Jamie vs the DMR
- Thread starter ForbinsAscynt
- Start date
The story wasn't written until after JP tweeted about it.
On what planet do a wide swath of readers care about a baseball program that's been defunct for 20 years that nobody cared about at the time? Literally nobody cared. I worked for the student TV station at the time for the sports show and nobody cared. Newspapers constantly talk about not having enough resources and they are writing about this baseball program that had almost zero success 20 years after it shuttered. As others have said, will they write the 20 years later for the Hawkeye Swimming and Diving program? If so total waste of time.
Erik always has a burr up his ass about Pollard. It’s just what he does.
I don't think that is what fired him up. How hard would it have been to give the more recent stories - softball, track, tennis - at least as much headline? Or run the anniversary story at another time. Hell, even combine the news "Cyclone athletics celebrate success and teams of past." (now you know why I left journalism program)
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I just want baseball back. Also I am still surprised the DMR is surviving after the whole Carson King situation
Oh, so in other words Jamie didn't have his facts wrong when he tweeted about it.
Thanks.
That article was posted after JP made the tweet. Whether you agree with JP or not, his facts correct.
Wanna know what I think of the DMR? This idiot has been employed there for 50 years (49 actually if you are counting).
If Jamie put out a video of him wiping his bottom with the editor's column after a long night of Mr. Burrito, I would still stand behind the man.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Or there's a schedule to things. He's pretty creative with his facts when he makes time to whine.
How about the fact they 'upstaged' more important stories by highlighting an obsolete program. This was, clearly, a back-handed attempt by DMR to overshadow the recent successes.
I hate to say it but as I look at it Erik's probably right on this. Randy's article was posted at 12:30 on the 17th. JP's Tweet was at 8:30 on the 17th. It's probably not likely that a story that wasn't going to be written on was prepared, edited and published within 3 hours. Possible, but I'd imagine an article was already in the works.
This Friday marks the 9-month anniversary of the University of Iowa dropping:
- Men's gymnastics
- Men's swimming & diving
- Men's tennis
- Women's swimming & diving
It is a 300 word, bare bones generic article. Wouldn't take much.
I mean, I don't think it was purposefully to upstage our "recent successes." I think an argument can be made they should be focusing on some great stories about our softball and track teams instead of drudging up a story about something that happened 20 years ago. But acting like it was done purposefully to spite Iowa State seems silly.
I think he must have been mad that this story wasn’t in print but who cares? They put stories of both Softball and Track on their online publication. It isn't like print media is that big anyway. And there is only so much space in the sports page especially since part of it is controlled by Gannett. Birch had a feature story that he had been working on. Editors decided to put that in the print edition for Monday and put the other stuff online. Either way they are covering the teams and I doubt there is some huge market for college softball and track that they are seeking out the Monday print edition of the Register. I am also guessing most of the people here that are complaining weren't going to seek the stories out either. Instead of whining he could have promoted DMR's online stories and subscription and then it is a win win scenario. It is the constantly aggrieved Jamie that I can't stand.
This is a slightly off-topic mini-rant but media has SIGNIFICANTLY changed over the past 2 decades in all forms - TV/video, print, online, message boards, streaming, etc, etc, etc. And yet somehow the newspaper industry thinks its untouchable and refuses to change with the times and adapt to new conditions. Instead, they throw up a paywall and call that "innovative". With instant news/analysis at the tip of our fingers, newspapers whine and cry that people aren't subscribing when they are pumping out the exact same boring information a day later than everyone else. Like seriously, we don't need Travis Hines or Tommy Birch to travel to games to report on what happened - we either all watched it on TV, discussed it on CF, followed it on Twitter, saw the highlights...all before Tommy Birch posts a game recap column hours later. And yet they want us to give them $9.99 per month for that content. I mean, outside of their 3 month promo rates, I can't figure out how much their online access or print versions even cost. In 2021. No thanks, brah.
Especially during a period of time where there is literally no local sports news to report. I can understand them just getting a brief article during football season or something. But they can't have much by way of content right now why not write a bigger story on a local team who did something for the first time in 30+ years?
