DMN JJT Blog: How come Tony Romo no longer talks on Wednesdays?

[TheCount]

No. Just a reporter who understands how these things work.

When I wrote columns, I loved nothing better than for people to criticize me and get upset with something I wrote.

You get more responses when people hate what you write compared to when people love what you write.

Not saying you do it on purpose, but it gives you more of a sense of empowerment to share how you really feel if you're not scared of negative reaction.

Or, they could try, I don't know, real reporting? I know, it might just be crazy enough to work.

If they want to write for the sports tabloids, feel free, but let's not pretend that is "reporting".

 

[searchlights]

Gah this is the new parlor game in the 24 hour news cycle. You have a seed of a story when it comes to Tony's confidence which is a legitimate issue. You write about that. Then when blogs discuss the issue in the giant echo chamber that is the Internet you pick up all that noise and write about that. Then you write a story about Tony and his teammates reacting to the reactions. Then you write about whatever decisions they make (speaking to the local media, whatever they choose to say like if they go out and support Tony more) as a reaction to the stories about them reacting to the reactions. It's a self reinforcing cycle and what resemblance it has to reality is completely irrelevant.

It's not that JJT is completely off base here because I think there is a legitimate issue with Tony's confidence and I do think the scrutiny's getting to him somewhat. But JJT's really just riding the news cycle on the story because it'll give him more to write about later.

Does this happen to other teams in other markets? Yes and no. The scrutiny is there in at least the same intensity in places like Philly and New York. But I think like Tony and the Boys are getting the A-Rod treatment where journos are treating them like celebrities in a soap opera rather than athletes so that there's more of an "anything goes" attitude as far as what journos say. I chalk that up to Jerry's cultivation of a celebrity culture when it comes to the Cowboys but it doesn't mean the players are treated fairly by the media. In fact when times are rough the pile-on is that much worse.

 

[DallasEast]

Or, they could try, I don't know, real reporting? I know, it might just be crazy enough to work.

If they want to write for the sports tabloids, feel free, but let's not pretend that is "reporting".

:signmast: :signmast::signmast:

 

[DallasEast]

Excellent point.. Might fall on deaf ears though.

Unfortunately, you have to avoid the media pretty much altogether to "duck it". He has spoken with the media each week. That isn't ducking the media, it's speaking to the media at times which are more preferable to him (i.e. the player whom the media must wait for/not the other way around). There is a difference and it is a definitive one at that.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Gah this is the new parlor game in the 24 hour news cycle. You have a seed of a story when it comes to Tony's confidence which is a legitimate issue. You write about that. Then when blogs discuss the issue in the giant echo chamber that is the Internet you pick up all that noise and write about that. Then you write a story about Tony and his teammates reacting to the reactions. Then you write about whatever decisions they make (speaking to the local media, whatever they choose to say like if they go out and support Tony more) as a reaction to the stories about them reacting to the reactions. It's a self reinforcing cycle and what resemblance it has to reality is completely irrelevant.

It's not that JJT is completely off base here because I think there is a legitimate issue with Tony's confidence and I do think the scrutiny's getting to him somewhat. But JJT's really just riding the news cycle on the story because it'll give him more to write about later.

Does this happen to other teams in other markets? Yes and no. The scrutiny is there in at least the same intensity in places like Philly and New York. But I think like Tony and the Boys are getting the A-Rod treatment where journos are treating them like celebrities in a soap opera rather than athletes so that there's more of an "anything goes" attitude as far as what journos say. I chalk that up to Jerry's cultivation of a celebrity culture when it comes to the Cowboys but it doesn't mean the players are treated fairly by the media. In fact when times are rough the pile-on is that much worse.

Well said.

My problem is that these guys don't observe what they see and then comment on it. They go in with a bias, an outcome they wish to see (Wade is a doofus, Romo is a choker, the team overall is gutless etc.), and then jump on the tiniest evidence that they could be right while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

I've said it before, but coverage of, say, the Rangers is a lot more conventional and even handed (although JJT has written some ignorant things about them, too). When the team is winning, most of the articles are positive. When they're losing, most of the articles are negative. And there's some in-depth coverage of young developing players, old vets that are losing, the managerial style, all the usual suspects. It's all pretty sensible.

But with the Cowboys, they can't wait to report the most negative/sensational/soap opera/superficial of everything. It stinks if you like following the team.

 

[Hoofbite]

What did you find "troubling" about what he said?

He said if you don't talk to the media that you can't question what he writes.

To me, that is a preemptive strike saying HE IS going to write something about that you will not like.

 

[iceberg]

Or, they could try, I don't know, real reporting? I know, it might just be crazy enough to work.

If they want to write for the sports tabloids, feel free, but let's not pretend that is "reporting".

double high-5 my man. double high-5.

 

[peplaw06]

No. Just a reporter who understands how these things work.

When I wrote columns, I loved nothing better than for people to criticize me and get upset with something I wrote.

You get more responses when people hate what you write compared to when people love what you write.

Not saying you do it on purpose, but it gives you more of a sense of empowerment to share how you really feel if you're not scared of negative reaction.

JJT has basically said that with the comments pointed out in this thread. It's all very school-girlish.

1) He writes negative stories anyway, as you're saying to get a response.

2) Then if someone doesn't bend over backwards to accommodate him and his interview requests or schedule, then he still writes the negative, but now the person cannot question him?

That's tabloid journalism.

 

[tyke1doe]

Or, they could try, I don't know, real reporting? I know, it might just be crazy enough to work.

If they want to write for the sports tabloids, feel free, but let's not pretend that is "reporting".

He's a columnist. He's paid to give his opinion. He's not really a reporter in the sense of a traditional reporter who does tradtional stories.

 

[tyke1doe]

He said if you don't talk to the media that you can't question what he writes.

To me, that is a preemptive strike saying HE IS going to write something about that you will not like.

Not necessarily. He's saying he's going to write something. He'd rather get your opinion rather than not getting your opinion.

I think people think that by not commenting, there will be no story. I usually tell people, if the issue is big enough, you not saying anything doesn't stop the story. It simply means your perspective won't be given.

I think this is what JJT means.