Two Wrongs, No Rights, And Why Bloggers Still Struggle For Respect
This has become a pretty popular subject across the network, so I thought I might as well say my piece...
(Not directly related to baseball, so it's continued after the jump)

A few days ago, crappy Philadelphia Daily News columnist Bill Conlin wrote a crappy article about why Jimmy Rollins deserved to win the MVP. A Phillies blogger disagreed with the idea and sent Conlin an email, asking why Rollins was a better candidate than David Wright. The exchange that followed was inflammatory and less than eloquent, and the blogger decided to post it in full on his website. This has since attracted a lot of attention, and in no small part because of Conlin's Hitler reference, countless people have been taken aback and voiced their desire to see Conlin out of a job. Such behavior is completely inappropriate and offensive, they say, and Conlin should therefore be relieved of his duties.
They're sort of right. Had Conlin acted the way he did in a public forum, he'd almost have to be fired on the spot. But that's not what he did. He sent private (and horrible) emails to somebody who then decided to copy them word for word onto a public website without Conlin's consent. Emails that absolutely would have been written differently had Conlin known that they might get posted. Showing them to his readers is completely unethical on the blogger's part, a violation of the fundamental understanding that one's permission must be sought before his words are shared with those who weren't privy to the discussion. Anyone who fancies himself a bit of a writer ought to know better than to do what the blogger did. It's just irresponsible.
What's done is done, though, and now Conlin's going to come under relentless fire for saying what he said in a series of emails that never should've been brought to anyone's attention. A blogger with a cause can mobilize an awful lot of support, and there are few things people enjoy doing more than complaining about somebody else. Conlin and his superiors are going to be hearing about this for a long, long time.
All because of something the blogger had no right to post. Look, Bill Conlin is the quintessential crotchety old man, a loudmouthed, ignorant curmudgeon who hates everything that happened after the Soyuz program. He is not a good columnist, and he doesn't really deserve his job. At the same time, though, he doesn't deserve to lose his job over something like this, nor should he be severely punished. The day Conlin gets fired for being a dick in a private email is the day you get fired for telling a friend that your boss is stupid and fat. If people were penalized for making the occasional asshole remark, then no one would have a job. What matters is that you're courteous and professional when you need to be, and Conlin clearly didn't interpret this email exchange as one of those situations.
Don't give me the line about how Conlin should've known better than to say those things to a blogger. The blogger should've known better than to repeat them. If you don't like a guy, rip into him for his columns. Don't rip into him for something he said in private correspondence. That's amateurish behavior, and stuff like this is a big reason why bloggers with actual journalistic integrity still struggle to get the kind of respect they deserve. So thanks for setting us back, Bill B. of Crashburn Alley. I hope it was worth it.
0 recs |
156
comments
Comments
I almost got fired
I know that's unrelated, but I agree with you, so there isn't much else for me to say.
by Librocrat on Nov 24, 2007 1:50 AM PST 0 recs
At least I can rest easy
Oh wait.
by Graham on Nov 24, 2007 1:55 AM PST 0 recs
JUST BECAUSE HE PLAYS BASEBALL
by Graham on
Nov 24, 2007 2:03 AM PST
up
0 recs
I understand the blogger was in the wrong
However, anyone with half a brain would know not to send that e-mail to someone who can publish something to a reasonably sized audience. He shouldn't get fired over this (Maybe over the Jimmy Rollins article though, because that was terrible), or not even necessarily punished, but I do think that it will and SHOULD stick with him and his legacy. When you think there might be even a 1% chance that your words might get reposted somewhere, and those words could get you fired then you should think first and not send that e-mail.
I agree what the blogger did was retarded and hurts our reputation and credibility. He shouldn't have done it because it was juvenille to "tell" on Conlin. But Conlin doesn't get off free either. His job shouldn't be lost for this, but his credibility is damaged and for good reason. That's what he deserves, and it already happened.
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Nov 24, 2007 2:13 AM PST 0 recs
Hear hear
Did Conlin look at crashburnalley.com before his exchange with the blogger? If so, then he should have been aware that the website's author is pretty immature. Having that in mind, Conlin should have chosen his words much more carefully. Especially considering that he picked lousy words to use in the first place.
Just because the blogger had no right to do what he did doesn't mean that Conlin should not have expected it. He's in the public eye, and he should have seen this coming.
by Katal LM on
Nov 24, 2007 8:25 AM PST
up
0 recs
To summarize
Conlin was even moreso.
by Katal LM on
Nov 24, 2007 8:28 AM PST
up
0 recs
Nice post Jeff...
For a more reasoned defense of Rollins winning the MVP check out this post by Tangotiger.
It's not entirely convincing but at least he backs it up with numbers and what not.
by Patrick517 on Nov 24, 2007 2:27 AM PST 0 recs
Not sure really...
by Patrick517 on
Nov 24, 2007 6:21 AM PST
up
0 recs
Jeff, a question
Let's say this wasn't an email. Rather just actual mail typed out onto a real piece of paper.
If it was actual mail, would the recipient be justified in complaining about Conlin's response? Or not?
by rfloh on Nov 24, 2007 2:31 AM PST 0 recs
I absolutely do not think it's reasonable.
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 2:58 AM PST
up
0 recs
But wouldn't the result be the same?
by rfloh on
Nov 24, 2007 7:35 AM PST
up
0 recs
In one situation
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 3:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
It's classless by all parties involved, agreed
Not that either party acted in the right, as Jeff says in the title, but I'm thinking Conlin is "more" in the wrong.
by Matthew on Nov 24, 2007 2:40 AM PST 0 recs
Legally, I'm pretty sure he's in the clear.
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 2:58 AM PST
up
0 recs
I wonder....
by TheEmrys on
Nov 24, 2007 6:00 AM PST
up
0 recs
Batteries in snowballs
by rfloh on
Nov 24, 2007 6:49 AM PST
up
0 recs
Philly Fans
I've never thrown a battery at someone, either.
I did, however, stand up and applaud Barry Bonds in 2006 when he hit his 713th HR off of Jon Lieber, both before, during, and after his at-bat, when everyone else was booing.
I'm not your typical Philly fan, and I often detest the behavior of those fans who do represent Philadelphia.
by CrashburnAlley on
Nov 24, 2007 6:52 AM PST
up
0 recs
Legal and Moral Aspects
As for the E-mails, you sounded like you were getting into morals. The legal aspect of it was brought up and is correct: I have the legal right to post any E-mail I receive. Once they click "Send," I essentially get all intellectual rights to the contents of that E-mail. As to whether or not that is right, I guess that's up to each individual. You are not wrong for believing that my actions hinge on immoral, and I am not wrong for believing the opposite. So it goes with moral relativism.
by CrashburnAlley on Nov 24, 2007 6:45 AM PST 0 recs
Morals aside for a second
The massive furor this seems to have stirred up might get proffesionals to tread a bit more carefully in their communications with the blogs, or they might go for the efficient solution and hit 'delete email' rather than get drawn into anything (NB: I'm aware you were being civilised and calm throughout that chain of emails, and that Conlin was the one acting like a lunatic).
Do you not perceive this as having a negative effect on mainstream/blog relations? If so, was getting Conlin into what will presumably be lots of trouble worth the future hostility bloggers may receive from sports journalists as a result? I understand you have every right to post whatever ends up in your inbox, but it just seems like a poor strategic move to me.
by Graham on
Nov 24, 2007 7:17 AM PST
up
0 recs
I didn't mean to imply that you were inflammatory
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 12:27 PM PST
up
0 recs
So you have no problem
by Aaron on
Nov 24, 2007 3:03 PM PST
up
0 recs
Devil's Advocate
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 3:08 PM PST
up
0 recs
That's not true.
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 3:19 PM PST
up
0 recs
Conlin has an AOL email address
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 3:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
Ha
All I read was that it was the email address posted next to his name on the Philadelphia's news website. Beyond that, I didn't look into it.
Separate but related, though: If I got an email from Bush or Cheney, that used... say, an anti-semetic slur, I would post it in a second and not regret it at all. Whether it came from the_decider@yahoo.com, or POTUS@whitehouse.org
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 3:25 PM PST
up
0 recs
That doesn't make it the right thing to do.
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 3:27 PM PST
up
0 recs
It wasn't supposed to be
Conlin's statements don't really bother me that much, other than he sounds like a complete idiot.
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 3:28 PM PST
up
0 recs
Let's say that's true for a moment
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 3:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
The uncalled for, repeated slander
This was a man going way out of bounds to slander a reader who went out of his way to write him with thoughtful criticism of a piece he wrote. If the blogger in question says nothing, then in the public conscience, this never happened. Is that a good thing?
by Gomez on
Nov 24, 2007 5:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
You're tacitly validating Conlin's behavior
by Gomez on
Nov 24, 2007 6:20 PM PST
up
0 recs
They weren't that bad.
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 6:22 PM PST
up
0 recs
Go to his boss
by Graham on
Nov 24, 2007 5:56 PM PST
up
0 recs
Then
... if he is punished at all. What if the paper decides to cover it up and blow the blogger in question off? Then it basically never happened.
by Gomez on
Nov 24, 2007 6:20 PM PST
up
0 recs
It's easy to cover up why someone was canned.
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 6:25 PM PST
up
0 recs
Then Conlin gets another job
I see the disconnect between our POVs. I admit I'm lacking the words that would close it at this point. I see the merit in your argument, though. I'm not going to deny it's a dicey moral ground. E-mail and blogs are still relatively new, and the etiquette w/r/t their usage is still being hashed out.
by Gomez on
Nov 24, 2007 6:35 PM PST
up
0 recs
Well, people know that Conlin is belligerent.
Bill Conlin's job is to write articles. Everyone would obviously love for him to be more understanding of other viewpoints, but he's not, and to the best of my knowledge he never has been. How does his acting like an asshole to a reader affect his job performance? And if you're reading one of his articles, why should it make any difference to you whether or not he's an abrasive son of a bitch?
So as far as "people have no idea the guy is a belligerent, childish asshat to dissenters" is concerned, I don't see why that matters.
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 6:52 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm not sure
There comes a point where some moral codes override others, and I think that's where the disconnect comes in: is there a point when one's actions preclude the right to privacy in a given medium?
by Gomez on
Nov 24, 2007 6:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
Yeah
I guess I'm just not real fond of things I perceive as intrusions of privacy.
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 7:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
Funny
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 7:50 PM PST
up
0 recs
re: What?
by Aaron on
Nov 24, 2007 8:01 PM PST
up
0 recs
Bingo
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 8:02 PM PST
up
0 recs
Not to prove a point, though
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 8:03 PM PST
up
0 recs
Not to jump on the subthread
by Matthew on
Nov 24, 2007 8:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
You may be right.
Although they claim it's not illegal... hmm...
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 8:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
Fine.
by Aaron on
Nov 24, 2007 4:05 PM PST
up
0 recs
That I can agree with.
by Librocrat on
Nov 24, 2007 4:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
It doesnt matter what server the e-mail comes from
by Aaron on
Nov 24, 2007 3:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
Worth it?
Perhaps you're more far-sighted than I am, and this could be the trend among journalists in the future.
However, do all journalists say that the recipient(s) of their message deserve(s) to be silenced or killed, as Conlin implied with this Hitler comments? I think most journalists are able to communicate rationally and maturely to their E-mails, and if not, shame on them.
by CrashburnAlley on Nov 24, 2007 7:35 AM PST 0 recs
Don't get me wrong
If I were a journalist, my way of stopping this sort of thing would be to not respond to emails like yours at all rather than risk saying something that might be construed as offensive. I could, of course, be totally off base and nothing might come of this at all.
by Graham on
Nov 24, 2007 8:01 AM PST
up
0 recs
Scared?
http://crashburnalley.com/?p=49
What I said about that:
"If journalists cannot communicate with E-mailers without insinuating that they are worthy of having no freedom of speech and/or worthy of being killed, then that falls on the journalists.
I guess the journalists could be hesitant to respond to E-mailers for anything that might get taken out of context and blown out of proportion, but then again, they can just comb over their E-mails and make sure they were professional, factual, and rational.
It's the journalists' loss -- not the readers' -- if they don't respond to E-mails. When they respond, they are representing the publication they work for, and thus, are advertising in a sense. A good rapport with a reader increases the chance that they will purchase the publication in the future, and a bad rapport decreases that chance. With most print publications hurting, behavior like Conlin's only sets himself and his employer(s) back."
by CrashburnAlley on
Nov 24, 2007 8:03 AM PST
up
0 recs
They could just comb it over
I guess what this little debate comes down to is whether you consider relations with the mainstream press to be particularly important. Honestly, I think that proffesional journalists can offer us a lot more than we can them (assuming they aren't nutcases). I know the M's blogs have very good relationships with some of the local beat writers, Athletics Nation as well with theirs, and that having that network in place is a very useful tool.
Obviously, the whole Conlin thing won't damage any relationship already in place, but it might make establishing future ones more difficult. Then again, it might not. But we all have our own opinions :).
by Graham on
Nov 24, 2007 8:22 AM PST
up
0 recs
relations won't be effected
I share your concerns, but in this case I don't think it will hurt or hinder relations.
MSM who are interested in having relationships with bloggers or their readers in general aren't the ones who would send responses like Conlin's.
Essentially the Conlin types are lost causes anyways. So sure, those in Conlin's camp might hit delete instead of responding, but is that a great loss at that point?
Do you really think that the types of writers who would write the things that Conlin did could be "won over"?
by billfer on
Nov 24, 2007 9:42 AM PST
up
0 recs
Yeah, I do... sort of
I believe that at least some of them might be won over by well thought out debate - which incidentally is what the Crashburn Alley guy was attempting to engage Mr. Conlin in. Publishing the emails will just lead to more friction on both sides, however, and that mutual aggression is precisely why Conlin behaved the way he did in the first place*.
Why fan the flames? Even Conlin himself changed his position on Bert Blyleven's HoF-worthiness, apparently as the result of an email exchange from a reader, so it's hard for me to paint his entire camp as irredeemable.
*That and the fact that he's got all the mental prowess of a toothbrush.
by Graham on
Nov 24, 2007 9:59 AM PST
up
0 recs
Conlin
by CrashburnAlley on
Nov 24, 2007 10:37 AM PST
up
0 recs
Maybe you're right
I just view it as there are those receptive to blogs, some who don't really know what to think, and those who are against it.
I don't really know what those on the fence would make of it
by billfer on
Nov 24, 2007 1:05 PM PST
up
0 recs
The very first email
For a journalist, sports fans -- and even more so sports communities -- are your customer. You can't talk to the customer like that and expect them to not tell their friends.
by oneiric232 on Nov 24, 2007 8:09 AM PST 0 recs
I can't agree with that
by Graham on
Nov 24, 2007 8:25 AM PST
up
0 recs
if a blogger asked a public service worker
Is being the idiot who should have known better really an adequate explanation for horrible judgment?
the log
by OlyOle on Nov 24, 2007 9:28 AM PST 0 recs
The only problem I have
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 24, 2007 11:00 AM PST 0 recs
after reading that
But really, what he said wasn't that horrific, he clearly says the only good thing about Hitler's time on earth, he wasn't being pro-Hitler. For someone to be offended by anything other then his rudeness is just an over reaction on their part. Social censorship through political correctness once again going too far
by Trenchtown2 on Nov 24, 2007 12:07 PM PST 0 recs
I'll be honest
by Jeff on
Nov 24, 2007 12:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
I forget what they called it
by Mere Tantalisers on Nov 24, 2007 12:18 PM PST 0 recs
he was an attorney
by Trenchtown2 on
Nov 24, 2007 1:00 PM PST
up
0 recs
Allow me to re-state something here:
by Jeff on Nov 24, 2007 12:44 PM PST 0 recs


