Mucraking? Me?

Not likely. that is the simplest answer I can give.

In the thread yesterday that I deleted, there were some comments comparing my story about discipline to John Canzano and the Oregon fans perception that he uses mucraking, yellow-journalistic style to create stories.

I am not one to debate that he and I have had our differences of opinion on occasion. In Flock Talk a couple of weeks ago, I derided his tactic in the release of the players letter criticizing Oregon fans. I never thought it a good story given he had more information that he chose to with hold in order to create a more salacious headline.

Now, to be fair, we do not know if it was Canzano himself, or an editor that chose to with hold that information. Often times, editors will change online stories to get those hits without the knowledge or consent of the writer. Technically speaking, they are his bosses and do not need his permission.

My article is a sensitive subject with Canzano. He wasn't very talkative when I broached the topic outside Stanford Stadium last Thursday. Oh well. I told the story I had from the other side of the coin.

Yes, when it comes to the discussion on the DSA Stadium Club message board, I took my ball and went home. Was that the most mature thing to do? Not likely. But, you know what, it was a thread I started; so therefor my ball. While others may not like it, I have the right to take my ball and not play anymore.

The reality is that the burden of trying to do too much simply wore me down and I made my decision. Some people will like it, some won't. It should be noted that any other threads discussing this choice were not deleted. Not my ball.

But comparing me to Canzano for a BLOG entry about discipline is asinine. Simply put, any one who makes that comparison does not want the truth.

First, headlines in the Oregonian and other mainstream periodicals are designed to get play; not just locally but regionally and nationally. Newspapers make money doing this.

What does my blog "make" when I write something? NOTHING. Barely anyone reads the stories. In total, after 48 hours, that story has 431 total hits... and that includes mine. I did not do much to publicize it other than link to it on the DSA message boards. Sure, others have linked to it... but still, 431 hits in 48 hours is hardly a blip in the real world.

The reality is that most people think that all sources should either be named or they are worthless. Well, gee, if you want inside information, you occasionally (close to always) have to go with an unnamed source. If I had named the people that told me about practices, two things would happen.

1) They would lose their inside access
2) I would lose my information

Neither of those are a method to maintain a source.

One commenter said that this differed from other pieces I had written because the research was more thorough in other pieces. Really? I used an unnamed source (family member) in the original Lache Seastrunk series. In this article, I used statistics to compare this year to last year. And I used an unnamed source.

The reality is that this is something some people don't want to hear. As a Duck fan, anything that paints the team in a negative light is not supposed to come out of this writer's words? Sorry; doesn't work that way.

This is a BLOG; I say what I feel; I say what I know. There is a reason I did not make the story an official story. Don't like it? Not my problem. The truth is what it is. I have been talking for WEEKS about the issues I had been seeing in film review.

Yes. I record the games. Yes, I rewatch the games using slow motion and freeze frame to see these issues.

Just because you do not want to hear the problems does not negate their existence.

Muckraking? Me? Not even close.