Reasonable and Civil Discussion?

[3rdnlng]

I get the feeling I'm not explaining this well enough. And let me preface this by saying I am not attempting to be mean or hateful toward Wawrow. I don't know him from Adam, and really don't care who he is or what he does. I'll take his half-drunk 3 a.m. rant on John Bolton over an Eric Wood story any day.

 

What I'm trying to say is it's not that people would think less of his stories because of his political opinions. The fourth wall serves as the disconnect between the authoritative voice and the author as a person. In the small world of Bills fans, the well-established authoritative voice (like Wawrow) carries credibility because there is a distinct connection between fan and author which the fan relies on to feed their fandom. It works great because the author fills a specific need, and to most fans, the relationship doesn't need to go any further than that very basic understanding: "I love the Bills and can not read enough about them to quench my desire. Wawrow writes great stuff about the Bills, and he plays an important role in my fandom by helping to quench my desire for Bills news. Therefore, Wawrow and I have a great relationship." Once the author expands their insightful offerings to something other than Bills news, the relationship changes to the extent that some blush could come off the authoritative rose.

 

It's great that he doesn't care. But sometimes, when a fan looks forward to that quenching of the fandom desire (especially during the offseason), sometimes that's all they want. And when they get more than they want, sometimes disappointment ensues and credibility falls a little. Some fans don't care. Some fans do. It doesn't matter to Wawrow, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to some fans.

 

And I think all 3rd was initially trying to say was he found himself disappointed in this. Fortunately for Wawrow, Wawrow doesn't care.

 

 

I compare seeing John at his worst to watching a real beauty puke all over herself. Sort of takes the sheen off the apple a little. Lest anyone accuse me of any man-love here, it only went as far as insightful football related articles.

[Delete This Account]

I get the feeling I'm not explaining this well enough. And let me preface this by saying I am not attempting to be mean or hateful toward Wawrow. I don't know him from Adam, and really don't care who he is or what he does. I'll take his half-drunk 3 a.m. rant on John Bolton over an Eric Wood story any day.

 

What I'm trying to say is it's not that people would think less of his stories because of his political opinions. The fourth wall serves as the disconnect between the authoritative voice and the author as a person. In the small world of Bills fans, the well-established authoritative voice (like Wawrow) carries credibility because there is a distinct connection between fan and author which the fan relies on to feed their fandom. It works great because the author fills a specific need, and to most fans, the relationship doesn't need to go any further than that very basic understanding: "I love the Bills and can not read enough about them to quench my desire. Wawrow writes great stuff about the Bills, and he plays an important role in my fandom by helping to quench my desire for Bills news. Therefore, Wawrow and I have a great relationship." Once the author expands their insightful offerings to something other than Bills news, the relationship changes to the extent that some blush could come off the authoritative rose.

 

It's great that he doesn't care. But sometimes, when a fan looks forward to that quenching of the fandom desire (especially during the offseason), sometimes that's all they want. And when they get more than they want, sometimes disappointment ensues and credibility falls a little. Some fans don't care. Some fans do. It doesn't matter to Wawrow, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to some fans.

 

And I think all 3rd was initially trying to say was he found himself disappointed in this. Fortunately for Wawrow, Wawrow doesn't care.

any writer who doesn't care is a liar. i do care. what i choose not to do is apologize to anyone who might think lesser of me becasue of things that matter to me. i believe there is a need for universal health care, and if you don't, well, fine. how my opinion is wrong or takes some blush off a rose is not my problem and also something beyond my control.

 

you don't like me for that, you think less of me because of that, you think i'm a dumbass liberal, great. you're entitled.

 

however, how i present myself on this edge of the board might be a bit (a small bit, perhaps) of an act, too. thing is, i find some of this as an opportunity to let my hair down and flex some verbal muscles by letting my fingers run loose on the keyboard in a fashion that has nothing to do with my job, the buffalo bills or tim tebow. there's a lot of me in what i write here, but the problem is, some folks take it as gospel or far too serious.

 

i'm glad 3rd accepted what i wrote as a form of entertainment.

 

the fact that i was amusing myself and wound up amusing a few others is what we, in this business of putting finger to keyboard, enjoy doing.

 

jw

 

ADD: and you know what irks me, is that no one noticed how i got most of the capital letters in the right places in that one post. (no charge, Lori)

[Delete This Account]

And yes, the rules are different for PPP, and JW was warned about this place before he ever set foot in here.

yes, i was warned, and still waded in. maybe the dumbass label fits, to a degree, eh?

 

jw

[Fan in San Diego]

If you truly understood what I was saying, it would have never entered your mind to write the last two sentences.

 

Write on.

 

LA he is just a dude like me and you that puts his pants on one leg at a time. Don't put anybody on a pedestal, you'll just be disappointed.

On a side note, my most memorable moment in live theatre was at the Bernard Shaw Theatre in Niagara on the Lake, the play was 'Much ado about nothing', the scene called for the main character to fall backwards with his crutches and sprawl on the floor. Well one crutch went skidding across the stage into the orchestra pit. So he continued with his lines, then the crutch comes sliding out from the orchestra pit back to him, where he grabs it, looks to the pit and says 'Thank you' and then continues. The place erupted in laughter. It was a funny moment where character was broken for a second. Just a brief glimpse that even tho the actor is in character, that he is just a dude.

[DC Tom]

Try as I might, I fail to see how JW's personal views on politics have even a smidge of an effect on his job covering sports. Honestly: Did anyone here read the feature on Eric Wood, say, and think less of the story because it was written by someone who you disagree with on health care?

 

I think LA's point is: some people might, even if he, you, or I don't.

[Lori]

I get the feeling I'm not explaining this well enough. And let me preface this by saying I am not attempting to be mean or hateful toward Wawrow. I don't know him from Adam, and really don't care who he is or what he does. I'll take his half-drunk 3 a.m. rant on John Bolton over an Eric Wood story any day.

 

What I'm trying to say is it's not that people would think less of his stories because of his political opinions. The fourth wall serves as the disconnect between the authoritative voice and the author as a person. In the small world of Bills fans, the well-established authoritative voice (like Wawrow) carries credibility because there is a distinct connection between fan and author which the fan relies on to feed their fandom. It works great because the author fills a specific need, and to most fans, the relationship doesn't need to go any further than that very basic understanding: "I love the Bills and can not read enough about them to quench my desire. Wawrow writes great stuff about the Bills, and he plays an important role in my fandom by helping to quench my desire for Bills news. Therefore, Wawrow and I have a great relationship." Once the author expands their insightful offerings to something other than Bills news, the relationship changes to the extent that some blush could come off the authoritative rose.

 

It's great that he doesn't care. But sometimes, when a fan looks forward to that quenching of the fandom desire (especially during the offseason), sometimes that's all they want. And when they get more than they want, sometimes disappointment ensues and credibility falls a little. Some fans don't care. Some fans do. It doesn't matter to Wawrow, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to some fans.

 

And I think all 3rd was initially trying to say was he found himself disappointed in this. Fortunately for Wawrow, Wawrow doesn't care.

Food for thought, LA. Thanks.

 

I'm still not seeing it, but then again, I suppose that could be because I fall on the wrong side of your dividing line in that construct. (Not that I'm claiming to be an authoritative voice on the Bills; I write about them, but I do NOT "cover" them, with all that word entails.) I've never felt that disconnect -- remember what I told you a while back about hanging out at the local rag as a kid, the same one I write for now -- but I guess I can respect that others might, even if I don't understand it.

 

If anything, my disconnect is with the team itself; I'm less of a fan now than I was before getting a few glimpses of how they make the sausage in the front office. I used to think I wouldn't be able to last inside the RWS pressbox without breaking the "no cheering" covenant, but I'm not so sure about that any more.

 

Or maybe that's just from a decade of on-field mediocrity beating the fandom out of me.

---------------------------------------------------

 

JW, no more or less of a dumbass than anyone else here in the mosh pit ... and yet we keep coming back for more.

[Fan in San Diego]

Or maybe that's just from a decade of on-field mediocrity beating the fandom out of me.

---------------------------------------------------

 

JW, no more or less of a dumbass than anyone else here in the mosh pit ... and yet we keep coming back for more.

 

Good analogy Lori.

[IDBillzFan]

If anything, my disconnect is with the team itself; I'm less of a fan now than I was before getting a few glimpses of how they make the sausage in the front office. I used to think I wouldn't be able to last inside the RWS pressbox without breaking the "no cheering" covenant, but I'm not so sure about that any more.

 

THIS is precisely what I am talking about. That fourth wall fell and the disconnect took place. The team had A FAN!!! Now they just have a fan.

 

By the way...I was in that pressbox years ago. The woman who was the liaison for all the Bills Backers met me during mini-camp and took me on a tour. That pressbox is freaking awesome.

[Lori]

THIS is precisely what I am talking about. That fourth wall fell and the disconnect took place. The team had A FAN!!! Now they just have a fan.

Yeah, but that's because of my own interactions with certain people at OBD, not anything that anybody in the media did.

[IDBillzFan]

Yeah, but that's because of my own interactions with certain people at OBD, not anything that anybody in the media did.

Doesn't matter if they're in the media. You had a specific relationship with the team, and once those interactions with certain people at OBD took place, the fourth wall was down and the relationship changed. Same dynamic happens a lot with employment. You view a company one way, go to work for them and weeks later drive home from work thinking, "That's not what I thought it was."

[DC Tom]

Doesn't matter if they're in the media. You had a specific relationship with the team, and once those interactions with certain people at OBD took place, the fourth wall was down and the relationship changed. Same dynamic happens a lot with employment. You view a company one way, go to work for them and weeks later drive home from work thinking, "That's not what I thought it was."

 

Of course, you could extend that metaphor to say just as easily that jw broke the "fourth wall" the moment he decided to post on TSW.

 

The idea is more literally "altered expectations". You're arguing not that jw's posting directly reflects on his writing, but alters people's expectations of him as an authority. As an AP writer, he's viewed as authoritative. As an AP writer who visits TSW...now, he's unavoidably associated with the likes of Skooby or ICE, so people view him in an additional, new context. Now he starts slumming it on PPP...NOW the context includes the likes of me and Darin (abusive) and conner and Hedd (preternaturally stupid), and the context is altered yet again. It doesn't change jw per se...but it changes people's expectations of him.

 

And Lori, all due respect, but you should understand that phenomenon perfectly after the whole "How long does it take jw to transcribe a 10-minute interview, anyway?" exchange. That doesn't happen if jw's posting here hadn't altered the expectation that people (not all) have of him from "profession sports reporter" to "cool, he's a regular guy too!"

 

Which is not an argument that jw or others shouldn't post on TSW (or PPP) either. Overall, if people view jw as less of an authoritative figure having him post here, I personally think it's balanced out by his value to the board (and hopefully by the board's value to him). And the "fourth wall" phenomenon, while common, is hardly ubuquitous (I, for example, am not enamored by claims of authority in any form; jw's posting here doesn't change my opinions of his work one whit). But LA is talking about a very real phenomenon, nonetheless.

[Taro T]

I get the feeling I'm not explaining this well enough. And let me preface this by saying I am not attempting to be mean or hateful toward Wawrow. I don't know him from Adam, and really don't care who he is or what he does. I'll take his half-drunk 3 a.m. rant on John Bolton over an Eric Wood story any day.

 

What I'm trying to say is it's not that people would think less of his stories because of his political opinions. The fourth wall serves as the disconnect between the authoritative voice and the author as a person. In the small world of Bills fans, the well-established authoritative voice (like Wawrow) carries credibility because there is a distinct connection between fan and author which the fan relies on to feed their fandom. It works great because the author fills a specific need, and to most fans, the relationship doesn't need to go any further than that very basic understanding: "I love the Bills and can not read enough about them to quench my desire. Wawrow writes great stuff about the Bills, and he plays an important role in my fandom by helping to quench my desire for Bills news. Therefore, Wawrow and I have a great relationship." Once the author expands their insightful offerings to something other than Bills news, the relationship changes to the extent that some blush could come off the authoritative rose.

 

It's great that he doesn't care. But sometimes, when a fan looks forward to that quenching of the fandom desire (especially during the offseason), sometimes that's all they want. And when they get more than they want, sometimes disappointment ensues and credibility falls a little. Some fans don't care. Some fans do. It doesn't matter to Wawrow, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to some fans.

 

And I think all 3rd was initially trying to say was he found himself disappointed in this. Fortunately for Wawrow, Wawrow doesn't care.

LA, this is making for a very interesting discussion. I understand what you are saying, and do see where posting here could alter the perception some have of john, I just don't see it affecting the perception of very many. (Of course, that's coming from my own bias, I don't have an issue with him posting here; maybe there are a greater %age of people that share your opinion than I'd expect.)

 

Newspaper writers tend to lean towards the liberal end of the spectrum (of course there are the handful like Lori that make me appear to be a liberal), so seeing the posts from john isn't surprising (well, other than the fact he will post here, THAT is mildly surprising) and don't lower my opinion of his professionalism. He'd have to put some of his PPP work into his AP work for it to affect my opinion the work he does in his day job.

 

Much as Bruce Cockburn being an unabashed communist doesn't make him a non-entertaining singer and Charlton Heston's NRA gig and Sean Penn's idiocy don't alter my perception of their acting; Mr. Wawrow being playing a full-blown liberal loon doesn't detract from his work for the AP and in fact it makes for some entertaining reading here on PPP. I really enjoy reading his AP articles and get a kick out of reading what he writes here as well.

 

His unabashedly assuming the role of the drunk Canuck is pretty cool too.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Taro T

[/dev/null]

Much as Bruce Cockburn being an unabashed communist doesn't make him a non-entertaining singer

Heheheheh, Hey Beavis he said Cockburn

[Lori]

Of course, you could extend that metaphor to say just as easily that jw broke the "fourth wall" the moment he decided to post on TSW.

 

The idea is more literally "altered expectations". You're arguing not that jw's posting directly reflects on his writing, but alters people's expectations of him as an authority. As an AP writer, he's viewed as authoritative. As an AP writer who visits TSW...now, he's unavoidably associated with the likes of Skooby or ICE, so people view him in an additional, new context. Now he starts slumming it on PPP...NOW the context includes the likes of me and Darin (abusive) and conner and Hedd (preternaturally stupid), and the context is altered yet again. It doesn't change jw per se...but it changes people's expectations of him.

 

And Lori, all due respect, but you should understand that phenomenon perfectly after the whole "How long does it take jw to transcribe a 10-minute interview, anyway?" exchange. That doesn't happen if jw's posting here hadn't altered the expectation that people (not all) have of him from "profession sports reporter" to "cool, he's a regular guy too!"

 

Which is not an argument that jw or others shouldn't post on TSW (or PPP) either. Overall, if people view jw as less of an authoritative figure having him post here, I personally think it's balanced out by his value to the board (and hopefully by the board's value to him). And the "fourth wall" phenomenon, while common, is hardly ubuquitous (I, for example, am not enamored by claims of authority in any form; jw's posting here doesn't change my opinions of his work one whit). But LA is talking about a very real phenomenon, nonetheless.

Regarding the bitchfest about the Edwards story ... yes and no, Tom. As both GG and I pointed out, the guy who started that did so because he didn't understand how the AP works -- they want the "flash" out there, with the full story to follow. Would he have said a word if the brief hadn't been posted, and we hadn't seen ANY story until the writethrough came across the wire? Doubtful. He probably would have clicked on the story that evening and thought nothing of it.

 

As for the follow-up ... Like John, I'll stay away from commenting on agate clerks, but I do hold the opinion that until you've actually gone out and covered an event, you just can't get a good feel as to how time-consuming this job can be.

Case in point: We (Kenny, Scotty, and the Pinto crew) are invariably the last people out of Lot 1 at home games. Most of the time, it's at least 4-5 hours after the game ... and there are still several cars in the media lot when we leave.

It's true even at the high school level. I just got home from a prep baseball game a short time ago, and by the time I finished talking to the home team's coach, the two of us and his father (who was patiently waiting for us) were the last people in the ballpark.

 

So I think (hope?) that thread helped some people better understand John's job -- and in my mind, that's a GOOD thing, because I want to scream every time I read a "lazy sportswriter" or "I could do that job" slam.

 

Wow, did we ever drag this discussion off its original track. Eh, that's okay. I'm sure there will be plenty of other Tea Party threads before we're done.

 

P.S.: Taro, I make you look like a liberal? Interesting, because I haven't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since 2000 (and even then, it was a write-in for McCain instead of Bush.)

[LeviF]

P.S.: Taro, I make you look like a liberal? Interesting, because I haven't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since 2000 (and even then, it was a write-in for McCain instead of Bush.)

There can be (and often are) profound differences being conservative and being a Republican.

[Booster4324]

There can be (and often are) profound differences being conservative and being a Republican.

 

Sadly, that is the conservatives only choice.

 

Just representative of your posts

 

 

I think you actually have an excellent argument for some people being effected by JW posting like this. Some conservatives, moderates, and even liberals will undoubtedly be turned off by it. Some will not change their opinion of his work at all.

 

The question is, how will everyone be effected? I can honestly say, my opinion of his professional work hasn't changed. Only a few of the conservative types have said anything truly derogatory, but how many have remained silent? Even if you agree with someone politically, some of those may come away with a disappointed view.

 

Mr. Wawrow being a full-blown liberal loon doesn't detract from his work for the AP and in fact it makes for some entertaining reading here on PPP. I really enjoy reading his AP articles and get a kick out of reading what he writes here as well.

 

Not everyone will take a dim view of this interaction. Keep it up IMO John and welcome back to the madhouse.

[Chef Jim]

Sadly, that is the conservatives only choice.

 

Wrong.

[Lori]

There can be (and often are) profound differences being conservative and being a Republican.

Valid point. So, I'll do it this way. (Apologies for teh Wiki, but I'm working on other stuff right now and don't want to spend a ton of time delineating my platform plank-by-plank.)

 

The accepted meaning of traditional morality often differs from group to group within social conservatism. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are, however, a number of principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere. Social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose embryonic stem cell research; oppose marriages not between one man and one woman, especially same-sex marriage; view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose secularism and privatization of religious belief; support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, premarital sex, non-marital sex and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency.

From that list of principles, the "nuclear family model" is the only one I agree with. As long as it isn't hurting anyone else, it's none of my business what someone decides to do in their bedroom, and I worship no god.

[Booster4324]

Wrong.

 

Hey, I want more parties (at least 1) and I vote 3rd party for Presidential or forgone elections. Ideally, there would be at least 6-7 legitimate parties.

[Chef Jim]

Hey, I want more parties (at least 1) and I vote 3rd party for Presidential or forgone elections. Ideally, there would be at least 6-7 legitimate parties.

 

 

Democratic Party (1792 historic, 1828 modern)

Republican Party (1854)

Constitution Party (1992)

Green Party (1996)

Libertarian Party (1971)

America First Party (2002)

American Party (1968)

America's Independent Party (2008)

Boston Tea Party (2006)

Communist Party USA (1919)

Independence Party of America (2007)

Moderate Party (2006)

Modern Whig Party (2008)

Objectivist Party (2008)

Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)

Peace and Freedom Party (1967)

Progressive Labor Party (1961)

Prohibition Party (1869)

Reform Party of the United States of America (1995)

Socialist Equality Party (2008)

Socialist Party USA (1973)

Socialist Workers Party (1938)

United States Marijuana Party (2002)

Unity Party of America (2004)

Workers Party, USA (2003)

Workers World Party (1959)

Working Families Party (1998)