Sounds a lot like what Wilbon was spontaneously (cough, cough) talking about with Ven Pelt the other day.

PFT is getting to them, because I know for a fact, that ESPN never has any rumor mongering, nor do they have any gossip columnists.

Just hard news unaffected by corporate influence.

INTEGRITY

See, Paul Anka knew about integrity. I think of him when ESPN pods and corporate whores start talking about integrity, cuz he slices like a fuckin HAMMER!

Warning: Foul language, and yelling, so headphones.

I don't necessarily disagree with Anka...he's got bills to pay.

there's a kernel of truth to what she claims.

ask any sportswriter. if there is a rumor on a popular blog or sports radio, they get a call from their editor telling them to check it out.

not saying ALL blogs are irresponsible nor that blogs are the root of espn's evil. but she's not far off base in saying blogs generate a lot of news.

i took that example as a back-handed compliment.

'The idea that you do not trade in rumors has virtually gone by the wayside in this form of journalism'

good thing espn doesnt have a service you can pay for to see rumors for each sport. oops.

If they aren't responsible for their mistakes, then how did a column get put up this morning that had two references to team mascots from the wrong schools?

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/insider/columns/story?columnist=mcshay_todd&id=3044688&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos2

He referred to Kansas State as the Tigers, and a Cal player as being a Duck. It's really getting pathetic.

Anon- I can understand the fact that Blogs help editors make decisions and that they find a lot of items regular media misses.

It all boils down to the fact that there are both good and bad blogs and good and bad "jounalists".

I just think it's unfair to push ESPN's mistakes on Sports Blogs. That logic makes zero sense to me.

P.S.- I've also emailed LeAnne to see if she could explain that to me.

I heard a rumor that the Patriots are a good golf clob.

I don't want to cause ESPN to make any mistakes over it, but they might want to check it out.

You know what I did the second I saw this story?

I checked ESPN to see if it was true.

This just in: ESPN says all blogs are bullshit and only deal in bullshit rumors.

Except theirs. That must be the "ten percent" Schreiber alluded to in her text.

I go to blogs instead of ESPN because I want to read things of interest TO ME.

I don't want to read another bullshit piece on A-Rod like they have as their front page story right now. Fuck A-Rod. Fuck the Yankees. Fuck New York teams in general. Talk about something that isn't happening in New York for a change.

Bloggers don't blow Scott Boras so that he will give ESPN permission to interview his clients.

You know how pissed it makes them that they can't "break" stories, or bury stories?

It makes them so pissed, they might not take a biodiesel fueled shuttle to work tomorrow.

They might not have organic mile in their lattes.

They might not pay the Mexican poolboy that extra five a week that they used to.

They might sexually harass more than one intern this week, out of anger.

Was this woman talking about the rumors that Salisbury went around showing his pecker to interns?

In the old days, they could have buried that story, as it should have been, to protect the corporation.

AA--You get so touchy with any kind of criticism. Relax. She's right. It doesn't mean that I'm going to stop reading your site. But it does mean that I will continue to take the stuff I see on it with a grain of salt until MSM reporters and their editors verify it. Blogs have their place in the pecking order. You should embrace that, rather than fight it.

I can respect that you feel that way Anon, but I don't see why that caution is there. I guess it's just different strokes for different folks.

I'm only touchy when there's falsehoods associated with what I do. It's already tough enough to gain respect in this medium and when people take that away unfairly it just riles me up.

I also got a clarification from our Ombudsperson that she's allowing me to put up. That'll be coming soon in a new post.

I read the article in question after making the comments. Part of it sounds like she was trying to explain things to a crotchety old-school journalist who knows even less about the blogosphere than she does.

AA, I don't disagree but why did you have to bring Ed Werder's glorious mustache into the mix??? Give the man some credit for sticking with his awesome lip-hair.