scribo Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I wasn't talking about what i want it to be, I was talking about what it is already. The reality. And it's not just official team stances and propaganda, albeit most of it is. Other team's official sites have a lot of personal editorial coverage than the Bills. Sure, the writers and editors are not going to post anything completely badmouthing the Bills or TD or Ralph, but that doesn't mean they don't do things like watch a practice, see that a player has "what looks like a cast" on, and then mention it on the daily report without having to call TD and say, "Excuse me, Lucifer, I know you're busy, but how should I couch this Milloy injury to confuse and/or piss off the fans?" 449562[/snapback] You are incorrect if you think this info was put on that site without it being OK with TD and MM, or at least people who are given authority to represent them, such as an excutive in the public relations office. At the same time, of course, the Buff News and Rochester D&C don't ask permission to print something. That is all I mean. Oh, now that I mentioned the public releations/marketing office. It is that office's staff who puts the content for BB.com together. Public affairs shouldn't be confused with journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 $1 says he plays. Who wants that action? 449536[/snapback] I'll get back. I'm trying to find somebody to lay off some of that bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan III Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 Roscoe is still out. http://www.buffalobills.com/team/injury.jsp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I knew Euhnus was injured but which game? Preseason? How many games has this kid actually played in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 You are incorrect if you think this info was put on that site without it being OK with TD and MM, or at least people who are given authority to represent them, such as an excutive in the public relations office. At the same time, of course, the Buff News and Rochester D&C don't ask permission to print something. That is all I mean. Oh, now that I mentioned the public releations/marketing office. It is that office's staff who puts the content for BB.com together. Public affairs shouldn't be confused with journalism. 449577[/snapback] I am not sure about that. I know what you are getting at and you may be right. I recall your credentials as a reporter so I respect your opinion about this and know this is your arena. But I don't think those sites are as parsed as you are making them out to be. Perhaps the Bills site is but I know for a fact that some of the other ones aren't. The Bengals site, for example, has this Geoff Hobson guy who writes all kinds of things, including rumors and personal opinions about what the Bengals and other teams may do. I go to that site sometimes just to get some football news because he's a good reporter and not just a company stooge. You probably recall the fervor over the Patriots official site which reported the Bledsoe trade before the team did (I can't recall exactly what they did but it was surely without the notification or approval of the team and it caused quite a little tift). The only point I am making was an article on the Bills site, which mentions a player having apparently a cast on his wrist is likely not going to have to be approved for print, and MINOR editorial assertions like that are not necessarily the Bills organization's official word. How do you account for the Chris Brown blog? he even works indirectly for the team as editor of The Digest, and yet he says things in his blog like, say, predicting who the Bills were going to cut in training camp, that surely were not official team stances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I am not sure about that. I know what you are getting at and you may be right. I recall your credentials as a reporter so I respect your opinion about this and know this is your arena. But I don't think those sites are as parsed as you are making them out to be. Perhaps the Bills site is but I know for a fact that some of the other ones aren't. The Bengals site, for example, has this Geoff Hobson guy who writes all kinds of things, including rumors and personal opinions about what the Bengals and other teams may do. I go to that site sometimes just to get some football news because he's a good reporter and not just a company stooge. You probably recall the fervor over the Patriots official site which reported the Bledsoe trade before the team did (I can't recall exactly what they did but it was surely without the notification or approval of the team and it caused quite a little tift). The only point I am making was an article on the Bills site, which mentions a player having apparently a cast on his wrist is likely not going to have to be approved for print, and MINOR editorial assertions like that are not necessarily the Bills organization's official word. How do you account for the Chris Brown blog? he even works indirectly for the team as editor of The Digest, and yet he says things in his blog like, say, predicting who the Bills were going to cut in training camp, that surely were not official team stances. 449655[/snapback] You make several very good points, especailly with the Bungles and Patsy examples. I am not arguing the fact that BB.com is quite informational and entertaining. As for Brown's blog, I also agree that what he writes isn't the team's official stance, but I still think the team has to approve what he writes, therefore ruling out absolute objectivity. I enjoy reading BB.com each day, but the fact is that it is maintained by a public affairs/marketing office. And such an office has one mission: to promote and support the team through strategically controlling information. Putting word out that the coach would prefer was kept quiet does not help the team and would not intentionally be done - if it is, someone's head would roll, I'm sure. On the other hand, an independent news source would put such info out in a minute if it is news -- whether or not the info is detrimental to the team. My original point is that the team is releasing the info that Milloy is wearing the cast, so the person writting about it should just come out and say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 OK, not exactly what I meant by my comments, but I don' think anything other than the mandated injury reports should be put out by the team. What I was saying is that the Web site is trying to come off like it is a media entity independent of the team. Anything that is on the site (unless it is in a message board or chat setting) can and should be considered an official team announcement. 449483[/snapback] I misunderstood (or misread) you on that one scribo, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 You make several very good points, especailly with the Bungles and Patsy examples. I am not arguing the fact that BB.com is quite informational and entertaining. As for Brown's blog, I also agree that what he writes isn't the team's official stance, but I still think the team has to approve what he writes, therefore ruling out absolute objectivity. I enjoy reading BB.com each day, but the fact is that it is maintained by a public affairs/marketing office. And such an office has one mission: to promote and support the team through strategically controlling information. Putting word out that the coach would prefer was kept quiet does not help the team and would not intentionally be done - if it is, someone's head would roll, I'm sure. On the other hand, an independent news source would put such info out in a minute if it is news -- whether or not the info is detrimental to the team. My original point is that the team is releasing the info that Milloy is wearing the cast, so the person writting about it should just come out and say so. 449673[/snapback] I agree. I think perhaps we're dancing around the same point. The wrist cast thing was outed in practice today. Wednesday practices, I'm almost sure, are open to reporters. So the fact that Milloy was wearing a cast wasn't something that would or could be kept from the public. Tomorrow morning, almost certainly the News and The D&C or John Wawrow will mention it. So bb.com is not really leaking information OR in a position to cover it up if they wanted to because MM and TD don't want to give the Falcons any mini advantage. If this happened on a closed practice, you could probably imagine that the writer would know enough not to mention it, because they probably have been instructed that way. So in essence, I am agreeing with you. I am sure they have guidelines. I think, perhaps, the writers are given a little leeway as to what they say, and not everything needs to be just propagandized, if that is indeed a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I agree. I think perhaps we're dancing around the same point. The wrist cast thing was outed in practice today. Wednesday practices, I'm almost sure, are open to reporters. So the fact that Milloy was wearing a cast wasn't something that would or could be kept from the public. Tomorrow morning, almost certainly the News and The D&C or John Wawrow will mention it. So bb.com is not really leaking information OR in a position to cover it up if they wanted to because MM and TD don't want to give the Falcons any mini advantage. If this happened on a closed practice, you could probably imagine that the writer would know enough not to mention it, because they probably have been instructed that way. So in essence, I am agreeing with you. I am sure they have guidelines. I think, perhaps, the writers are given a little leeway as to what they say, and not everything needs to be just propagandized, if that is indeed a word. 449752[/snapback] I agree that we are agreeing. I didn't know this was the practice reporters were allowed to attend. That tells me that the person who writes for the Web site may actually have known about the cast a few days ago and waited until to today to write about it. And, yes, propagandized, is a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayboy54 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 You are incorrect if you think this info was put on that site without it being OK with TD and MM, or at least people who are given authority to represent them, such as an excutive in the public relations office.449577[/snapback] Apparently, those folks do not care about spelling and grammer then. BB.com is horrible with those things. Maybe they do not care... Or, maybe they really do not check content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Thumb surgery. Freaking great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 spelling and grammer 449774[/snapback] An "a" is a terrible thing to waste...grammatically speaking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Apparently, those folks do not care about spelling and grammer then. BB.com is horrible with those things. Maybe they do not care... Or, maybe they really do not check content. 449774[/snapback] heh heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 (edited) Apparently, those folks do not care about spelling and grammer then. BB.com is horrible with those things. Maybe they do not care... Or, maybe they really do not check content. 449774[/snapback] I'm not tracking...are you saying that because there are grammar and spelling mistakes on the site that it unlikely that someone of some seniority could be looking at the site? Oh, just as a friendly note, you misspelled grammar. Sorry Cinci and Dan, you guys beat me to it. Edited September 21, 2005 by scribo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts