ESPN looks crushed.

[Givincer]

When the Cowboys do good on the field = good news coverage.
When they do bad on the field (and off) = bad news coverage.

Are those complicated equations something you learn in becoming a reporter?

That model sure does not explain what took place on ESPN after our game today. Good play on the field did not = good news coverage.

 

[EPL0c0]

Now, they're in full on spin mode.

Dilfer has also just crossed to the darkside

As soon as the Romo PC was over, their first angle was about Terrell Owens. It's pathetic...flat out pathetic.

ESPN = TMZ Sports!

QUESTION: Does ED WERDER have the guts to name his source(s) and try to stir up more controversy in Dallas?

 

[tyke1doe]

In all likelihood, y'all will eviscerate me for my following comments, but they need to be said.

These attacks against Werder are excessive, in my opinion.

Unquestionably, Werder should be criticized for the overzealous and exploitative manner with which he reports negative Cowboys news. Last week, I expressed my belief that Werder's story contained some level of truth; however, I simultaneously criticized him for omitting certain key facts that didn't fit the overarching narrative of Cowboy implosion he was creating. For instance, he never acknowledged that it was Garrett, not the receivers, who called the meeting.

However, I now think many of us are being overzealous in our criticism of Werder. In my opinion, there is some veracity to his story, and we should acknowledge it.

We can't. We are true Cowboys fans. Therefore, no criticism of our beloved team is acceptable. </sarcasm>

 

[casmith07]

We can't. We are true Cowboys fans. Therefore, no criticism of our beloved team is acceptable. </sarcasm>

Tell the same thing to Patriots, Giants, Commanders, Steelers, etc. fans.

You'll get the same response. Get a grip.

 

[tyke1doe]

Are those complicated equations something you learn in becoming a reporter?

LOL! You Internet guys are funny.

I guess it's easier to snip a few comments here and there and ignore the overall point.

Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.

That model sure does not explain what took place on ESPN after our game today. Good play on the field did not = good news coverage.

Right, because one single incident establishes an overall pattern.

Dang, I didn't know we have so many Sherlock Holmes among us.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I will be so glad that after Tuesday I will not have to watch ESPN for football news, the only time I will watch ESPN is for MNF. Tuesday I get my boxes to upgrade to Digital Cable and receive the NFL Network.

Prepare to look at the NFL in a different light.

 

[tyke1doe]

Tell the same thing to Patriots, Giants, Commanders, Steelers, etc. fans.

You'll get the same response. Get a grip.

My grip is gotten. Are you holding on tight too?

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I love how since they couldn't get what they wanted out of it they made the statement "ESPN stands by their story".

Hilarious.

 

[Givincer]

I guess it's easier to snip a few comments here and there and ignore the overall point.

Since it was used as support for your overall point, I thought it might be (just might be) okay to "snip the comment."

Right, because one single incident establishes an overall pattern.

Did I say it established a pattern? Or did I say your pathetic little model didn't explain what happened tonight? It didn't come even close.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

This is my third time trying to type this (got booted off twice) so I'll keep it brief.

ESPN and other media were all riding the Cowboys as the best team in the NFL after the 3-0 start. It was all positive news. Many were commending T.O. for being more mature.

Then they hit their skid. Then the bad news started.

It's not always bad news. But fans are going to be more sensitive to the bad news and magnify it more.

When the Cowboys do good on the field = good news coverage.
When they do bad on the field (and off) = bad news coverage.

Not exactly true. Dallas still has a pretty solid record 9-5 and the media coverage is miserable. Do you expect them to go undefeated? Even when the record was at 4-1, BSP...err, I mean ESPN came out with a story of how Owens was crying after a game because he wanted the ball more. Instead, he was crying because he got emotional learning that a family member passed away earlier in the week.

Of course, BSP...err, I mean ESPN never acknowledged that or had the decency to apologize for making such a horribly erroneous statement. Like I stated, Dallas may get about 10% of their news as positive and considering our record over the past few years, it's obvious that the team does not get good news coverage when they are doing good on the field because BSP...err, I mean ESPN is still trying to find some sort of angle to get another "friction in Big D" or "Owens causing trouble again" storyline.





YAKUZA

 

[tyke1doe]

Since it was used as support for your overall point, I thought it might be (just might be) okay to "snip the comment."

No, it wasn't. The Giants game coverage came on the heels of everything from this past week. If the Cowboys continue to win and T.O. keeps his mouth shut, they'll get good/favorable coverage.

Did I say it established a pattern? Or did I say your pathetic little model didn't explain what happened tonight? It didn't come even close.

"Pathetic little model."

LOL!

I see another posters has gotten hold of a few words he obtained in another Internet argument and feels the need to insult and vent behind his computer.

Vent on. :laugh1:

 

[DallasFanSince86]

Prepare to look at the NFL in a different light.

Yeah, I know. At the beginning of the 2007 season Insight gave the basic cable subscribers a two week "sneak-peek" of the NFL Network and I loved how they covered the NFL. But after the two weeks were up they switched to Soapnet. I was really disappointed when they made the switch. Now I am able to afford the upgrade and just in time for Saturday's game against the Ravens.

 

[tyke1doe]

Not exactly true. Dallas still has a pretty solid record 9-5 and the media coverage is miserable. Do you expect them to go undefeated? Even when the record was at 4-1, BSP...err, I mean ESPN came out with a story of how Owens was crying after a game because he wanted the ball more. Instead, he was crying because he got emotional learning that a family member passed away earlier in the week.

But Dallas was expected to be BETTER than 9-5. We're not talking about the Arizona Cardinals. We're talking about the Dallas Cowboys.

So why give the Cowboys major positive coverage like when they were 3-0 when they haven't even made the playoffs?

Second, Owens was crying after the Skins game by saying he needed the ball more. He opened his mouth. ESPN didn't open his mouth for him. Maybe he was emotional about a family member passing away, but he's the one who talked about not getting the ball more. And he runs to the press to say that stuff. Of course, he's going to get slammed for it.

Of course, BSP...err, I mean ESPN never acknowledged that or had the decency to apologize for making such a horribly erroneous statement. Like I stated, Dallas may get about 10% of their news as positive and considering our record over the past few years, it's obvious that the team does not get good news coverage when they are doing good on the field because BSP...err, I mean ESPN is still trying to find some sort of angle to get another "friction in Big D" or "Owens causing trouble again" storyline.

First, apologize for what? Apologize for an opinion?

Second, I would be careful tossing around percentages you can't verify. 10 percent of the news hasn't been positive? Is there any way I can check that stat?
When the Cowboys were winning and T.O. was getting the ball, Dallas was getting positive coverage from ESPN and its commentators who were picking them to win the Super Bowl. T.O. was being complimented for being more "mature."
But then the Packers started to bump T.O. at the line and put a safety over top. We won. The Skins did the same. We loss. And all of a sudden T.O. started to become unhappy and wanted the ball thrown his way more.

That's when the negative news started. Uh oh, T.O.'s not happy even though the Cowboys are winning.

T.O. invites this stuff on himself. Instead of keeping it private, he goes public.

You many fans celebrate his "openness" but whine when the same press he runs to to tell stuff that should remain private makes it an issue when he doesn't want it to be.

The man makes his own bed. Now he has to lay in it.

 

[Givincer]

"Pathetic little model."

LOL!

I see another posters has gotten hold of a few words he obtained in another Internet argument and feels the need to insult and vent behind his computer.

Vent on. :laugh1:

I study actual models, as a college student.

Feels the need to vent and insult? I disagreed with a point you had, and pointed out a reason as to why it was silly. Get a grip. Please.

 

[tyke1doe]

I study actual models, as a college student.

Feels the need to vent and insult? I disagreed with a point you had, and pointed out a reason as to why it was silly. Get a grip. Please.

Owww, a "college student".

Well, I'm more than a "college student." I graduated from college. How's that?

I have a firm grip, thank you. But I appreciate you thinking about my grip.

Now back to the subject.

If you are a "college" student, then I'm sure you understand arguments in context.

My context pointed to the successive wins the Cowboys had when they were undefeated and the positive coverage they received when they were undefeated. At that point in time, T.O. was also being called the "mature" T.O.
The Cowboys were basking in positive coverage.

When they loss and when T.O. started complaining about not getting the ball, coverage started going negative.

Second, I assume since you're a "college student" you understand what a "generalization" is. It is a statement that is made that covers most situations but not all. I'll let you guess, "Mr. College Student," which of my statements were generalizations.

Third, "positive coverage" itself is subjective. You do know what "subjective" is "Mr. College Student"?
Two people can look at the same newscast and come away with two different views.
Some here are upset because DeMarcus Ware's sacks weren't highlighted. The highlights instead focused on other plays. Could it be that those plays fit into a theme from this week and how the Cowboys overcame what happened this week?
Was the shot of Witten, T.O. and Romo on the sidelines "positive coverage"?
Or was the shot of them laughing and smiling on the sidelines "negative coverage"?

Methinks you'd better hit the books a bit more because whatever models you've studied in college haven't prepared you to address issues with multifaceted angles to them.

 

[Givincer]

Owww, a "college student".

Well, I'm more than a "college student." I graduated from college. How's that?

Yeah. I think the difference is, I study an actual subject. You studied "journalism," to become a reporter, if I'm not mistaken.

My context pointed to the successive wins the Cowboys had when they were undefeated and the positive coverage they received when they were undefeated. At that point in time, T.O. was also being called the "mature" T.O.
The Cowboys were basking in positive coverage.

When they loss and when T.O. started complaining about not getting the ball, coverage started going negative.

Second, I assume since you're a "college student" you understand what a "generalization" is. It is a statement that is made that coverages most situations but not all situations. I'll let you guess, "Mr. College Student," which of my statements were generalizations.

Third, "positive coverage" itself is subjective. You do know what "subjective" is "Mr. College Student."

Two people can look at the same newscast and come away with two different views.
Some here are upset because DeMarcus Ware's sacks weren't highlighted. The highlights instead focused on other plays. Could it be that those plays fit into a theme from this week and how the Cowboys overcame what happened this week?
Was the shot of Witten, T.O. and Romo on the sidelines "positive coverage"?
Or was the shot of them laughing and smiling on the sidelines "negative coverage"?

Do you even realize what that does to the first part of your post? Obviously you didn't. Think about it, I guess.

Methinks you'd better hit the books a bit more because whatever models you've studied in college haven't prepared you to address issues with multifaceted angles to them.

I know, economic models aren't multifaceted at all. I ought to study some "journalism" so I can address some real complex issues with multifaceted angles to them.

Obviously you think quite highly of yourself. And it's absolutely hilarious.

 

[dadymat]

Owww, a "college student".

Well, I'm more than a "college student." I graduated from college. How's that?

I have a firm grip, thank you. But I appreciate you thinking about my grip.

Now back to the subject.

If you are a "college" student, then I'm sure you understand arguments in context.

My context pointed to the successive wins the Cowboys had when they were undefeated and the positive coverage they received when they were undefeated. At that point in time, T.O. was also being called the "mature" T.O.
The Cowboys were basking in positive coverage.

When they loss and when T.O. started complaining about not getting the ball, coverage started going negative.

Second, I assume since you're a "college student" you understand what a "generalization" is. It is a statement that is made that covers most situations but not all. I'll let you guess, "Mr. College Student," which of my statements were generalizations.

Third, "positive coverage" itself is subjective. You do know what "subjective" is "Mr. College Student"?
Two people can look at the same newscast and come away with two different views.
Some here are upset because DeMarcus Ware's sacks weren't highlighted. The highlights instead focused on other plays. Could it be that those plays fit into a theme from this week and how the Cowboys overcame what happened this week?
Was the shot of Witten, T.O. and Romo on the sidelines "positive coverage"?
Or was the shot of them laughing and smiling on the sidelines "negative coverage"?

Methinks you'd better hit the books a bit more because whatever models you've studied in college haven't prepared you to address issues with multifaceted angles to them.

good point on the sideline shot...it was great


but the T.O. complaining after that first loss is inaccurate.....he was asked a question that any WR in the league would have answered the same way.......he wasnt complaining ....he was answering a question

 

[tyke1doe]

Yeah. I think the difference is, I study an actual subject. You studied "journalism," to become a reporter, if I'm not mistaken.

You're mistaken at every step.

Reporters don't have to major in journalism to be a journalist. They can major in any other discipline and simply write for their school newspaper. Some study criminal justice, some study politics, some study English, some study computer science, etc., and either take a minor in the subject or write for publications either in summer internships or at the college paper.

Do you even realize what that does to the first part of your post? Obviously you didn't. Think about it, I guess.

Of course, I realize.
I'm offering my opinion. And I'm leaving open the possibility that we may not see eye to eye on this subject. And that's what I and another poster were doing, having a conversation - I trying to support my opinion; he his - until you showed up with your "pathetic little model" comment.

I was simply trying to support my opinion with my observation.

You might think that the coverage when the Cowboys were 3-0 was not positive coverage, by whatever means you determine that.

Giving reasons for one's position doesn't mean another agrees with those reasons. But at least they have some frame of reference to understand where you're coming from when you draw your conclusions and that your frame of reference isn't far-fetched.

I know, economic models aren't multifaceted at all. I ought to study some "journalism" so I can address some real complex issues with multifaceted angles to them.

Yeah, because we're talking about economic models here?

But I'll give you credit for sneaking in a "I'm a college student" into the conversation.

I'm proud you are pursuing your college degree. More power to you, from one college graduate to an aspiring one.

Obviously you think quite highly of yourself. And it's absolutely hilarious.

Well, I'm glad I've brought levity to your life. Your "pathetic little model" comment and "I'm a college student" statement certainly offered a bit of hilarity. :laugh1:

 

[tyke1doe]

good point on the sideline shot...it was great


but the T.O. complaining after that first loss is inaccurate.....he was asked a question that any WR in the league would have answered the same way.......he wasnt complaining ....he was answering a question

You can complain by answering a question.

"Did you like the game plan?"

"No, I didn't because I didn't get the ball enough."

That is a complaint.

Besides, T.O. should know better.

 

[dadymat]

You can complain by answering a question.

"Did you like the game plan?"

"No, I didn't because I didn't get the ball enough."

That is a complaint.

Besides, T.O. should know better.

now if you watched that whole presser you would know he wasnt complaining like the media would have you believe.......and also you see how the media twist things around..............

believe me i know T.O. isnt a saint i am not a supporter....but the media missed on that one

as a college grad you should know better