Wild Bill's article - the case against columnists

sd2 · Jul 13, 2005

Everyone who has ever been connected to journalism knows that most columns from regular contributors or staffers are written to meet contractual obligations, not because the topic of the column needs to be broadcast, or that the writer really has something of interest to say.

Most columns, therefore, are crap. Just blowin' off 'cause they have to. This is surely the case with Wild Bill's article on the disapproval that poker players have for sports bettors.

Like, who gives a shit? Poker is having its innings now, but it will eventually fade again into the background. And if some idiot pokester really did advocate the banning of sports betting, he should know that would simply open the gate to wiping out all online betting. Who needs to hear moronic views like this?

Second, if online sports betting could be "banned," it would have already been done. And, WB, what makes you think that everyone shares your view that sports betting should be okayed in the USA so it can be properly regulated? IE, taxed, tracked, etc. With a few companies exercising a virtual monopoly.

Long live offshore and the fierce competition, with no snooping Uncle minding our ways. Sites like this also help educate bettors as to whom offshore to avoid. The risk is always there, but much reduced in recent years, at least for the aware.

WB, just because you are a writer does not mean you always have something of interest to say. (This goes for ALL columnists - been there, done that.) This was one of those cases. Heretofore, I'll check the title and first graph before reading your musings.

CharlieChan · Jul 13, 2005

Good point about Uncle Sam getting involved.

WildBill · Jul 13, 2005

You obviously dont follow much of what I say. I have long said be careful of what you wish for on regulation, but look around this place, most people seem scared to death of Kyl and want regulation so I represent the masses there.

As for your other points I will put it simply, if columnists were expected to write only when it was needed we would be essentially silenced. If we wrote only when our opinion matched everyone elses we would be writing stuff like Murder is Wrong. I never expect to get 100% agreement on just about anything I write, that is the usual condition every columnist in any site or publication faces.

sd2 · Jul 13, 2005

Controversy si, boredom no.

:suomi:

Not a question of soliciting agreement from readers. Give us true controversy, by all means. But posting the silly table comments of mushmouth poker players ain't controversy. And ain't intelligent.

If you need ideas surf the net - often something there to develop. Or get on the horn with a mover and shaker offshore. Or try to talk to a national politician who has expressed views, neg or positive, on net betting. I know full well that it's tough to come up with good stuff even 25% of the time, and maybe rx ain't payin' ya that much, but this was lame, lame, lame, man!

RobFunk · Jul 13, 2005

You guys forget that Bill puts out sometimes 2-3 articles a week.

Bill is incredibly prolific and his articles entertain and enlighten more often than not.

You cant beat up a guy who writes that much over 1 or 2 articles. You just have to say "I didnt care for this one." And he'll have another out in a week, tops.

The mainstay of WB's writes is that they provoke thought and conversation, if he trys to make you see it his way it's always on an open ended basis.

redpimp · Jul 13, 2005

WildBill said:
You obviously dont follow much of what I say. I have long said be careful of what you wish for on regulation, but look around this place, most people seem scared to death of Kyl and want regulation so I represent the masses there.

As for your other points I will put it simply, if columnists were expected to write only when it was needed we would be essentially silenced. If we wrote only when our opinion matched everyone elses we would be writing stuff like Murder is Wrong. I never expect to get 100% agreement on just about anything I write, that is the usual condition every columnist in any site or publication faces.

No offense but i too thought the article was kinda weak. If i was your editor i would have told you to add a bunch of paragraphs at least out lining the government efforts to shut down this kind of gaming, along with important rulings and decisions that have been made that impact us. Also, citing good examples like in the UK where regulation seems to have worked.. (And this is constructive criticsm so dont get your knickers in a bunch!!!!)

Personally speaking, i think we would profit a whole lot more if uncle they regulated it and made it legal. Standard limits would be much much higher than the current 2500 cap we have to suffer through, then of course we wouldnt have to deal with people like Royal and GCS crew or all kinds of other scum in this industry.
And that whole idea about getting uncle sam involved in this is not that accurate.

Case and point, Las Vegas, where its legal to place bets, what you declare to uncle sam is totally up to you. Matter of fact, for those of us who report our income to uncle sam, Vegas is indeed a blessing from high above (no need to elaborate on this)

sd2 · Jul 13, 2005

To be positive: here's an idea for a piece: tell us WHY you would prefer U.S. authorized sports betting, done in the country online and otherwise, by the giants of the casino industry. List the benefits we'd get that we don't get now.

And to make it interesting and balanced, solicit the views of someone who thinks it's a bad idea. who will inform us of the debits. (NOT the organist of the Baptist church in the Red Rock area, please! And for godsakes, not more poker freaks!) Some smart sports bettor who understands both sides and prefers to keep it all offshore.

Yeah, I know, that sounds too much like work! But if you've already done such a piece, refer me to it, if it's still online somewhere.

RobFunk · Jul 13, 2005

See, just more proof positive what he posted the other day is right. People want to bash 100 times more than they want to give accolades.

1 article you didnt like, but what about all the other ones

SonnyPalermo · Jul 13, 2005

The root of the problem is that many internet contributors are just that - contributors.

They are not writers at all, and by no means are they journalists.
They lack education and skills.

It is a problem caused by the growth of the internet.
We'll use this place for example -
Ken starts the site, it blooms, he finds he needs material.
'sting' starts 'contributing' 'columns' then in a case of mistaken identity (or overbloated sense of self-worth if you will) begins to believe he is actually a writer, rather than just some butthead friend of the owner.

This scenario has been repeated many times since then.

Shill jobs pass as news.
Hacks pass themselves off as writers.
That's OK I guess, if you know your true meaning and purpose, but it is laughable when it becomes confused with reality.
Most 'writers' are not writers at all.

Talent is not necessary.
Neither are spelling and/or grammar skills.
Interesting to read? Not applicable.
Journalistic integrity? Not necessary.
Sense of humor? Non-existant.

Blame the net, the need for filler, the lack of standards, and the dearth of talent.
And WB, nothing here is directed to you. I don't believe I have ever read your stuff as I avoid most internet columns.

redpimp · Jul 13, 2005

RobFunk said:
See, just more proof positive what he posted the other day is right. People want to bash 100 times more than they want to give accolades.

1 article you didnt like, but what about all the other ones

Robfunk are you saying personally that you didnt find that article at little bit flat, with no credible sources, facts etc?

And you can assume, that most other articles i have personally read, i have commented on in agreement or otherwise, and in some case ignored.
But its typical that the good articles will get the cursory "Right on" man while the lack luster ones get scrutinized and inspire people to write back to press a point.

Stickie · Jul 13, 2005

Red chimp, why don't you put out some articles for the forum to critique.

Thanks to WB for just sitting down and putting something out there for us at the RX to read and think about.

CharlieMaxwell · Jul 13, 2005

Sonny Palermo writes the following:

Talent is not necessary.
Neither are spelling and/or grammar skills.
Interesting to read? Not applicable.
Journalistic integrity? Not necessary.
Sense of humor? Non-existant.

Sonny, it's a good thing that spelling is not necessary to be a poster because you just spelled existent incorrectly.

Charlie

P.S. Writing three columns per week is not as easy as you might think.

TTinCO · Jul 13, 2005

Stickie said:
Red chimp, why don't you put out some articles for the forum to critique.

Thanks to WB for just sitting down and putting something out there for us at the RX to read and think about.

Well said Stickie :103631605

.

redpimp · Jul 13, 2005

TTinCO said:
Well said Stickie .

With all due respect, that was an incredibly stupid challenge....

I would have absolutely zero problem posting a column for others to critic. Incase you missed it, i am one person who loves to debate issues of any kind plus i have several posts way longer than WB article on peoples opinions of
sports betting. I wouldnt have any trouble at all since most of my posts come right off top my head (and in some cases my ideas even over run each other and its reflected in the some of my posts)

I have no problem posting a column....But that still wont change the fact that WB's column we are discussing left a little bit to be desired.

Stickie · Jul 14, 2005

You heard it here first guys. The RX is going to have a daily new column by Red Chimp. Looking forward to the first one tomorrow Chimp.

SkinsRaj28 · Jul 14, 2005

Before you start pumping out columns, Redpimp, maybe you ought to learn how to spell "critique" properly, or learn how to use it as opposed to "critic.

haha just giving you a hard time.

SonnyPalermo · Jul 14, 2005

"you just spelled existent incorrectly"

CM,
KNEW that one when I did it and didn't go back in to edit, which is unusual because if you look at my posts you will sometimes see a big difference in time between when I originally posted and my last edit. This is because I am anal about corrections/ad libs and end up going back in multiple times for adjustments.

I actually meant to spell 'spelling' with one 'l' though just to let someone come back in and hang me.

"P.S. Writing three columns per week is not as easy as you might think."

Why would you think that I think it is easy? Nowhere in my post do I refer to anything of the kind. I KNOW it's hard enough to write one column per week sometimes. Three must be a real drag.

PPS - In school days I have won $ in spelling contests, should have went to the state finals but forgot to say the word after spelling it (yes, you get eliminated for that and I was, after knocking 23 of 24 opponents off the stage. It's not that I'm smart or anything, it's just that I read an avg. of 2 books per week and recognize what looks correct. Or not).

PPS - yes I know 'Or not' does not constitute a grammitically sentence. I take a lot of poetic license, use slang, make stuff up, etc. It's why my editors love me.....

sd2 · Jul 15, 2005

Hemingway was a notoriously poor speller. An unglamorous copy editor had to do the grunt work on his manuscripts.

Three columns a week is not easy: yes and no. If someone has something of real interest to say, and says it well, the writing comes easy. If someone is contracted to write 2-3 columns a week on some aspect of sports betting, and can only come up with gurgling out some garbage heard at a poker table, it's probably hard.

It's not really for a poster to challenge another poster to write an article to critique, without knowing the ground rules. Primarily, is WB and other writers being paid by the Rx to write the columns? If so, is he (and others) delivering the goods? If it's done gratis --- then the poker column was fine, don't exert yourself, man!

If not, and if there is a competent editor at Rx, let the posters submit their stuff as a column or article. That way, we'll get the most cutting edge stuff.
Yes, an editor knowledgeable about this topic, as well as knowing about syntax, libel laws, etc, will have to make the decision to run it or not --- but such decisions are made thousands of times in publications (print and cyber) across the land thousands of times each day.

This, to be sure, would take more dedication and a bit more bucks than just paying a columnist to chuck up whatever creases his brain on any particular day, but what an improvement it would be to the site!

Wild Bill's article - the case against columnists

Search

sd2

New member

CharlieChan

New member

WildBill

New member

sd2

New member

RobFunk

RX Senior

redpimp

New member

sd2

New member

RobFunk

RX Senior

SonnyPalermo

New member

redpimp

New member

Stickie

New member

CharlieMaxwell

Rx Managing Editor

TTinCO

.

redpimp

New member

Stickie

New member

SkinsRaj28

For G-Baby

SonnyPalermo

New member

sd2

New member

Forum statistics

Share this page