Sat Oct 15, 2005, 09:16pm
|
 |
Get away from me, Steve.
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Mills
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Today, Officiating.com published Peter Osborne's take on the catch/no catch in game two of the Angels/Sox game...
...After all, (making Tee's article available for free) shows that Officiating.com can react immediately to controversy and current events. Try finding anything even close to that response in print media.
|
Let's see, Osborne's opinion piece about an October 12 event appeared on October 14. I read, with varying degrees of thoroughness, six Michigan newspapers on October 14. Each had at least one opinion piece on the same topic as did Osborne. Two were merely variations of a theme that appeared in columns on October 13. I'll wager the same result is apparent in nearly every state in America.
Officiating.com does react immediately to current events, but that doesn't make it anything special. That's o.k. There are literally thousands of media outlets--print, web, TV, radio--that do the same, and each thinks itself special, too.
I can hardly wait for the free articles; I always read them. They are like Time, National Review, Newsweek, and Mother Jones: They're sufficiently entertaining and informative that I read them at the public library whenever I'm there, but I never find them valuable enough to part with money for the right.
|
How many of those "writers" are umpires? Or is the opinion of a writer for the Detroit Free Press just as important or interesting as an NCAA D-I umpire?
|