META: "The End of "Stick to Sports" (MGoBlog Mentioned in Ringer article)
Interesting article about sports writers possibly getting outside their lane? Mentions our Fearless Leader as an example. Should sports be safe spaces from politics? Should we demand sports writers stay inside the realm of sports? https://theringer.com/sportswriters-media-donald-trump-politics-a8b332b…
[Ed-S: aaaand it's done. Had to banish a 6-year veteran. No more nice things]
January 30th, 2017 at 5:55 PM ^
(more or less) till the end.
Which: what?
I didn't get
???
p.s. interesting to get a syopsis from someone who has access to both sides... though I think there are more than two easily-definable "sides" -- as someone who doesn't fall neatly into existing categories.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:05 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^
Sports are greatly affected by political decisions, so it would be almost impossible for sports writers to seperate the two even if they tried.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:08 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:09 PM ^
If sports writers choose to bring opinon based reporting of politics into the realm of sports, personally I will have just lost the one place you could go to just get away from it. Most of my favorite reporters are smart, I'm sure they can write an article on how it effects sports using facts and leaving the opinions to the tabloid networks like CNN and Fox.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:31 PM ^
I am certain whichever editor decided it have a section of its own did so for the reasons you suggest, a refuge from all else. If you wanted to check in on something else, that is what the other sections were for. The same applied to sports radio. Nothing better than a long drive and finding a sports talk show. Minus all the other opinions you would find at your job, local pub, dinner with the in-laws, what have you, and that long drive seemed to be covered in a very small amount of time.
Additionally, it becomes pretty obvious what side one is going to take if allowed to broach that subject, and if the opinion of the public, as a whole is pretty much one-sided, sports writers, exposed to the same coverage and facts the general population is, their opinion will amount to nothing more than unsportsmanlike behavior. It was called piling on when I was a kid, but now it's all covered under that one label, and it's an improvement.
The policy on here, imo, is a good one. It was created, obviously with one thing in mind and that being of significant difference in that other sites might allow one to ramble on about a number of different things. The other notable difference, one I was called out for on my first few attempts was being called out for trying to pass something along in the format you might use for a text msg on the phone. The population had no problem making you aware of what they expected. Not everyone is blessed with the same writing skills, obviously, but asking that you put something together in proper format with attention to spelling, etc., is really not that taxing.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:40 PM ^
I think it's great that the proprietors of MGoBlog have made this a place where people of all political perspectives can read and interact about Michigan sports without politics getting in the way.
But it sounds really entitled to say to writers "you shouldn't talk about this, because then I'd have to hear about it." If you don't like what a writer is writing, don't read it.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^
a strict separation of politic and sport is necessary
Anger should be focused at ohio state, penn st, baylor, sparty, ND I guess, and cheating programs in other conferences
January 30th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^
I should add...most sports writers already suck at their jobs and can't do research or write a coherent story (this blog and some others the exceptions of course). Why would we want sports writers covering anything else when they already fail so badly at their jobs?
January 30th, 2017 at 5:01 PM ^
It's worth noting that the anger being focused at PSU and Baylor is itself political in nature.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:09 PM ^
Rape, and covering up rape to win a few more football games, being bad things is political?
January 30th, 2017 at 5:09 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 4:12 PM ^
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
January 30th, 2017 at 4:22 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^
The overflows underscore that we are living in not normal times. Each day I wake up and realize how lucky my entire life has been to take so much for granted.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:23 PM ^
in S. Quad circa 1987. It dawned on me that every American generation had some serious shit go down. That is except for ours (as of that time, and as of now). I suppose 9/11 might count, but frankly, unless someone close was killed or injured as a result of that cowardly act or one of the subsequent wars, a 49 year old man hasn't seen anything like WW1, WW2, the great depression, the Civil War, etc.
I mention this, because like you, I feel fortunate to be alive during this time. I also feel like the whole fucking thing might be fracturing.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^
Inaug week was unavoidable but now I don't want any of that crap in my face. Back to the regular programming.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 4:17 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^
It was ok during reveal week, but now just shut the fuck up. They're t-shirts, not artifacts or relics.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:57 PM ^
I'm not even the last one who started an apparel thread.
Complaining about Michigan content on a Michigan board is amusing to me.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 5:23 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 8:44 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^
That's a totally fair opinion. But at the same time, you have to recognize that the events of the past ten days have changed things pretty significantly for a lot of people. I agree that MGoBlog shouldn't become a political forum, but I don't think it's as easy as saying "well, that's over, back to the regular programming."
January 30th, 2017 at 9:06 PM ^
Genuinely curious: What has changed significantly for a lot of people? Are you talking about in the world? In the U.S.? And I'm not talking about "People have lost their feeling of safety" or anything like that. What has actually changed for a large amount of people?
January 30th, 2017 at 8:54 PM ^
We've all been there. We see someone who is treated unfairly in our community, the local restaurant, our schools, or elsewhere, and we've all had that moment where we have to decide whether or not to make our voices heard. So, except for on MGoBlog, speak up for those who have no voice, for the rights of the downtrodden, for those who are destitute, and for human decency.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:15 PM ^
I have followed them for a long time and they regularly make tweets unrelated to sports. But if articles and board posts start containing more political material, this blog will turn into a madhouse and lead to a purge worse than the one resulting from that infamous George Campbell recruiting post. I would consider that a bad development... I don't think it will ever happen though.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:16 PM ^
I have problems with the trend discussed in the article.
1. One of the nice things about sports is that it is an area, becoming increasingly unique in worldwide culture, that people with different views can enjoy together. Atheists and pastors on Mgoblog can share a love for Michigan sports, and in so doing enjoy a shared human experience that recognizes that there are things that we have in common even in wildly different lives.
When prominent voices make politics a big part of their message, some of this is lost. People who enjoy their work despite political differences are now actively put on the defensive by their work, and there can often be a subtle "unpersoning" of those who disagree when the tone of a political statement suggests (as it often does these days) that there is only one legitimate side to any argument.
2. People are usually prompted to speak out by some "outrage" or another, but the outrages are moving target and facts later reveal that facts didn't match up to the level that prompted such outrage. The net effect is that people who say "there is a point where we must speak up" are pretty fuzzy about what that point is and often fail to recognize the appropriateness of similar points in those who disagree.
3. The trend goes almost entirely in one direction and has for a long time. There is one side of political opinion that is "acceptable" for a media person to voice an opinion in. This is true here, a site whose contituency roots for and in large portions attended a University whose administration, faculty, and students have a strong tendency to lean in one political direction.
Growing up in Ann Arbor I've seen the dark side of this and I would prefer that dark side not to color the content of this board. So far, so good by the way--I find the rules well and evenly enforced for the most part. I was once sent to Bolivia for a post that crossed the line (it was politics, and an opinion that the proprietors of the blog would generally be sympathetic to, FWIW) and it was a completely just decision.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:20 PM ^
Thanks for your perspective. I believe sports is supposed to be a place to unite, not divide. Period.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:32 PM ^
or ND or MSU. I mean we can all agree on an 'Fuck Notre Dame' amirite? I guess we are united.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:36 PM ^
I agree with this post almost entirely. That said, I do think there are plenty of people in the world of sports, particularly in football, who voice opinions on the conservative side of the spectrum, and it's generally fine. So I don't think the acceptable/unacceptable divide you identify exists to any great degree.
January 30th, 2017 at 5:15 PM ^
Actually I disagree pretty strongly. While it is really easy to identify/cherrypick "outrages" that turned out to be not so outrageous, we also have fine, very fucking fine, examples of behaviour that needed to be called out, and in hindsight were shameful in that they weren't called out earlier. I give you the career of Joe McCarthy.
Making Steve Bannon a member of the national security council is bizarre and upsetting in ways I don't have language for. While your suggetion that these "lines" are "pretty fuzzy" is perfectly valid, I'd suggest that putting this Bannon appointment well beyond any such line is pretty obvious. Do we need to debate the HOF worthiness of Willie Mays or Tom Brady? Whether or not Abe Lincoln was a good president? Whether Apartheid was bad or the Berlin Airlift good?
Sorry if this is a little strong as you are a great credit to this blog.
Cheers and Go Blue.
Jim
January 30th, 2017 at 6:08 PM ^
This is what gets me. People selectively choose what outrages them based more on political beliefs than any ethical standards.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 6:44 PM ^
This is agree with.
January 30th, 2017 at 7:24 PM ^
I'd happily replace the Japanese internment for my McCarthy example (although McCarthy was pretty much an asshole through and through while FDR does have a couple succeses on his resume). The point is that the Bannon placement in the NSC is truly unbelievable.
January 30th, 2017 at 8:25 PM ^
Japanese internment is pretty relevant these days given Korematsu and the whole Executive Branch having the authority to single people out issue...
I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing that internment was bad and should not be repeated. It is one of FDR's greatest failures amongst a sea of generally postively viewed things when it comes to his Presidency.
The atomic bomb usage debate is more apolitical imo.
January 30th, 2017 at 7:22 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 10:06 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 8:27 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 9:05 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 9:25 PM ^
Eye-rolling. Steve Bannon is not a white nationalist. Stop with the hysterics.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:16 PM ^
sports and politics are often intimately linked, and it's a disservice to sports fans for writers to stick their heads in the ground on those subjects. that being said, when those subjects come up on this website, they are often hotly debated for an hour or two and then locked.
but this is very different from interlinked issues. this is sportswriters voicing off on unrelated subjects. my view is that they can do whatever they want, but like all people and all things, they must be willing to accept the consequences when they inevitably say something stupid, unpopular, regretful, etc.
this board has eroded like the rest of the country into political bickering. i've been fine with it because it fits my ideology for the most part, but i readily acknowledge it should be nipped in the bud much more quickly by the moms, and i would hate it if it were in the other direction.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:18 PM ^
Sports do not necessarily need to be separated from politics entirely. I personally despise most sports articles about politics because they take quotes from one or two players or coaches and use it as evidence to write an article implying that most people feel that same way. Players and coaches are just people usually with no real background in the issues they speak out on and their opinion deserves as much attention as your next door neighbor.
I have the same annoyance with all the supposedly professional news media that write an article and then site a few tweets as supporting information. Twitter is used by 20% of the population yet seems to have undue influence in getting news coverage.
I have my masters degree in government and have worked in politics in the past but a lot of times I want a space to get away from it. Politics interests me but it also upsets me so I like coming here to not even have to worry about it (except the times where people ignore the damn rule and act like they are not ignoring the damn rule).
January 30th, 2017 at 4:18 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 6:32 PM ^
January 30th, 2017 at 4:19 PM ^
I don't come to MGoBlog for political news. I don't come here seeking political enlightenment. Nonetheless, it is nice to know where on the political spectrum they sit (however vaguely that tweet articulated that position). You have to take a stand for what you believe in, even if that might offend some of your customers. If you have any level of conviction, you should not be afraid to state your opinions. If you don't care for their opinions, you need to ask yourself whether or not your political disagreements with them are of such a magnitude that it makes you not want to come here anymore. Good luck finding another site that will provide your M fix though.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:29 PM ^
The fact that it is cherry picking what political opinions get published does not sit well with me, and I actually agree with Ace and company regarding the executive order.
There are literally thousands of sources for political hot takes. If I wanted to engage in political discourse, I just need to log on and comment on an any article in the NYT or WSJ.
If mgoblog wants to go this route, then it should permit all political discourse on its threads (unless blatantly racist or inflammatory). However, that detracts from the focus of this site which is Michigan athletics.
There are obviously much more important matters than the state of Michigan football. Nevertheless, there is no reason why mgoblog needs to venture into those matters and worse be an arbiter as to what political discourse gets discussed on these threads.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 30th, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^
I don't go to a herpetologist for heart surgery, not do I ask a heart surgeon if my king snake is brumating. I don't mind that one has an opinion about the other, but when the herpetologist wants to do a TAVR on my father or argue the value of on vs. off-pump surgery, I draw the line.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:33 PM ^
I don't think that example is very apt. Brian (and other sportswriters) are in the profession of writing compelling articles that often blend facts and opinions. It's kind of insulting to say "you should write about this topic, but not that one."
In the internet age, there's no need for anyone to get heated about someone writing about something outside their target zone. You're not paying for the content, and it's usually fairly obvious when an article is going to talk about politics. If you're in the "I just want to hear about sports" crowd, nobody is forcing you to click on that link.
January 30th, 2017 at 4:58 PM ^
That's my point. I don't want to hear their political opinions, and I won't click on the link. This is my caution—feedback that echoes a significant portion of Brian's clientele—that their business model is successful in part because they "just stick to sports."
If Brian wants to kill off mgoblog, I'm not sure which would kill it off quicker: switching back to Haloscan, start writing glowing articles about OSU, or regularly opine on politics.