Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Truth
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
D Rock
Truth
Jax
Yep, agree! Nick made great decisions and made accurate throws for 3 qtrs.
Zero
The real story is the decline of journalism, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about football or politics, art or science.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 4 2013, 08:49 PM) *
The real story is the decline of journalism, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about football or politics, art or science.


It's tragic. And only getting worse. There are no longer journalists. Just guys with opinions and a desire to get page views.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 4 2013, 09:20 PM) *
It's tragic. And only getting worse. There are no longer journalists. Just guys with opinions and a desire to get page views.

How is that any different from days gone by?
Phits
QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 4 2013, 08:49 PM) *
The real story is the decline of journalism, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about football or politics, art or science.

I don't think there's a decline. I believe that there are a great deal more outlets for journalists/writers to use as an outlet. The options are vast.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 4 2013, 09:28 PM) *
How is that any different from days gone by?


I can't think of any journalists who I admire. Back in the day, that wasn't the case.
samaroo
I agree with Phits. I don't think there is a lack of talent in reporting, I think the market is deluded.

I also think there's a lack of talent in finding credible sources. Most people just skim their Yahoo front page headlines and take it for gospel.

To OP, that pretty much sums up NFL reporting from any source, but especially ESPN. If your name isn't Manning, Brady or Romo, it's not covered. Even Sunday night's sportcenter barely mentioned it. 7 touchdowns, and it gets one throwaway mention in the NFL roundup. Ridiculous!
D Rock
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 5 2013, 03:30 AM) *
I don't think there's a decline. I believe that there are a great deal more outlets for journalists/writers to use as an outlet. The options are vast.

It's different from days gone by in this way....

It's now a ratings game. I worked for NBC for a decade. There was a time when the network covered its entire nut via the tonight show and days of our lives. Back in the day, the evening news was offered commercial free as a measure of public service by the major networks. Ted Turner came along w CNN and the 24 hr news cycle. Unlike the 3 majors, CNN had to generate ad revenue via its "news." For the first time, journalism became a ratings game. Unbiased reporting of information required to run a republic form of democracy was replaced by sensationalism of only the most jaw dropping stories of the day in ultimate pursuit of the almighty dollar. The evening news hung on until the OJ Simpson trial at which point, middle America left the 3 network teat for good.

That's how it's different. The end goal has changed. It used to be about the pursuit of excellence in journalism. Now it's about profit through ad revenue.
Zero
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 5 2013, 03:30 AM) *
It's different from days gone by in this way....

It's now a ratings game. I worked for NBC for a decade. There was a time when the network covered its entire nut via the tonight show and days of our lives. Back in the day, the evening news was offered commercial free as a measure of public service by the major networks. Ted Turner came along w CNN and the 24 hr news cycle. Unlike the 3 majors, CNN had to generate ad revenue via its "news." For the first time, journalism became a ratings game. Unbiased reporting of information required to run a republic form of democracy was replaced by sensationalism of only the most jaw dropping stories of the day in ultimate pursuit of the almighty dollar. The evening news hung on until the OJ Simpson trial at which point, middle America left the 3 network teat for good.

That's how it's different. The end goal has changed. It used to be about the pursuit of excellence in journalism. Now it's about profit through ad revenue.
Yep. Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave. There are some responsible reporters, but for the most part the news is about the ratings and not the integrity of the information.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 5 2013, 03:30 AM) *
It's different from days gone by in this way....

It's now a ratings game. I worked for NBC for a decade. There was a time when the network covered its entire nut via the tonight show and days of our lives. Back in the day, the evening news was offered commercial free as a measure of public service by the major networks. Ted Turner came along w CNN and the 24 hr news cycle. Unlike the 3 majors, CNN had to generate ad revenue via its "news." For the first time, journalism became a ratings game. Unbiased reporting of information required to run a republic form of democracy was replaced by sensationalism of only the most jaw dropping stories of the day in ultimate pursuit of the almighty dollar. The evening news hung on until the OJ Simpson trial at which point, middle America left the 3 network teat for good.

That's how it's different. The end goal has changed. It used to be about the pursuit of excellence in journalism. Now it's about profit through ad revenue.

Well stated.
Dreagon
Foles had a tremendous performance, and I don't want to take anything away from that at all, but I would try to keep this in perspective. Just a few weeks ago he had an awful one and people were ready to hang him, so in the words of Bill Parcells, "don't get out the anointing oil just yet." His performance was fantastic, but at the same time I have memories of guys like Gary Hogeboom, or Clint Longleys heroics against the Redskins in a long ago Thanksgiving day game.

Basically, Foles is going to be using the second half of this season to try and convince Kelly that he's the guy, and the Eagles don't need to draft a QB. It's going to be fascinating to watch and see how he does.
Jax
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Nov 5 2013, 11:17 AM) *
Foles had a tremendous performance, and I don't want to take anything away from that at all, but I would try to keep this in perspective. Just a few weeks ago he had an awful one and people were ready to hang him, so in the words of Bill Parcells, "don't get out the anointing oil just yet." His performance was fantastic, but at the same time I have memories of guys like Gary Hogeboom, or Clint Longleys heroics against the Redskins in a long ago Thanksgiving day game.

Basically, Foles is going to be using the second half of this season to try and convince Kelly that he's the guy, and the Eagles don't need to draft a QB. It's going to be fascinating to watch and see how he does.

Absolutely right. He should be the starter our the remainder of the season and allow us to see better what type of player we have.

Our version of Clint Longley and Gary Hogeboom was Brad Goebel and Bobby Hoying. Hoying had a couple nice games and sold a million Eagles jerseys. A few games later he was out of football. I must admit thought, I thought Hoying was going to be a good QB. Hoying had the tangibles. Foles could be Hoying or he could be better. I hope for the latter!
Phits
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 5 2013, 02:30 AM) *
It's different from days gone by in this way....

It's now a ratings game. I worked for NBC for a decade. There was a time when the network covered its entire nut via the tonight show and days of our lives. Back in the day, the evening news was offered commercial free as a measure of public service by the major networks. Ted Turner came along w CNN and the 24 hr news cycle. Unlike the 3 majors, CNN had to generate ad revenue via its "news." For the first time, journalism became a ratings game. Unbiased reporting of information required to run a republic form of democracy was replaced by sensationalism of only the most jaw dropping stories of the day in ultimate pursuit of the almighty dollar. The evening news hung on until the OJ Simpson trial at which point, middle America left the 3 network teat for good.

That's how it's different. The end goal has changed. It used to be about the pursuit of excellence in journalism. Now it's about profit through ad revenue.

I think you're being a little vague. The news has always been hand picked and spoon fed to the public. Since there weren't that many outlets the big "3" could control the flow of information and dictate how it was consumed. Unbiased reporting was not the norm, and "sensationalism" was always prevalent. The main difference is that they used to only have (up to) an hour to deliver all of the news. When you have 24 hours 7 days/week to fill, you can afford to be more liberal with your journalism.

As for ratings push for news programs, CNN is just using the 60 minutes model.
canadianeagle
QUOTE (Jax @ Nov 5 2013, 10:28 AM) *
Absolutely right. He should be the starter our the remainder of the season and allow us to see better what type of player we have.

Our version of Clint Longley and Gary Hogeboom was Brad Goebel and Bobby Hoying. Hoying had a couple nice games and sold a million Eagles jerseys. A few games later he was out of football. I must admit thought, I thought Hoying was going to be a good QB. Hoying had the tangibles. Foles could be Hoying or he could be better. I hope for the latter!


Don't get me wrong, I am a Foles fan. I just am being very cautious. Detmer, Hoying, and Kolb all had moments where I felt they could be good players. The reality is there are dozens of qb's who begin their careers with signs of potential and even brilliance. Rob Johnson, Vince Young, Byron Leftwich, Daunte Culpepper, Mark Brunell, and Chad pennigton among many.

It's because of this great uncertainty that I wonder if Foles will end up on this list.

As good as he played, there were several aspects to the game that contributed mightily to his success. The pass protection was as good as I've seen in a very long time. While Foles did need to make some very quick reads, for the most part he had all day to throw. DB's were falling all over the place leaving wide open receivers. Receivers were left wide open because of blown coverages. Yes Foles needed to make the correct reads, then make a good throw, but can't help but wonder if his success was largely to do with Chip Kelly and his game plan.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I just am being cautiously optimistic. Either way, Foles certainly deserves to start for the remainder of the season.
Jax
QUOTE (canadianeagle @ Nov 5 2013, 01:49 PM) *
Don't get me wrong, I am a Foles fan. I just am being very cautious. Detmer, Hoying, and Kolb all had moments where I felt they could be good players. The reality is there are dozens of qb's who begin their careers with signs of potential and even brilliance. Rob Johnson, Vince Young, Byron Leftwich, Daunte Culpepper, Mark Brunell, and Chad pennigton among many.

Vince Young belongs on the list with Detmer Hoying and Kolb. Rob Johnson may be somewhere in the middle. Leftwich, Culpepper and Pennington has success in the league enough so to be called solid NFL QB's. Mark Brunell? Not even close to being on the list. He was a Pro Bowler in some years and very consistent for a long career. If Foles can be Mark Brunell then please sign me up right now!!!!
Jax
QUOTE (canadianeagle @ Nov 5 2013, 01:49 PM) *
As good as he played, there were several aspects to the game that contributed mightily to his success. The pass protection was as good as I've seen in a very long time. While Foles did need to make some very quick reads, for the most part he had all day to throw. DB's were falling all over the place leaving wide open receivers. Receivers were left wide open because of blown coverages. Yes Foles needed to make the correct reads, then make a good throw, but can't help but wonder if his success was largely to do with Chip Kelly and his game plan.

These factors may have resulted in Foles having 7 TD's instead of 3-4 but these factors are not solely responsible for his success.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 5 2013, 10:55 AM) *
I think you're being a little vague. The news has always been hand picked and spoon fed to the public. Since there weren't that many outlets the big "3" could control the flow of information and dictate how it was consumed. Unbiased reporting was not the norm, and "sensationalism" was always prevalent. The main difference is that they used to only have (up to) an hour to deliver all of the news. When you have 24 hours 7 days/week to fill, you can afford to be more liberal with your journalism.

As for ratings push for news programs, CNN is just using the 60 minutes model.

Sorry but the number of outlets means nothing. Problem is, all of the news outlets (regardless of how many) are all owned by a few large corporations. This has squeezed the life out of truly unbiased news. You are right in that news was never totally unbiased, however, it is so OVERLY biased now that it's plain insulting.

Just watch CNN vs Fox News report on the same thing to understand what I'm saying. This doesn't end with these two either.

News has become more about what makes people watch/read/etc the news than it ever has been. Sensationalism sells. Last night a gunman went into the Garden State Plaza Mall (I used to live in the area) and shot up the place before killing himself. All over the news. Multiple shootings in Newark, NJ (not far from this mall) and nobody hears about it. Why? Well, it's much more sensational that someone would go into a mall--especially in one of the richest areas of the country--and shoot it up than people killing each other in a crappy city like Newark.

Add to this, anchors used to actually be REPORTERS who worked their way up and got the anchor job. Now, it's more about whether you look good on camera or not.

Bocadelphia Eagles John
No matter who says or writes critically about Foles' performance, there are a few facts which cannot be reversed., disputed, or denied:

1. His day is officially in the record book. Nuff said.
2. There is no asterik near his record entry
3 I've read different stats, from 22 to 26 passes completed. So the fact is, nearly 1 in 3 of his pass completions produced a TD. (I find that a remarkable fact).
4. Props to the O line and those who turned in effort to make the 7 catches, Foles took advantage of the situations he faced. So it was a shared achievement
5. Now Foles is in the best opportunity to qualify for a permanent QB position. He has a chance to win that job, and It's his to lose. (that makes it more interesting to watch future games)
6. 7 passes were completed in 3 quarters. Average of 2+ per quarter. (Wow. Remarkable).

Whatever happens next for the young man is yet to be seen. But damn it all, that was a monster of a day for him and we fans. I can only imagine what that must do for his own confidence and to help the rest of the O unit to want to capitalize on it for the remainder of the season. Success breads success.

Get your popcorn out boils and goils. I'm definately excited of how this story might evolve.

GOOOOOOOOOO EAGLES !!!!!
canadianeagle
QUOTE (Jax @ Nov 5 2013, 12:57 PM) *
Vince Young belongs on the list with Detmer Hoying and Kolb. Rob Johnson may be somewhere in the middle. Leftwich, Culpepper and Pennington has success in the league enough so to be called solid NFL QB's. Mark Brunell? Not even close to being on the list. He was a Pro Bowler in some years and very consistent for a long career. If Foles can be Mark Brunell then please sign me up right now!!!!


While you are correct that Pennigton and Culpepper had solid careers, after some very early success in their career, I seem to recall many believing all of these guys to be franchise QB's. None of them had careers that would put them in that category.

Brunell certainly showed elite potential early but he only threw for more than 20 TD's in a season once.
Perhaps he should not have been on this list but I would not be satisfied with that kind of play from a supposed Franchise QB. For comparison McNabb threw for over 20 TD's in a season 5 times.

The point I was trying to make was early success does not always make a franchise QB. Foles will need to demonstrate that he can continue to improve and make good decisions on a consistent basis.

Jax
QUOTE (canadianeagle @ Nov 5 2013, 04:52 PM) *
While you are correct that Pennigton and Culpepper had solid careers, after some very early success in their career, I seem to recall many believing all of these guys to be franchise QB's. None of them had careers that would put them in that category.

Brunell certainly showed elite potential early but he only threw for more than 20 TD's in a season once.
Perhaps he should not have been on this list but I would not be satisfied with that kind of play from a supposed Franchise QB. For comparison McNabb threw for over 20 TD's in a season 5 times.

The point I was trying to make was early success does not always make a franchise QB. Foles will need to demonstrate that he can continue to improve and make good decisions on a consistent basis.

Yes, I understood the point and I would agree. Separately, I think Brunell is in a different class than the other QB's you mentioned, regradless of statistics. McNabb had consistently better teams throughout a career than Brunell. Plus, the mere fact that you compare Brunell to McNabb makes my point. He is closer to McNabb than those other QB's listed. If Foles' downside is being Brunell then I will take it!
canadianeagle
QUOTE (Jax @ Nov 5 2013, 12:58 PM) *
These factors may have resulted in Foles having 7 TD's instead of 3-4 but these factors are not solely responsible for his success.


You are absolutely correct -- they were not the only factors. After watching the game a second time though, I was left wondering if the play was largely system and circumstance based or are we watching qb brilliance. I suspect it was both but I am certainly wanting to see a much bigger sample size.
Phits
QUOTE (Rick @ Nov 5 2013, 01:24 PM) *
Sorry but the number of outlets means nothing. Problem is, all of the news outlets (regardless of how many) are all owned by a few large corporations. This has squeezed the life out of truly unbiased news. You are right in that news was never totally unbiased, however, it is so OVERLY biased now that it's plain insulting.

Just watch CNN vs Fox News report on the same thing to understand what I'm saying. This doesn't end with these two either.

News has become more about what makes people watch/read/etc the news than it ever has been. Sensationalism sells. Last night a gunman went into the Garden State Plaza Mall (I used to live in the area) and shot up the place before killing himself. All over the news. Multiple shootings in Newark, NJ (not far from this mall) and nobody hears about it. Why? Well, it's much more sensational that someone would go into a mall--especially in one of the richest areas of the country--and shoot it up than people killing each other in a crappy city like Newark.

Add to this, anchors used to actually be REPORTERS who worked their way up and got the anchor job. Now, it's more about whether you look good on camera or not.

There are a wide variety of options that are not limited to CNN or Fox News. Good journalism still exists and it is readily available. We have the option to skip the (common) mass appeal outlets and find the ones that provide content that we want. This was not the case 20 years ago.
D Rock
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 5 2013, 03:55 PM) *
I think you're being a little vague. The news has always been hand picked and spoon fed to the public. Since there weren't that many outlets the big "3" could control the flow of information and dictate how it was consumed. Unbiased reporting was not the norm, and "sensationalism" was always prevalent. The main difference is that they used to only have (up to) an hour to deliver all of the news. When you have 24 hours 7 days/week to fill, you can afford to be more liberal with your journalism.

As for ratings push for news programs, CNN is just using the 60 minutes model.

I've been anything but vague, even going so far as to provide you with the specific demarcation line of content that made the great change from journalism to sensationalism. The ratings and revenue numbers support what I've stated as fact. You're talking to one who was knee deep in that specific medium and organization at that point in history, so you'll forgive me if I point to my greater credibility on the particular subject matter.

So too, you're confusing print media with broadcast journalism. Two entirely different animals as the former is and has always been op ed driven efforts to support a particular political agenda. W.R. Hearst of days past is little different from Rupert Murdoch today, but as with Hearst, Murdoch's holds more print media globally than broadcast outlets despite his Faux News Network. Broadcast journalism prior to Turner was a VASTLY different animal than that which it is today.
Phits
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 5 2013, 05:10 PM) *
I've been anything but vague, even going so far as to provide you with the specific demarcation line of content that made the great change from journalism to sensationalism. The ratings and revenue numbers support what I've stated as fact. You're talking to one who was knee deep in that specific medium and organization at that point in history, so you'll forgive me if I point to my greater credibility on the particular subject matter.

So too, you're confusing print media with broadcast journalism. Two entirely different animals as the former is and has always been op ed driven efforts to support a particular political agenda. W.R. Hearst of days past is little different from Rupert Murdoch today, but as with Hearst, Murdoch's holds more print media globally than broadcast outlets despite his Faux News Network. Broadcast journalism prior to Turner was a VASTLY different animal than that which it is today.

Actually, you are trying to limit the discussion to broadcast journalism. The discussion was journalism as a whole. While I may not have your direct involvement, my wife has been a journalist for the last 2 decades. As a result I have more than a general knowledge of the industry, in its various forms. The majority of North Americans get their daily news from online sources. Some are traditional sites like: cnn, fox news, bbc, huffington post etc.. Others are non-traditional like vice.com, ithp.org, disclose.tv etc..

As I suggested, the biggest difference is not the generation of "revenue" but availability of content and media outlets to provide this information. The public has more options than ever. We now have the ability to see/read the news information that interests us, and not what will garner the most viewership.
mcnabbulous
Because of the limitless options, the need for sensationalism is greater, thus a decrease in quality across the board.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 5 2013, 04:18 PM) *
There are a wide variety of options that are not limited to CNN or Fox News. Good journalism still exists and it is readily available. We have the option to skip the (common) mass appeal outlets and find the ones that provide content that we want. This was not the case 20 years ago.

What you're missing is, even these, "smaller outlets," are owned by large groups. If they aren't, they will soon. These groups have been controlling the news more and more as time goes on.

D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 6 2013, 01:39 AM) *
Because of the limitless options, the need for sensationalism is greater, thus a decrease in quality across the board.

yup.

As is/was the case with digital music. Artists and engineers decried having to compete with every garageband geek on the planet. But in the end, the cream rises to the top. A bonafide hit is a bonafide hit. So too with journalism. Every occupy sleuth with an iphone and internet access can be a "journalist" today. I support the idea of citizen journalists, absolutely. But anyone who's any good, will rise to the top of the field . . . which is ultimately national/international broadcasting.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.