'SkersRule Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Well I don't know what "most" Nebraska fans want because I'm only one and I only know about five others. However, those I know want nothing to do with rainbows or kittens (meaning blind sycophantism) so I'm not real sure where you're getting the "most" notion from. Read this board.... Where do you think the dislike for the OWH writers comes from? Is what Dirk, or McKewon writing really that absurd? No, they just tend to say things that people do not want to hear. That's all I am saying, and its certainly not just limited to Nebraska fans. I guess my point is, the OWH writers make a lot of sense to me (aside from Barf).... I personally have no problems with what Dirk has said including last season's "feud" with Bo. McKewon, even when he's been critical, has shown a nice touch of fairness and balance. Barfneckt...his name perfectly encompasses him and his "writing" style. Ole Barfy is the one Herald writer that I would say literally goes out of his way to be overly critical of the Huskers. Quote Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Well I don't know what "most" Nebraska fans want because I'm only one and I only know about five others. However, those I know want nothing to do with rainbows or kittens (meaning blind sycophantism) so I'm not real sure where you're getting the "most" notion from. Read this board.... Where do you think the dislike for the OWH writers comes from? Is what Dirk, or McKewon writing really that absurd? No, they just tend to say things that people do not want to hear. That's all I am saying, and its certainly not just limited to Nebraska fans. I guess my point is, the OWH writers make a lot of sense to me (aside from Barf).... I personally have no problems with what Dirk has said including last season's "feud" with Bo. McKewon, even when he's been critical, has shown a nice touch of fairness and balance. Barfneckt...his name perfectly encompasses him and his "writing" style. Ole Barfy is the one Herald writer that I would say literally goes out of his way to be overly critical of the Huskers. We agree on that.... Quote Link to comment
California Husker Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I'm not in Nebraska so the only 'newspaper' coverage I see is on the internet. From what I read online, I am not impressed with the OWH. If I want to hear what Nebraska critics have to say, I'll log on to espn. When I log on to a Nebraska paper, I WANT to hear some home-town bias. I want to feel like I am hearing a journalistic take from a fellow husker fan. Hell, out here in California there are plenty of places I can go to hear about what's wrong with the huskers...I don't need that out of Nebraska. So you would rather be lied too? I think the Journal Star, and OWH both do a fine job, and I appreciate the honesty/critique that the OWH offers it's readers. McKewon, Chatlein, Nawyata (?), and Shatel all do a fine job in my opinion.... A lot of Nebraska fans don't want to hear the truth, and I think that the OWH offers alot of harsh truth in their stories. Having said that, I do get annoyed with some of their opinions, but a lot of times its because I don't want to accept the "truth" or the perception of the "truth".... Uhhh, I don't want to be lied to...but I don't want some d-bag sports writer trying to prove his objectivity by ripping Nebraska all the time. Like I said, living in Cali, I get plenty of criticism of Nebraska. I don't need it from the papers in Nebraska. But, I understand, it's like bad tv programing...if you don't like it, you just turn the channel. I just don't read the OWH. It pisses me off. I stick to the LJS. There is mild criticism, but I feel like they stand up for the program a little more. Quote Link to comment
brophog Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Athletics and media have for a very long time had a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' type of relationship. Find me a radio man that isn't an absolute homer. They don't really exist, because it's their job to be a homer because they're being paid to create excitement. Media credentials are often granted with the expectation that a certain atmoshphere is maintained, with some institutions having much higher standards of what that is than others. Some like that, some don't. There are obviously good arguments for both sides. In general, American sports media tend to be more 'commercial' in this respect. There's more of a business understanding here, and morality and business don't often connect. Foreign media, and it depends on where as to what degree, will tend to be more brutally honest in how they describe the action. I'm willing to accept a certain latitude here, if for no other reason than it's going to exist, but don't insult the viewers. If the QB is just doing one dumb thing after another, don't try to pretend like this guy is the greatest you've ever seen. Nobody is going to believe you, and no credibility doesn't do anyone any good. On the other hand, if you're going to criticize a player, coach, program, etcetera, then have a damn good, logical, well written article. You're a professional journalist, not a 12 year old on his twitter account. Act like it. 1 Quote Link to comment
bshirt Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 When it comes to OWH, I enjoy Shatel's work. I dont get the negative and antagonistic tone from him as I do the other 3 goons. He just seems to be more factual. I really like reading Sipple. I also like listening to him on radio to. And he's in Lincoln, so he's probably more in the know than anyone. Dirk's a dope, as well as Mckewon and Barf. As far as bias goes, I do think writers of OWH are in a bit of a hot place. Omaha does have 2 other div 1 athletic programs of their own as well as numerous Iowa fans in their immediate clientel. So I'm sure they feel they have to play it closer to the middle, or even to the negative side regarding Nebraska. Lastly, it is important to have some positive bias as a media outlet towards your hometown for national perception reasons. How does it look as a big picture if your own media out doesnt openly support you? I'm one of them "i dont care what others think" types, but I also understand that this is how the world is, as much as it sickens me. 100% agree. Well, accept that imo Barfey is the truly ultimate bottom of the barrel. That dude is the absolute last nimrod I would ever read. Even Dirk is a notch above him. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 it's ok, I get asked by the sports guys I work with, how to pronounce the names of Huskers drafted into the NFL... Quote Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 it's ok, I get asked by the sports guys I work with, how to pronounce the names of Huskers drafted into the NFL... We've had some good ones. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 it's ok, I get asked by the sports guys I work with, how to pronounce the names of Huskers drafted into the NFL... We've had some good ones. I wish I would have filmed some of their reactions to having to say their names.. priceless Quote Link to comment
whateveritis1224 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Overall Dirk has some really great Subjective pieces (see his Stafford piece last week and I think he did the Brown/Abdullah one last year), but his objective pieces he can be a little grading to the point he crosses the line (see Martinez before the OSU game). McKewon is a good writer, but I think Nytawa is the best over at the Herald. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Dirk Chatelain is a "gotcha!" journalist, and I'm not a fan of that sort of journalism. It's just not for me. He'll occasionally write pieces I enjoy, and he's not without grounds when he makes claim, but I find other journalists/broadcasters saying what Chatelain says in a way that's more appealing to me, so his style is a big issue with me too. Sam Mckewon is probably the best pure writer the OWH has, so I'm surprised to see people don't enjoy his writing. I don't read the OWH that often, but when I do, I find Mckewon's articles refreshing. As for the bias, I don't think most reasonable fans here want "rainbows and kittens." Most Nebraska fans want honesty, as do most sports fans. The style in which the honesty comes out is often what separates good and bad journalists; and, each person is hardwired (or conditioned through their experiences) to enjoy one thing over the other. I don't think it's wrong to prefer one paper to the next, and I believe they both bring valuable information to the table. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I often wonder what the outcome of a season would be if there were no fans, no media, or any other distractions - just two teams, two sets of coaches, and one field. Quote Link to comment
bshirt Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I'm not in Nebraska so the only 'newspaper' coverage I see is on the internet. From what I read online, I am not impressed with the OWH. If I want to hear what Nebraska critics have to say, I'll log on to espn. When I log on to a Nebraska paper, I WANT to hear some home-town bias. I want to feel like I am hearing a journalistic take from a fellow husker fan. Hell, out here in California there are plenty of places I can go to hear about what's wrong with the huskers...I don't need that out of Nebraska. So you would rather be lied too? I think the Journal Star, and OWH both do a fine job, and I appreciate the honesty/critique that the OWH offers it's readers. McKewon, Chatlein, Nawyata (?), and Shatel all do a fine job in my opinion.... A lot of Nebraska fans don't want to hear the truth, and I think that the OWH offers alot of harsh truth in their stories. Having said that, I do get annoyed with some of their opinions, but a lot of times its because I don't want to accept the "truth" or the perception of the "truth".... Well sure if you accept that the only "truth" is in what they say. That is why I put (" ") around truth.... I think most Nebraska fans have a hard time handling an opinion that is even the slightest critical of Nebraska football. I would imagine that Chatlein, and McKewon's opinions are well informed, and well thought out.... Most Nebraska fans want rainbow, and kitten reporting, or so it seems.... That's absolutely ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of posts here on Huskerboard and Rivals, Scout, etc are wayyyyyy tilted on the negative slant. I bet the ratio of negative to positive posts regarding Bo & TO are both easily 10 to 1. Tmart & Barney probably close to 100 to 1. Some of our recent hires like Clownahan 1,000 to 1. Pedeyshine maybe 10,000 to 1. Where in the world you dream up that these same ultra hard-core fans would only accept "kitten" reporting from their newspaper is beyond me. Also considering the usual casual fan really doesn't care what they say so the only ones that really count are totally the opposite of what you claim. Quote Link to comment
da skers Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Well I don't know what "most" Nebraska fans want because I'm only one and I only know about five others. However, those I know want nothing to do with rainbows or kittens (meaning blind sycophantism) so I'm not real sure where you're getting the "most" notion from. Read this board.... Where do you think the dislike for the OWH writers comes from? Is what Dirk, or McKewon writing really that absurd? No, they just tend to say things that people do not want to hear. That's all I am saying, and its certainly not just limited to Nebraska fans. I guess my point is, the OWH writers make a lot of sense to me (aside from Barf).... I have no problem with a paper being critical of NU or the team, coaches etc. I do it myself daily and Sam is the only guy at the OWH who has probably done this consistently right. He can ask hard questions without having them be loaded or looking for a predetermined response to fit a story or to take it out of context. Dirk writes as good as anyone when it comes to human interest but he spends 95% of his time trying to be the story or create something that isn't there for sensationalism. I've had friendsc called by him and also Eric Olson of the AP trying to create issues that didn't exist or asking very loaded questions that no matter how you answer it can be twisted to fit a story they wanted to make rather than ask a pointed question like Sam does and find out how it would be answered. I will say Sam gets more honest answered one on one because of the way he does his work. I have several issues with the OWH many of them personal having worked with the publishing team and key sr management. I will state that several of the people have very questionable ethics and the paper has become less about integrity and managed more by this is the outcome we want and do what it takes to get there. That's fine on the circulation and advertising side but anyone who's been a journalist, such as my self at one point in my life, will tell you it's complete unethical on the reporting side unless the information is being presented as opinion. This is very rarely done there now and the lines between columnist and reporter don't exist and it's confusing to the average reader because most people aren't very smart. (just look at decisions people around you make). This is where I take issue with the OWH. When you knowingly publish lies and 1/2 truths to get a desired outcome you lose my respect. You're no better than a politician. Sipple I enjoy simply because he gets acess and info that others don't get because he reports favorable stuff the majority of the time. I know he avoids the hard questions most of the time but he's also not afraid to be critical from time to time either even if he's usually too slow to get there. He's not a very good writer but he makes up with it by being in favor of the coaches and that gets him the scoop. Since I want to know stuff that the National Media can't get I would much rather sift through the pile of fluff to find the one or two nuggets of info that foreshadow what's happening behind closed doors at UNL. Unfortunately nearly all reporters at both places are pretty lazy journalists and don't understand sports but are rather fans of them. They should read the guys in the other B10 markets and try to improve. 1 Quote Link to comment
Goal-line Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 In state news sources, both in print on on the air waves, should report accurately and not be biased. Far too many times, the media embellishes NU sports just to sell their media product. I want the truth about NU sports, not false expectations or representations. It only leads fans to be unreasonably disappointed when the bias does not meet the reality. Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Well, they don't watch practice and most are not former players or coaches so breaking things down and reporting it is kind of really hard. Think about if you had a write a story about a building on fire but you did not see the fire and only could interview about 4 people. The reporting is probably going to be bad. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.