Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Pack and BJ close to1 year deal
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaybadger82" data-source="post: 546129" data-attributes="member: 6211"><p>Does the presence of one good reporter make all or even the majority of- bleacher report contributors "credible" or reliable sources of inside information?</p><p></p><p>-IMO, this doesn't make their brand particularly credible as a whole. Bleacher report still has plenty of hacks churning out suspect content for with relatively little editorial oversight. Its content remains largely characterized by opinion-driven pieces and meaningless top ten lists. It's the internet content equivalent of ESPN's First Take. Crappy filler to sell banner ads. As far as breaking news stories or providing insider information, take a look at this quote from <span style="color: #00ff80"><a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-03/news/bleacher-report-sports-journalism-internet-espn-news-technology/" target="_blank">an interesting SFWeekly article</a></span> that ran a little over a year ago:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't mean to club this to death but, as an internet consumer, I don't really dig what they're offering at b/r. <em>Seriously, give that SFWeekly article a quick read and explain to me what's attractive- or even redeeming- about the majority of bleacher report's content.</em></p><p></p><p>I'm not disparaging Nagler and, to the extent that you're saying, "just because it's bleacher report doesn't necessarily mean it's total crap," I might agree. But I'm unwilling to filter through all the garbage in order to find the quality bits. Especially when, for the most part, that garbage was reverse engineered to get my click, not to communicate breaking or objective sports information. That's not journalism.</p><p></p><p>This may just be a disagreement over taste. By and large, bleacher report's content just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Others can have the final word but citing one good writer doesn't lend credibility to the entire bleacher report operation.</p><p></p><p>Seriously, read <a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-03/news/bleacher-report-sports-journalism-internet-espn-news-technology/" target="_blank">that SFWeekly article</a>...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaybadger82, post: 546129, member: 6211"] Does the presence of one good reporter make all or even the majority of- bleacher report contributors "credible" or reliable sources of inside information? -IMO, this doesn't make their brand particularly credible as a whole. Bleacher report still has plenty of hacks churning out suspect content for with relatively little editorial oversight. Its content remains largely characterized by opinion-driven pieces and meaningless top ten lists. It's the internet content equivalent of ESPN's First Take. Crappy filler to sell banner ads. As far as breaking news stories or providing insider information, take a look at this quote from [COLOR=#00ff80][URL='http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-03/news/bleacher-report-sports-journalism-internet-espn-news-technology/']an interesting SFWeekly article[/URL][/COLOR] that ran a little over a year ago: I don't mean to club this to death but, as an internet consumer, I don't really dig what they're offering at b/r. [I]Seriously, give that SFWeekly article a quick read and explain to me what's attractive- or even redeeming- about the majority of bleacher report's content.[/I] I'm not disparaging Nagler and, to the extent that you're saying, "just because it's bleacher report doesn't necessarily mean it's total crap," I might agree. But I'm unwilling to filter through all the garbage in order to find the quality bits. Especially when, for the most part, that garbage was reverse engineered to get my click, not to communicate breaking or objective sports information. That's not journalism. This may just be a disagreement over taste. By and large, bleacher report's content just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Others can have the final word but citing one good writer doesn't lend credibility to the entire bleacher report operation. Seriously, read [URL='http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-03/news/bleacher-report-sports-journalism-internet-espn-news-technology/']that SFWeekly article[/URL]... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
gopkrs
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: tynimiller
30 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
Latest: Poppa San
Today at 11:57 AM
Movies and Entertainment
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 11:08 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Badgers Football 2025-2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:07 AM
Wisconsin Badgers Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 8:43 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Pack and BJ close to1 year deal
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
