December 10, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Monday, December 08, 2008
The Vets threw a curve when some were sitting dead redSomeone is in the market for some new sources:
Allen, Santo and Torre To Get The Call Monday
I don't mean to pick on the Dugout Central guys, but one of the hardest things for bloggers to figure out is that reporting is more than simply repeating something you hear. It's reason enough for us not to be so darn giddy whenever we hear about newspapers in trouble. Yeah, they have their problems, but they serve an extremely important function too -- double and triple checking the stuff we civillians would never bother to check even once -- so it's probably in all of our best interests that we figure out how to bring them into the 21st Century economy.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 2:34pm
Well, ESPN.com was reporting that only Gordon made it, and that’s a pretty reputable source. If TWWL got it wrong, it’s not hard to see how others could as well.
Posted 12/08 at 04:52 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
From the Hall’s website:
“Gordon was the only one of 20 potential candidates elected by separate committees analyzing the careers of players whose careers began prior to 1943 and 1943 or later.”
If that’s what ESPN was reporting, how did they get it wrong?
Posted 12/08 at 04:57 PM
LOL - I’m sorry, I misunderstood your post. I thought the original post (about Gordon being the only one elected) was wrong, and actually Torre, Santo, and Allen WERE elected. I thought this post corrected the previous one, but obviously that wasn’t the case. Now I see that this post is showing that Dugout Central had it wrong.
My mistake. ESPN is still on par with God.
Posted 12/08 at 06:32 PM
Heh… WELL… there was Jayson Blair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
Its just flat wrong to say all news papers double (and even triple) check their sources, as it is equally wrong to say the blogging community in general doesn’t.
News paper publishers trust their reporters to have reliable information. Blog administrators trust their contributors to have reliable information.
Its the exact same thing, except the news paper has a scant amount of information every day. You can’t believe everything you read, regardless of who wrote it, whether its a news paper, or an internet blog.
But than again… you are just a blog. I guess I couldn’t expect you to be as intelligent as someone who’s writing appears on a physical piece of pulped paper. Maybe I should take your advice, and assume you’re not really all that smart… since all you do is write for a blog.
Or should I mistrust what you’re saying because you’re only a blog, and according to you blogs are inherently untrustworthy… except for than I’d have to trust blogs, which would mean I would trust you… which would mean that I trust your opinions that blogs are untrustworthy…
Whoops… Norman’s head just exploded (I’ll paypal a dollar to anyone who got that reference without having to look it up).
Posted 12/09 at 02:18 AM
Craig Calcaterra said...
hossrex—I don’t think that blogs are “generally” untrustworthy any more than I think that newspapers always get it right. The point is that a piece of news is a piece of news no matter who’s running it, and that checking it out and making sure it is right is important whether you work for the New York Times, The Hardball Times, or an anonymous blog. The blog vs. newspaper thing is way overplayed. You have to be credible no matter who you are.
Posted 12/09 at 06:37 AM