arrowgargantuan
Cheesehead
nothing of substance here, but entertaining none the less.
linky-link
second story down...
WE'RE MAKING NEW FRIENDS
We haven't gotten into a good spat with a member of the "real" media for more than a year now.
But like a company boasting 453 days without a lost-time accident, some guy's sack just got caught in the shredder.
On Friday, we sent an e-mail to Chris Havel of the Green Bay Press-Gazette regarding Havel's failure to disclose at the bottom of his interview of Lord Favre the fact that Havel has written two books with the Packers quarterback. We thought it was a legitimate question. After all, Havel supposedly is a journalist, and journalists are supposed to be objective and unbiased. When there is a circumstance that could render the reporting biased, the journalist is supposed to disclose it to the reader.
We didn't learn this at journalism school (or "J school," as the trained media types call it), because we didn't go to journalism school. But even without the sheepskin that says we've been trained to write down the things that other people say, common sense tells us that any relationship that might compromise the reporter's objectivity should be disclosed, even if the reporter subjectively believes that he's capable of remaining fair and balanced.
Havel's initial response was surprisingly professional and courteous:
---------------------------------------------
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the email. As to your question, why would I put that in an article? I didn't get the interview with Favre because I've written two books with him. I got it just like you get your interviews or sources or whatever for your website. Through alliances, contacts and hard work.
Take care,
Chris Havel
---------------------------------------------
Well, we didn't really like that answer -- and not just because we were hoping to **** the guy off (but that was part of plan). Instead, we thought he had avoided the real question. Namely, whether his pre-existing relationship with Favre should have been acknowledged as part of a supposedly neutral and unbiased interview. So we answered his question as to why we think he should make the disclosure as follows:
---------------------------------------------
um, maybe because it shows that you're really not objective since you've made money off of the guy?
do you really not see the need to disclose that fact? i didn't understand your failure to ask him about chmura until i realized that you were tight with him.
---------------------------------------------
Havel's reply:
---------------------------------------------
Hi Mike,
I didn't make money off Brett Favre. I made money off Doubleday, the publisher, who signed the check. I did ask him about Mark Chmura's comments and he replied, "He's entitled to his opinion."
I have to laugh that you know nothing about me, have never met me and obviously are naive to the world of pro sports and writing books, or at least I get that impression based on your emails, but you still have the audacity to tell me that I lack objectivity. Who are you to say? Would you say it to my face? I doubt it, but I'd love to give you the chance some time.
Your website, in my opinion, is a joke. So was your appearance on the morning radio show in Green Bay. You throw out all sorts of garbage, and it's all tied to "unnamed sources," but you don't ever back it up. You point out the times you were right. Big deal. You fail to mention all the times you were wrong. Throw enough garbage out there and eventually you're going to be right about something, or at least I would hope so.
If you ever get to Green Bay, or if you ever do any real reporting that requires attaching a named source, look me up. Otherwise don't waste my time.
Later,
Havel
---------------------------------------------
Oh yeah. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. Hostility. Implied threats. Specious reasoning.
Needless to say, we weren't about to let it be:
---------------------------------------------
you have profited from your relationship with favre. period. and now when you interview him, you fail to equip your readers with the necessary information to assess whether your bias is affecting your work. from a pure journalistic standpoint, that's a major problem.
and if you truly asked him about chmura, why didn't you add that "Q" and "A" to your article? could it be that you couldn't bring yourself to risk lending credence to chmura's words?
finally, what's with this "would you say it to my face" crap? are you 11 years old?
i figure you'll be at brett's press conference on saturday morning. maybe you can tell us what he had for lunch two days ago -- based on the aroma filtering from his butt and into your nose.
---------------------------------------------
Havel's reply:
---------------------------------------------
By the way, when Favre retires, are you going to print a retraction on your *****-waste website? Or are you going to say, "You read it here first."
You are a jealous, envious and pathetic person.
Obviously, the Press-Gazette has no problems with my objectivity, so who are you to say anything?
Oh, speaking of 11 years old, why don't you learn how to spell. Or write, for that matter.
Don't bother to email me, because I won't waste the time to read them. But if you're ever in Green Bay, and actually go to an NFL town to do some real reporting, look me up. Then we'll see just how much of a wise-*** you really are, but I'm pretty sure you're just a coward, based upon your so-called "work."
---------------------------------------------
More implicit threats. We were scared at first, until we got a look at the guy.
So maybe we will make the trek to Cheeseland and "say it to his face." Of course, he might scratch us with his Lee press-on nails. And that collar looks kinda pointy. He might put our eye out.
But, hey, it's a small price to pay. Especially when you're 11 years old.
linky-link
second story down...
WE'RE MAKING NEW FRIENDS
We haven't gotten into a good spat with a member of the "real" media for more than a year now.
But like a company boasting 453 days without a lost-time accident, some guy's sack just got caught in the shredder.
On Friday, we sent an e-mail to Chris Havel of the Green Bay Press-Gazette regarding Havel's failure to disclose at the bottom of his interview of Lord Favre the fact that Havel has written two books with the Packers quarterback. We thought it was a legitimate question. After all, Havel supposedly is a journalist, and journalists are supposed to be objective and unbiased. When there is a circumstance that could render the reporting biased, the journalist is supposed to disclose it to the reader.
We didn't learn this at journalism school (or "J school," as the trained media types call it), because we didn't go to journalism school. But even without the sheepskin that says we've been trained to write down the things that other people say, common sense tells us that any relationship that might compromise the reporter's objectivity should be disclosed, even if the reporter subjectively believes that he's capable of remaining fair and balanced.
Havel's initial response was surprisingly professional and courteous:
---------------------------------------------
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the email. As to your question, why would I put that in an article? I didn't get the interview with Favre because I've written two books with him. I got it just like you get your interviews or sources or whatever for your website. Through alliances, contacts and hard work.
Take care,
Chris Havel
---------------------------------------------
Well, we didn't really like that answer -- and not just because we were hoping to **** the guy off (but that was part of plan). Instead, we thought he had avoided the real question. Namely, whether his pre-existing relationship with Favre should have been acknowledged as part of a supposedly neutral and unbiased interview. So we answered his question as to why we think he should make the disclosure as follows:
---------------------------------------------
um, maybe because it shows that you're really not objective since you've made money off of the guy?
do you really not see the need to disclose that fact? i didn't understand your failure to ask him about chmura until i realized that you were tight with him.
---------------------------------------------
Havel's reply:
---------------------------------------------
Hi Mike,
I didn't make money off Brett Favre. I made money off Doubleday, the publisher, who signed the check. I did ask him about Mark Chmura's comments and he replied, "He's entitled to his opinion."
I have to laugh that you know nothing about me, have never met me and obviously are naive to the world of pro sports and writing books, or at least I get that impression based on your emails, but you still have the audacity to tell me that I lack objectivity. Who are you to say? Would you say it to my face? I doubt it, but I'd love to give you the chance some time.
Your website, in my opinion, is a joke. So was your appearance on the morning radio show in Green Bay. You throw out all sorts of garbage, and it's all tied to "unnamed sources," but you don't ever back it up. You point out the times you were right. Big deal. You fail to mention all the times you were wrong. Throw enough garbage out there and eventually you're going to be right about something, or at least I would hope so.
If you ever get to Green Bay, or if you ever do any real reporting that requires attaching a named source, look me up. Otherwise don't waste my time.
Later,
Havel
---------------------------------------------
Oh yeah. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. Hostility. Implied threats. Specious reasoning.
Needless to say, we weren't about to let it be:
---------------------------------------------
you have profited from your relationship with favre. period. and now when you interview him, you fail to equip your readers with the necessary information to assess whether your bias is affecting your work. from a pure journalistic standpoint, that's a major problem.
and if you truly asked him about chmura, why didn't you add that "Q" and "A" to your article? could it be that you couldn't bring yourself to risk lending credence to chmura's words?
finally, what's with this "would you say it to my face" crap? are you 11 years old?
i figure you'll be at brett's press conference on saturday morning. maybe you can tell us what he had for lunch two days ago -- based on the aroma filtering from his butt and into your nose.
---------------------------------------------
Havel's reply:
---------------------------------------------
By the way, when Favre retires, are you going to print a retraction on your *****-waste website? Or are you going to say, "You read it here first."
You are a jealous, envious and pathetic person.
Obviously, the Press-Gazette has no problems with my objectivity, so who are you to say anything?
Oh, speaking of 11 years old, why don't you learn how to spell. Or write, for that matter.
Don't bother to email me, because I won't waste the time to read them. But if you're ever in Green Bay, and actually go to an NFL town to do some real reporting, look me up. Then we'll see just how much of a wise-*** you really are, but I'm pretty sure you're just a coward, based upon your so-called "work."
---------------------------------------------
More implicit threats. We were scared at first, until we got a look at the guy.
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
So maybe we will make the trek to Cheeseland and "say it to his face." Of course, he might scratch us with his Lee press-on nails. And that collar looks kinda pointy. He might put our eye out.
But, hey, it's a small price to pay. Especially when you're 11 years old.