CC: Sporting News, Freep need to adopt the CC tag...
This is, seriously, an article in the Sporting News ABOUT a Freep article saying why Harbaugh may be unlikely to take the Michigan job.
I'm incredibly surprised that news outlets haven't adopted the "CC" format, especially given the frequency they rehash the exact same information. My personal favorite part is the first line in Rosenberg's article. The source is "a person with direct knowledge of Harbaugh's thinking." I didn't know anyone like that existed...
January 4th, 2011 at 8:30 AM ^
Follow this theory...even if you don't immediately notice another thread about the article you are commenting on, if the article is more than 5 minutes old and about Jim Harbaugh it has already been commented on twice on this blog.
January 4th, 2011 at 8:21 AM ^
Yeah there is already a few posts on this article / story. Sorry.
January 4th, 2011 at 8:22 AM ^
Three threads on the same rumor. Harbawesome.
January 4th, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^
Rivals is saying the identical thing, and is not citing the freep as their source.
January 4th, 2011 at 8:55 AM ^
to look like they have a scoop
January 4th, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^
Is it spring training yet?
January 4th, 2011 at 8:25 AM ^
A little over a month away...
January 4th, 2011 at 8:36 AM ^
From Roger Dean Stadium in Jupiter Florida where the Cards & Marlins have spring training. I don't hear baseball being hit all morning yet.....
January 4th, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^
HOLY SHIT I JUST HEARD THE SAME THING ON THE RADIO THIS MORNING! TIME FOR POST #4!
January 4th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
Post #4? That was Jim Harbaugh's number. Coincidence? I think not.
January 4th, 2011 at 8:31 AM ^
I think the OP is trying to criticize the operation of this particular news outlet (e.g., rehashing same news, citing Rosenberg as having direct knowledge, etc...), not comment on or contribute to the "JH not coming to UM" meme.
This really is more of a "problem with the media" thread than a "CC" thread. Admittedly, the title throws the reader off.
January 4th, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^
either way it could have gone in one of the other threads.
January 4th, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^
Thank you. Thread title has been changed.
January 4th, 2011 at 8:48 AM ^
My point here is that the same feeding frenzy that's been occurring here on these boards regarding every piece of information about JH - is happening in the media as well. There is little to no filtering going on, and everybody is creating this pile of conjecture that doesn't actually say anything. Could it go in another thread? Maybe. But it's more of a media discussion than a discussion of who our next coach is going to be.
January 4th, 2011 at 9:05 AM ^
Good message, great message; fine message. In other words, nothing wrong with the message (in principle anyway; that's not to say it's great even if you misstated something [I neither know nor care whether that's the case]).
But it's how you present it - see, you've allowed others to dictate the discussion. I click on the thread, and I see all their comments about posting in another thread, even though this really deals with another topic. Further, your explanation only comes later on in the thread, but by then, it's fixed in my mind that this is really about "CC" and should be in one of those threads. Your explanation has to peddle much harder to gain any traction with the reader.
Thus, (IMHE), this comment needed to be either an edit to the original post, or a response to one of the first comments about posting in an already established thread. You must control the convo dammit, and as early as possible! Don't let your message get highjacked.
And if it's criticized, let it be so on its own merits (e.g., you got it wrong somehow), instead of on merits determined by others.
January 4th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
Waters, you have become one of my favorite posters. This post needs to be somehow stored (in the "FAQ" section?) to serve as reference material. Outstanding.
January 4th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^
Cheers for the compliment.
January 4th, 2011 at 9:27 AM ^
I'd just love to watch the reactions of anyone on MGoBlog for the first time:
"What the hell does 'CC' mean? And why are all the forums labeled with that?"
January 4th, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^
Why are we trusting the Freep? Have we all lost our minds? Secondly, if you read both the Balas and Rosenberg articles, it is obvious they have the same anonymous source (oh oohhhhh anonymous sources, this well get Section 1's panties in a wad). I will trust Richard Nixon before I trust anything from Rosenberg.