and incomplete information.

That means we have to make decisions based on the information at our disposal. In this case, when deciding where or whether to write, and about what, I'm obliged to make a decision based on whatever information I have.

How could it be any other way?

We live in a world of imperfect and incomplete information.

True, indeed. But a readership's being "worth writing for" and its satisfying your expectations or hopes are not at all the same thing.

From my perspective, it's the same.

What's at issue here seems to be the use of an idiomatic English expression. To speak of a readership being "worth writing for" suggests that the focus is upon the readership: it's their "worth" that's under discussion. Whereas your comments suggest that the focus is upon you--and upon whether or not writng for a particular readership is "worth it" to you. Not the same.

Willy,

This is the line that you latched on to ...

I would stop writing for the Box (irrespective of any other offers) if I felt the site's readership was not worth writing for.

Pay close attention to the "I felt" part of the sentence. It's my subjective judgment that I was talking about. I wasn't talking about whether the readership is "worth writing for" in some abstract philosophical sense. I was talking about my feelings.

You took one of my sentences and attacked me with it. I responded with a principled argument, but you insisted on pursuing an issue (the meaning of a phrase in and of itself) that I had not raised and had no interest in discussing (such things are better left to a Linguistics forum).

This is another example of a Batter's Box poster veering the discussion off baseball onto some other topic (something I've done numerous times in the past). Since I quit posting at Baseball Primer, I vowed that I would make every effort not to do that here, but it seems that I'm still too weak to resist the pull when someone else coaxes me down that path.

This is an example of just one of the ways the Box has gone awry.

Ah, my work here is finished.:)

The topic was baseball blogs, right? So questions of writer and reader seem entirely pertinent. I didn't "veer off" into anything. I didn't "attack" you either. I questioned some words you had used (which you have now clarified--civilly. Thanks.)

Sorry to learn that you feel "the Box has gone awry".

Cheers.

American from California--long-time reader, first-time poster.

1. I think it's useful to remember that Aaron Gleeman is a 21 year-old journalism major at the University of Minnesota whose stated goal is, or was, a career in mainstream sports journalism. I found Gleeman early, and I recall his writing a couple of times about the UM school paper not hiring him. He has, I think, gotten his revenge in a way--enjoying immense pre-grad success for a college student in his chosen field. But what happened with Bonnes and the MST was personal for Gleeman on multiple levels. I am not discrediting or even disagreeing with what he wrote--just pointing out that I think we should consider the source in discussing the piece.
2. I read about 20 baseball blogs/sites regularly; I have noticed that there is a still-evolving "hierarchy" among them. Batter's Box is a high-profile operation for a "blog" and, I think, likely enjoys a closer relationship with the team it covers than any other. Once you guys interviwed Ricciardi, you were not "just a blog" as the other poster said. You are in a still-evolving gray area between Prospectus, which is a business now and getting more "inside" by the day, and some guy sitting down every couple of days to rant about his team's dumbass manager. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the next few years.