JLC Blog Blaylock, DE

[elkabong82]

Too frequently the last few years, they have allowed the Redskins beat to move outside those guidelines to the detriment of the paper.

One thing I've noticed with the sports section of the post, but until now have not had the opportunity to comment on; is their section on the second page where they quote online member opinions about the local teams.

I have yet to read a positive comment on the Skins by one of these online members. Every comment is essentially the same, in that they are all retreaded insults you can see coming before you've even begun reading the opinion.

I know this isn't really adding much to the debate, but it is something I've consistently noticed with the Post and their continued bashing.

[Vinnick]

I'll keep this short.

But I think La Cafora from the Washington Post has done an excellet job. Especially compared to the guy who he replaced.

I know his blog is more opinion than reporting. Its not hard to figure out.

There seems to stuff that is broken here on this board. Then there is information that writers get from speaking with agents and other writers, like the Blaylock and Defensive End stuff.

Best of both worlds in my opinion.

HTTR

[whatmeworry]

Also, I could be wrong, but I seem to remember JLC coming out with some article when he was fairly new here, saying the Skins should change their name. I don't believe there was any signifigant event going on to prompt such an article, but I definitely remember someone (if not JLC) writing that in the post.

That was the bald-headed goofy looking transplant from New York. Cant remember his name.

[DRSmith]

If sykes works out is DE still a concern, for this season, we have Carter Daniels Wynn and possibly Sykes.

[Art]

Skinsn,

No, a professional journalist doesn't get to do it. Jason does, thus, he's no longer a professional journalist. He's paid, but that doesn't mean he behaves as a professional would. As a beat reporter, you're obligated, even where you have opportunity, to refuse them. Cherished is your neutrality and inability for the public to know your inner viewpoints.

For a journalist out to make a name for himself at the expense of his duties, there's personal style blogging. Again, it's not a secret it's hurt him on the beat. Jason's employers are currently evaluating the adversarial brand of journalism so, the less "in" he is with the beat, the better they feel his job is going. Readership will define this over time, which is a key reason Jason is so inclusive of me so he may drum up a following either to him, against me, or both .

Understand, Skinsn, I had a correspondance with another Post writer after a particularly fine piece he'd done. I told him how much I enjoyed it and thanked him for the time he took to do it. He immediately told me to write the editors to tell them the audience WANTS that kind of story, because they do not prioritize it any longer, in favor of something else.

The Post is experimenting with a different style of coverage right now. Time will tell how it works. Might work great. Might fail miserably. Not for me to say or know. Old-school journalism is struggling to find a place in today's society. Perhaps it'll be the Fox News brand of point-of-view reporting.

What intrigues me is Jason is the loudest against "non-traditional" outlets such as the fans here having access that he has. Yet, he's the first to break traditional boundries. I've said before, Jason's biggest problem is he doesn't hold himself to the same rules he holds others.

[Art]

I'll keep this short.

But I think La Cafora from the Washington Post has done an excellet job. Especially compared to the guy who he replaced.

I know his blog is more opinion than reporting. Its not hard to figure out.

There seems to stuff that is broken here on this board. Then there is information that writers get from speaking with agents and other writers, like the Blaylock and Defensive End stuff.

Best of both worlds in my opinion.

HTTR

Replacing Nunyo wasn't difficult .

I thought the fact Blaylock was around broke on Redskins.com the other day? As for the DE stuff, what exactly has broken on it?

[DRSmith]

I forgot we also got Chris Wilson from the CFL, a pretty good run stopping DE

[praise_gibbs]

[skinsn24]

Skinsn,

No, a professional journalist doesn't get to do it. Jason does, thus, he's no longer a professional journalist. He's paid, but that doesn't mean he behaves as a professional would. As a beat reporter, you're obligated, even where you have opportunity, to refuse them. Cherished is your neutrality and inability for the public to know your inner viewpoints.

For a journalist out to make a name for himself at the expense of his duties, there's personal style blogging. Again, it's not a secret it's hurt him on the beat. Jason's employers are currently evaluating the adversarial brand of journalism so, the less "in" he is with the beat, the better they feel his job is going. Readership will define this over time, which is a key reason Jason is so inclusive of me so he may drum up a following either to him, against me, or both .

Understand, Skinsn, I had a correspondance with another Post writer after a particularly fine piece he'd done. I told him how much I enjoyed it and thanked him for the time he took to do it. He immediately told me to write the editors to tell them the audience WANTS that kind of story, because they do not prioritize it any longer, in favor of something else.

The Post is experimenting with a different style of coverage right now. Time will tell how it works. Might work great. Might fail miserably. Not for me to say or know. Old-school journalism is struggling to find a place in today's society. Perhaps it'll be the Fox News brand of point-of-view reporting.

What intrigues me is Jason is the loudest against "non-traditional" outlets such as the fans here having access that he has. Yet, he's the first to break traditional boundries. I've said before, Jason's biggest problem is he doesn't hold himself to the same rules he holds others.

Art, let me thank you first for not taking any digs at me. That makes this conversation much easier to have.

By definition a professional is someone who gets paid for doing whatever they do. Therefore, by definition Jason is a professional journalist. His style or take might not be what you like, but by defintion he is still a professional, much like someone who gets paid to cook pizzas is a professional pizza cooker.

It is your opinion that a beat reported should remain nuetral in his/her reporting. I actually agree with this opinion but I understand the difference between a print article and his blog. His blog is an opinion piece where his print articles are beat reporting.

Traditional boundries are being broken. This can be seen with the large amount of WOMAN beat reporters and woman sports writers. Traditionally sports reporting has been a male job, but now it is a unisex job. So just as woman have taken over the job, opinion has as well. It is simply the trend in todays writing. Like it or not, blogs are huge, the WP has granted JLC a blog where he is sussposed to voice his opinion.

His employer is ultimalty the one who gets to decide if he is doing what a current beat reported should do. He is only a beat reporter becuase he is employeed by the WP, so in the end it is all up to how the WP views the position.

I actually like having him voice his opinion in his blog and keep the beat reporting to print articles. It is a welcome relief to the overly postive attitude of the blogs on this website.

You mentioned FOX NEWS, which is a great example. Keep in mind everything is run by money. Money in journalism is run by advertisments which is run by viewer/readership. Any print or visual media is looking to gain as much advertisment revenue as possible. Thus, they will print/show anything that gets the most viewers. JLC seems to be doing a pretty good job at that, so the WP has no reason to complain, in other words he is doing his job very very well according to his job position and his employer.

The same way that O'Riely (i assume you like him) makes millions spewing his garbage over the airways.

Personally, I like JLC, I think he does a very good job of seperating his print beat reporting from his personal opinionated blog. I can tell the difference. Some people may not be able to, but that is there fault.

I find his slightly pessimistic attitude a welcome relief to the optimisim that most fans have.:2cents:

(i know the spelling in this post was horrible, i am sorry for that but dont feel like editing it right now.)

Edit: This may be my worst piece of writing ever. Tons of spelling and grammar mistakes. LOL. If anyone sees the news and hears of the "mifflin block party"..well lets just say that had an influence on my spelling.

[DieselPwr44]

Yes, I am amused as I suspect Jason is. It actually helps him a great deal. His blog is not as well followed as this board. There are those here who dislike me intensely. He garners a natural audience and creates reasonably fun interplay. Your point?

Didn't seem like "fun" interplay to me. More like two kids slinging mud and arguing over who threw it first.

To each his own I guess.......

[Enter Apotheosis]

Art,

You definitely write a lot trying to justify your opinion but it doesn't really mean much of anything. JLC is far from being the only reporter with a blog - in fact, it seems to be a growing trend. If you think that professing an opinion in an appropriate place is a bad thing, then I guess that you'd agree that reporters shouldn't be allowed to talk sports/news/whatever in bars, endow upon their kids some sort of moral system, or even vote.

Perhaps the perfect news source would be like that, but its not happening now or ever.

[skinsn24]

Art,

You definitely write a lot trying to justify your opinion but it doesn't really mean much of anything. JLC is far from being the only reporter with a blog - in fact, it seems to be a growing trend. If you think that professing an opinion in an appropriate place is a bad thing, then I guess that you'd agree that reporters shouldn't be allowed to talk sports/news/whatever in bars, endow upon their kids some sort of moral system, or even vote.

Perhaps the perfect news source would be like that, but its not happening now or ever.

Very well said:applause:

[whatmeworry]

Journalism is actually a lost art form. Go to any newspaper and read an article on about anything and you see the author's own take on the story through what they emphasize, the adjectives they use and basically how the story is slanted to fit their opinion. In a lot of cases this may be unintentional just because they haven't been trained properly but more often than not it is deliberate. You, the reader, are now charged with doing the journalist's job - that is, look through the filter that they are trying to present and try to somehow to decipher what is fact and what is opinion.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Journalism is actually a lost art form.

I have to ask you, though, when has it ever not been like this? Look at Yellow Journalism... hell, go back to any point in history and you can always discern some level of opinion in a 'factual' report. :2cents:

[whatmeworry]

I have to ask you, though, when has it ever not been like this? Look at Yellow Journalism... hell, go back to any point in history and you can always discern some level of opinion in a 'factual' report. :2cents:

The distinction is 'yellow' journalism was recognized for what it was back then and generally was marginalized by legitimate journalists while today it is the norm. Of course occassionally someone's bias might slip through but that's what ombudsmen are (or were) for.

I'll give an example. I live in Richmond where the newspaper here is what is thought of as conservative. They have a little twerp here (Jeff Shapiro) that they actually let write political stories even though he can't get through one without it sounding like an editorial. And anytime the name George Allen (governor not the coach) is mentioned you can almost see the foam coming out of his mouth. The others they use are nearly as bad though their names escape me for now. One actually in a 'news' story actually talked about the 'shabby' way Allen treated government workers.

There is ONE writer on the staff I would call an actual journalist. Tyler Whitley. You can read any article he writes and you have absolutely no clue what his own personal opinion is. He doesn't use inflammatory descriptions - he just interviews the principles and REPORTS what they say and any known facts.

[TaylorPickSix]

I read his DE article and really liked it. Probably JLC's best work this offseason.

[fansince62]

The same way that O'Riely (i assume you like him) makes millions spewing his garbage over the airways.

spelling aside....and I'm not an O'Reilly fan...your comment makes it hard to take you seriously. The irony - or comedy - is that you are doing the very same thing these folks do!

btw....."modern" media is capable of being completely moronic (and arrogant) all on its own......advertisers have little influence over that....just watch MSNBC or AL Franken, Henry Rollins, etc., etc., if you need evidence...whoops...sounding like you here!

[Enter Apotheosis]

The distinction is 'yellow' journalism was recognized for what it was back then and generally was marginalized by legitimate journalists while today it is the norm.

I think we all recognize the majority of the crap we hear for what it is. There are also still legitimate journalists but, ultimately, the news is just big business and completely honest non-controversial reporting doesn't sell.

Either way, it can't be denied that even guys like Tyler Whitley have their own opinions on the subjects they write about.

[whatmeworry]

I think we all recognize the majority of the crap we hear for what it is. There are also still legitimate journalists but, ultimately, the news is just big business and completely honest non-controversial reporting doesn't sell.

Either way, it can't be denied that even guys like Tyler Whitley have their own opinions on the subjects they write about.

never said he didn't have opinions. You just can't tell what they are by reading his reporting. sounds like we in agreement tho when it comes to the utter crap we get that passes for journalism.

[putartmonkinthehall]

What I like about this thread is that it encapsulates what I think is the central issue facing sports journalism as we move into the so called "web 2.0" era.

The writers at the Washington Post have historically, for the most part, reported on the Snyder Era Skins as a writer in another section of the paper might report on a political administration or other large organizational entity. That is in the sense that they spend much of their time reporting on supposed missteps, failures, and the ever popular inter-organizational feuding. So we get massive amounts of ink and blog space devoted to pieces such as "The Lost Season".

But what the new era in internet communication has created is platforms for other individuals outside of the journalism profession to write for a large audience. Thus you get phenonenons such as message boards started by everyday fans that become the offical team meassage board, blog spaces on the fornt page of redskins.com included.

And what is starting to become aparent is that more people seem to like the writings of fellow fans when compared to those of trained journalists. On a big redskins news day writters such as Jason La Canfora can only dream about the number of hits a site like extremeskins gets. This phenomenon seems to be really agravating to those who invested countless dollars and years into becoming a "journalist". Thus you get Jason needlessly taking a swipe at Art in a piece that is published on the Washington Post website.

I've always found it funny when the word "homer" is thrown around like it should carry the same negative connotation as the word "ideologue". Of course I'm a homer, I'm a redskins fan. In my spare time away from work and other responsibilities I like to root for the redskins. They represent the hope of winning championships and earning nationwide respect for the region of the country in which I was born. I' don't want news coverage on the organizational shortcomings of the redskins the same way that I would want coverage of my local political orgainzations. I don't need to hear about how evil the cabal is that is running the redskins orgainzation in the same way that I would want to hear about shady dealings in my local school district. Journalists at the Washington Post just don't seem to get that point. Sorry for the long post, HTTR

[skinsn24]

spelling aside....and I'm not an O'Reilly fan...your comment makes it hard to take you seriously. The irony - or comedy - is that you are doing the very same thing these folks do!

btw....."modern" media is capable of being completely moronic (and arrogant) all on its own......advertisers have little influence over that....just watch MSNBC or AL Franken, Henry Rollins, etc., etc., if you need evidence...whoops...sounding like you here!

My comment that Mr. No Spin himself spews garbage over the airways makes it hard to take me seriously?

You sound like a fan of Bill, maybe you are biased too then?

"The irony - or comedy - is that you are doing the very same thing these folks do!"-- I go on a message board and give my opinion. This is true. I am not paid to write and I do it on my own time.

JLC writes a blog. A blog is a personal web journal for people to read. He is not paid to write his blog and does it on his own time.

So yea i guess we are doing the same thing and I see nothing wrong with giviing ones opinion.

O'Reily gives his opinion all the time and does Bill Maher. Nothing wrong with that. JLC in his blog gives his opinion. A blog again is a personal piece, so his opinion is welcomed their. I have not read a print article that does not report the facts. If you want to guide me to one, ill be more than happy to read it.

"btw....."modern" media is capable of being completely moronic (and arrogant) all on its own......advertisers have little influence over that....just watch MSNBC or AL Franken, Henry Rollins, etc., etc.," --Silly statement. Advertising revenue is what allows media to operate. Plain and simple. Advertising money is what allows companys like MSNBC, FOX NEWS, ect ect to cut the checks.

It is really really simple economics. Advertisers pay more to have their spots run on shows that have more viewers. Networks are bottom line, money making companies. They put people on the air who attract the most viewers and thus can charge more for commerical spots.

That is why you see so many characters on TV. O'Reily for example is nothing more than a brand to be marketed. He sells clothing, books, ad spots and more.

He will say redicoulus things at times just to be redicoulus, which gets more attention, more viewers, and then more money.

The same can be said for many of these media pundits. S. Scott on sportscenter is the same. He adds nothing of value or substance, but he is a character who brings in viewers and thus ad money.

Ismus, who said those bad things, didnt get fired right away. However, once all the advertisers pulled their spots, he was canned...hmmmmm

He is now about to sign with a commerical free broadcast........

Not really sure how we got on all of this as it really is a huge side tangent.

Back on point though:

JLC has a blog. He puts his opinion in a blog...big deal, its a blog (an online journal). Some people on this board think that Beat Reporters cannot ever have an opinion. His blog is just his opinion out in the open. It is not an official WP printed piece. If people cannot tell the difference it is their fault. If i met JLC or any writer in person, i would sure as hell ask them what their opinion on things were, as i can get the simple facts from many sources.

Some people on this board seem to think that beat writers cannot have opinions. This is incorrect. They shouldnt have opinions in their printed-fact only-pieces, but there is no law that states they cant have an opinion elsewhere.

Lets remember that he is employed by the WP and not the washington redskins. The only one who should be judging if what he does is within his job description is his employer. Now his employers motives are most likely to sell there paper and to get web hits in order to generate more ad revenue. Based on the controversy this blog has started up, i would say he is doing a pretty good job.

(spelling is a little better in this. It is a football message board so i dont care about spelling too much here. The last post was horrible....the mifflin block can do that to ya!)

[Art]

Skinsn,

ONE of the definitions of professional discusses being paid to do something, but, it's not the primary, nor most understood definition of professional, which is:

(1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

Jason woefully falls short on both couts, but, does achieve compensation. He violates central rules of journalism -- this is for you too EA -- not by having a blog, but, by putting forward his opinion, belitting his beat, and diminishing his effectiveness as a reporter on the beat. Again, you've seen Jason's unique quote material slim. His attributable quotes are now pressers we can watch ourselves. He might get a few outside the organization here and there as well. Whether the Post is pleased with this or not doesn't diminish the fact his ability to perform his duties is being hindered by his own poor behavior as a journalist.

Having a blog is a fine thing. It's what he does with it that hurts him. A lot of people in this world get paid. Not all of them are considered professionals by those who know them. You know how that happens. Unfortunately, it's happening to Jason, who actually was a far better beat reporter than the man he replaced. I think his focus should go back to his core job. Howard Bryant wrote a wonderful four click story on Landry today plus another secondary story.

Though Bryant takes liberties with attribution more than he should, read the quality and storytelling difference between Bryant's Dirty, Dirty Landry piece today and Jason's Blades piece, essentially the same style. It's true Jason's strengths are not the long feature, but, he took DAYS on a blog piece that looks like something someone here could have written in 15 minutes. He's struggling. It's not hard to tell that.

[skinsn24]

I don't need to hear about how evil the cabal is that is running the redskins orgainzation in the same way that I would want to hear about shady dealings in my local school district. Journalists at the Washington Post just don't seem to get that point. Sorry for the long post, HTTR

Putartmonkinthehall, I cut you post down but i read the whole thing and i actually really enjoyed it. I think it was well written and you hit on alot of points.

The main point being that on a big news day a site like this gets many more hits than the WP. The main reason for this is because people like hearing facts, but they like hearing opinion and analysis alot more, expecially after hearing the facts once.

Seeing that almost all of media is paid for by advertisments (that is how they pay the bills) the goal of most media is to attract the most viewers while appearing to present some news. (more viewers means more ad money)

If no viewers or readers go to a certain site or tv network, eventually there will be no revenue because the advertisers will go away and that network or site will fold.

If, as you stated, on a big news day more people come to a site like this one, where opinions run wild, the other tradional websites will do something to remain competitive.

It seems that what they are doing is adding more opinion pieces in the form of blogs. (it is natural, inorder to stay economically competitive) I happen to really like this. I can easily tell the difference between a print article and blog and i enjoy reading both, as i enjoy reading this website.

I dont have to agree with the opinions of the blog or what i read on this website, but both sources give me the ability to respond with my own opinion.

You say that you dont like reading about all the negatives going on in the organization. That is fine, some people want to hear all the bad stuff though. I happen to want to hear it all. The good and the bad, so that I get both sides. If the WP didnt exsist and all i got was ES, i would only get the positives. If ES didnt exsist i may only get all the negatives. Having both works out well for me. Keep in mind that if you dont like what someone is writing or saying, noone is forcing you to listen to them.

Anyway, i really liked your post, thought it was well thoughout. I just felt like i had a few comments to say.

[skinsn24]

Skinsn,

ONE of the definitions of professional discusses being paid to do something, but, it's not the primary, nor most understood definition of professional, which is:

Jason woefully falls short on both couts, but, does achieve compensation. He violates central rules of journalism -- this is for you too EA -- not by having a blog, but, by putting forward his opinion, belitting his beat, and diminishing his effectiveness as a reporter on the beat. Again, you've seen Jason's unique quote material slim. His attributable quotes are now pressers we can watch ourselves. He might get a few outside the organization here and there as well. Whether the Post is pleased with this or not doesn't diminish the fact his ability to perform his duties is being hindered by his own poor behavior as a journalist.

Having a blog is a fine thing. It's what he does with it that hurts him. A lot of people in this world get paid. Not all of them are considered professionals by those who know them. You know how that happens. Unfortunately, it's happening to Jason, who actually was a far better beat reporter than the man he replaced. I think his focus should go back to his core job. Howard Bryant wrote a wonderful four click story on Landry today plus another secondary story.

Though Bryant takes liberties with attribution more than he should, read the quality and storytelling difference between Bryant's Dirty, Dirty Landry piece today and Jason's Blades piece, essentially the same style. It's true Jason's strengths are not the long feature, but, he took DAYS on a blog piece that looks like something someone here could have written in 15 minutes. He's struggling. It's not hard to tell that.

Fair points Art. The primary definition varies by dictionary. I consider Floyd Mayweather a professional boxer and 50 cent a professional musician, but in no way does either man act professional or ethical. However, I do agree there is more to being a professional than just getting paid. Point agreeded upon.

We will not see eye to eye on the rest though, as i think Jason does a fine job (not a great job), but a pretty good job on the beat. I do not see any opinion in his beat writing. If you want to show me some print articles where is opinion is obvious or stated, i would be more than willing to read them. Honestly.

I dont understand how you cant tell the difference between the two. A blog, in its most basic form, is an online journal, where opinions and thoughts are expressed to the masses.

There are blog written on this website, the offical website of the washington redskins, where opinions are given. I dont see a problem with this because they are blogs. However, if they were written as purely neutral, factual, articles, i would have a problem with them.

You may not think Jason is doing a good job on the beat. That is your opinion and in no way can I tell you to think differently.

The only thing i can respond to is this statement:

"Whether the Post is pleased with this or not doesn't diminish the fact his ability to perform his duties is being hindered by his own poor behavior as a journalist." -His duties are outlined by his employer, the WP, because they are his employer, not by the general definition of a "beat reporter." You may have a different standard of what a beat reporter should do and that is fine. I would suggest that you talk to the editors and employers at the WP to try to get them to change their job description or change how they evaluate their employees. I assume you do this already.

Anyway, i just dont see how having a blog, an online journal, is a bad thing. I dont think it keeps him publishing factual pieces. If you want to say that by pubically calling players names, he makes them angery and in return they dont give him interviews and quotes, that is fair. I am sure if it gets really bad then the post will decide he can no longer do his job and find a replacement, as of now, i dont think the WP thinks it has gotten anywhere close.

[fansince62]

Skinsn,

ONE of the definitions of professional discusses being paid to do something, but, it's not the primary, nor most understood definition of professional, which is:

Jason woefully falls short on both couts, but, does achieve compensation. He violates central rules of journalism -- this is for you too EA -- not by having a blog, but, by putting forward his opinion, belitting his beat, and diminishing his effectiveness as a reporter on the beat. Again, you've seen Jason's unique quote material slim. His attributable quotes are now pressers we can watch ourselves. He might get a few outside the organization here and there as well. Whether the Post is pleased with this or not doesn't diminish the fact his ability to perform his duties is being hindered by his own poor behavior as a journalist.

Having a blog is a fine thing. It's what he does with it that hurts him. A lot of people in this world get paid. Not all of them are considered professionals by those who know them. You know how that happens. Unfortunately, it's happening to Jason, who actually was a far better beat reporter than the man he replaced. I think his focus should go back to his core job. Howard Bryant wrote a wonderful four click story on Landry today plus another secondary story.

Though Bryant takes liberties with attribution more than he should, read the quality and storytelling difference between Bryant's Dirty, Dirty Landry piece today and Jason's Blades piece, essentially the same style. It's true Jason's strengths are not the long feature, but, he took DAYS on a blog piece that looks like something someone here could have written in 15 minutes. He's struggling. It's not hard to tell that.

Art....allow me one indiscretion....from what I can tell...the journalism "crowd" has few...if any...ethical standards. we have witnessed in the last 20 years the logical devolution of the Woodward/Bernstein "the reporter is the news" into the flashy, if ankle deep, personas of Keith Olbermann et al.