Any writer can present animated gifs in a slant to protect their ideas. I'm not sure why ESPN and the other crap networks don't, but I'm guessing they will someday. Detailed analysis doesn't mean correct analysis.
They are way behind the times. They are busy making Skip Bayless like remarks. Like I said previously, they lack originality. With the technology they have available, each ESPN Beat Writer should be that much better than the competition. I do not dispute the bold - but what you are telling me is TOJ writes incorrect articles - can you cite examples? Isn't Cimini the one KNOWN for putting out BS articles with no evidence to support his argument? Again, I ask who puts out the better articles? http://turnonthejets.com/2012/05/new-york-jets-how-not-to-develop-a-young-quarterback/ Looking at this article - it doesn't appear to be a homeristic article in regards to the Jets. People on here apparently want to throw out the homer term and have no idea what it truly means or when it should be used. I think they say it because it's cool in my opinion.
You're correct that they SHOULD be putting out the best content, but they spend more time getting fans pissed off and clicking their site than actually writing interesting content. It's what makes them the most money. And it probably will be for a while. Why spend time on bandwidth for animated gifs in every beat article on the Jets' regional site when they can just say that the Buttfumble and the Fake Spike are the two most memorable plays in the history of the team? Which will get the most hits? As far as TurnOnTheJets, I'm sure it would be more difficult for you to provide some NON-homer content, because I can just provide the website address and any old fella can go there and find the homer vibe on that site. I'd rather read an article that makes an effort to provide visual aides, and TOTJ may put more effort into their articles, but that doesn't mean they put out OBJECTIVE articles. Objectivity is what journalists should be striving for on principle, and more and more these days, in every arena, that's what they are running from.
Speaking for myself, I think I have a good idea what homer means. It means a poster who on a fairly regular basis, when the opportunity presents itself, will take a decidedly optimistic pov. Where it gets interesting is whether that is in favor of a particular player, the FO, the CS, the owner, or some combo thereof.
Wasn't it TOTJ that was telling us how awesome Clyde Gates was doing last training camp? I look forward to them drooling over Stephen Hill in training camp ... should be compelling stuff.
I don't care about the hits. I care about who puts out the more informative articles. The ones that have creativity - something refreshing that's what I want to read - something to stimulate my freaking brain while I am bored at work. Cimini to me it's the same boring template. Regarding the bold, this is why I don't click on their links (why I don't support them). Your normal casual fan that thinks everything of ESPN are the ones clicking the links. ESPN doesn't give a flying fuck about our franchise or the die-hard fans like you and me - that see past the bullshit. Case and point they put out these BS articles like Buttfumble being the worst thing to happen to the Jets. Is it wrong that I want to read something informative and base my OWN opinion on that article?
I guess that depends on whether your OWN opinion on that article is the opinion of a HOMER. I like reading detailed analysis of football. I love it, actually. But when a I read an article that gives a slanted view of what is happening, and it's an OBVIOUSLY slanted view, I feel like I am being robbed of the truth. Same with the Cimini shit, minus the detail.
It is irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about who puts out the better articles - just because a site is a "homer" does not mean it has the inability to put out better articles. In-case you didn't realize - Clyde Gates ALWAYS has a good TC. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/jets/post/_/id/24603/gates-runs-the-right-route ESPN is such a homer.
Not to sound like a smart-ass - you don't have a good idea on what a homer is. When someone disagrees with you, you always call them a homer - so I don't think you know what it means. I have pessimistic opinions of this team as well and I am on the record to explain those thoughts.
I like to learn about formations Rex uses - I can't catch everything on TV. TOJ sometimes talks about them and I learn a decent deal. I agree with what you are saying here, there are some articles I just don't agree with. Case and point. http://turnonthejets.com/2014/06/tojs-memo-new-york-jets-dont-cut-stephen-hill/ I don't agree with this article at all - but they provide details to support their argument. From there I can formulate my own opinions on a particular player. I never said they had to be right 100% - that's up to you as the reader but they provide the foundation. That's my point.
Here's the thing, it's hard to know what you have learned from an article. It can be detailed as hell, and people that don't know that much about football can be impressed, even though it may not be accurate. In 2009, I authored a thread on this forum that detailed the entire offensive effort of the Jets in one game, 70+ offensive plays, but I didn't really go into detail about the defensive shades or techniques, and I didn't have time to detail the flanker and split end, but a lot of people gave me a shitload of credit for it anyway. I basically provided a detailed analysis about how the plays unfolded and gave my opinion of why. Even if I had provided that extra info, my opinions on the why's and how's were probably monumentally flawed. But what I was doing was putting the hammer to Brian Schottenheimer, and I think I did a good job. That doesn't mean I was right about that game, and it definitely doesn't mean I was unbiased, because I was not. I was biased. But I am a fan, and flawed. The best case scenario for a beat writer is a detailed and unbiased analysis, and I think that's the best case scenario for any journalist. I'm getting worried that it will never happen anymore.
I can't disagree with anything in your post. The best thing I think we can do as fans is take the information given to us and assess it. Formulate your own opinions - bring it to discussion and see what others have to say.
It is relevant to a discussion if a homer prefers a more homeristic site, comparing it favorably to one that is less homeristic. The implication barring any indication to the contrary is that the preference is based on the homeristic content of the first mentioned site compared to the second.
First of all, it is a complete lie that I ALWAYS call people who disagree with me homers. I sometimes disagree with people who are MORE pessimistic than me, and I certainly don't call them homers. But even people who are too optimistic, imo, I don't always call homers. It is a nice shorthand, useful term, though.
What happened here... An argument that ended in the two sides finding a common ground to agree upon... What the HELL??!! Comon dude... you use it almost always... Even it's use in this thread was like bait that you just needed to get a sniff of.
The discussion at the end of the day is who writes the better articles - even if they post "homeristic" content (which I said they did - evident by the Hill article) - it's still better content then what's on ESPN / NYDN. So who writes the better articles? You saw the word homer and came running to this thread.
