Summary of the "site that shall not be named" and how I went from viewing it twice daily to NEVER!

[MikeRU1766]

(Cliff Notes version 3 posts down from here)

So for those who are still on the fence about "the site that shall not be named" and who do not necessarily agree that they deserve to be "banned" from your viewing habits, I just want to give you my background as I was in your same shoes the past year.

So basically, I will shorten this up as much as possible because nobody likes to read essays on this board. Basically, I never checked Rutgers news daily, I followed the team very closely, but never on a daily basis. But eventually I began to check the news daily and the first site I found was NJ and that was my main source for the next year. Then I found this forum and started viewing both along with a couple other good sites I was led to thanks to this forum. (Thanks everyone by the way.... definitely one of the perks of this forum is being shown other great new sites for RU!) And throughout the year on this forum I had many posters ask "Why do you post NJ.com articles so often" or say "Don't use NJ.com for your Rutgers news!" And I was like those on the fence and thought "Well I think these guys are just parroting what they heard one person say one time and NJ.com isn't that bad because I have viewed it for a year and I haven't seen anything that I haven't liked" so I continued to view NJ despite knowing that others on the forum and strong opinions against it for whatever reason.

But then fast forward to this current Kyle Flood E-mail coverage!

I have never felt so disrespected by a bunch of writers as I had when I was reading the constant barrage of "click-bait" articles that were just meant to try to drum up fervor and clicks so that they could eventually show those numbers to advertisers and make more money on ads.

So now we get to the WHOLE POINT OF WHY I WANTED TO WRITE THIS THREAD.

Some posters have made it seem that they are against NJ.com just because "they said bad things against Rutgers" or that "they are reporting bad news that they know will hurt Rutgers." And I just wanted to say to those "on the fence" that I think posters of that mindset are a small portion of those who are pledging to not view NJ anymore.
Now as for me and I believe most posters who made the pledge on this forum are actually writing off NJ because THEY MIXED IN THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION WITH PROPAGANDA AND BIAS! I have NO problem with NJ.com reporting the situation and the facts of the situation whether it is bad or good because THAT is the whole purpose of the media.... to give us the information. But MY PROBLEM is the fact that most of the writer's were using headlines that VERY OBVIOUSLY showed they were trying to turn this situation into a FULL BLOWN scandal before the facts to lead you to that conclusion were even found. (And still haven't been for the record.) And they also were attacking Coach Kyle Flood as if he wasn't an upstanding citizen for ALL his years at Rutgers and as if he hasn't handled ALL discipline issues with both integrity and class and professionalism THAT literally is what Rutgers is and wants to continue to be all about. I am NOT OK with a news source unfairly attacking a man in the fashion that they did, without having all of the facts straight first. Correction not even have all the facts straight, but at the VERY least you have to wait for any damning facts to even BE RELEASED to try to attack somebody's reputation in the manner that NJ did.

So anyway, sorry this got a little long I wanted to keep it short. But basically in a nut shell I just want those on the fence to know that the majority of us are not leaving that site just because they reported some bad news about Flood. We are leaving them because they tried to manipulate the situation and make accusations to sensationalize the situation without the proper facts being there to do so. And apparently they have done this in the past as well, but this is my first time being able to see it first hand from beginning to end and I for one am disgusted. Hence, I pledge yet again to not view that site anymore.

 

[Knight Shift]

Is there a Cliff's notes version of the OP?

 

[ClassOf02]

Ahhh young whippersnapper. We've seen this story before and we know how it ends...just as it begins.

 

[MikeRU1766]

Is there a Cliff's notes version of the OP?

Haha sadly that is what I was going for in the OP itself and failed.

But my point in a nutshell was I wanted to make sure that people understood that we weren't boycotting "that site" because "they reported bad news about Rutgers" or that "they always report bad news about Rutgers."

Instead, the whole issue that I and I believe most other posters have IS NOT THAT "that site" reported bad news.....that is a media sources job.... of course they are going to report bad news. But our problem was rather than just reporting the facts and the situation as it was just beginning, they instead started forming very BIASED and whole opinions about the situation before we even had any of the major facts figured out. And then they started putting out headlines that came off as extremely slanted when I first looked at them and I believe that they put those headlines out as "click-bait" to seduce people to join in on the "Big Scandal" which as we all know is what media sources want since scandals equals clicks aka viewers which equals more advertising dollars.

So yeah there it is in a nut shell... hopefully that helps a bit more and still makes sense.

 

[pmvon]

Did people really need to be told this? Are some of you just figuring this out now? Come on people, SL has been twisting info for years. They are a journalistic cesspool.

 

[RU848789]

I will never take this silly pledge. They report on RU sports and I like to read about RU sports, including the good, the bad and the ugly. And when it's ugly, the SL ain't makin' shit up. And when it's good, as it has been in some recent years, we're the toast of the town - and when we get to some major bowls, just wait for the love, just like we had in 2006. I'm not always happy with the slant of some articles and yeah, I do believe they go out of their way to find dirt, but that's what reporters do - they want interesting stories that will sell - so maybe we should focus on not creating the dirt in the first place. Look on the bright side: RU is relevant, which was certainly not always the case.

 

[MADHAT1]

It's everyone's choice if they chose to go to NJ.com , buy the Star Ledger or post links from the site some don't want to click.
I'm among the do not go crowd because of the Ledger and NJ.com's history of spinning news about RU Sports into making Rutgers look like they're doing something wrong when that's not the case.
Some Rutgers fans are sick of it now as they were years ago and took action:
( note the ad link in article comes up error and ad not shown
If someone has a copy please post it))
http://uselesstriviaandmindlessrants.blogspot.com/2008/12/rutgers-fans-versus-star-ledger.html

 

[ScarletJack]

RU numbers, please tell me you tongue was deep in your cheek! Otherwise, you embolden the yellow journalism that permeates SL reporting on Rutgers and enlarge the pathway that attention seeking writers/media seek to travel.

 

[MikeRU1766]

RU numbers, please tell me you tongue was deep in your cheek! Otherwise, you embolden the yellow journalism that permeates SL reporting on Rutgers and enlarge the pathway that attention seeking writers/media seek to travel.

Who are you speaking to? Or did the person you were speaking to now delete his post so we can no longer see it?

 

[FanuSanu52]

Haha sadly that is what I was going for in the OP itself and failed.

But my point in a nutshell was I wanted to make sure that people understood that we weren't boycotting "that site" because "they reported bad news about Rutgers" or that "they always report bad news about Rutgers."

Instead, the whole issue that I and I believe most other posters have IS NOT THAT "that site" reported bad news.....that is a media sources job.... of course they are going to report bad news. But our problem was rather than just reporting the facts and the situation as it was just beginning, they instead started forming very BIASED and whole opinions about the situation before we even had any of the major facts figured out. And then they started putting out headlines that came off as extremely slanted when I first looked at them and I believe that they put those headlines out as "click-bait" to seduce people to join in on the "Big Scandal" which as we all know is what media sources want since scandals equals clicks aka viewers which equals more advertising dollars.

So yeah there it is in a nut shell... hopefully that helps a bit more and still makes sense.

Not to be discouraging, but this version needs Cliff's notes too.

How about: tl;dr, I quit the SL and good goddamn I'm loving it.

 

[mikershoein]

Sorry, it's late, I'm tired and it's too many words to focus on.

I'll read it tomorrow, good luck with your issues

 

[RUonBrain]

I agree with you OP
Good job

RU #s - ENABLER!!

 

[Jonas Grumby]

They are an active enemy of Rutgers.

 

[KingHigh]

Oh man that was brutal

 

[needmorecowbell]

They are an active enemy of Rutgers.

Exactly. It is clear they are an enemy of Rutgers. If they shared both views when covering a negative story I think fans would understand but when they smell blood they attack until the target is dead. They clearly have no respect for true journalism. The true journalist reports both side of the story and let's the reader made an educated decision.

 

[KnightsofChrome]

I will never take this silly pledge. They report on RU sports and I like to read about RU sports, including the good, the bad and the ugly. And when it's ugly, the SL ain't makin' shit up. And when it's good, as it has been in some recent years, we're the toast of the town - and when we get to some major bowls, just wait for the love, just like we had in 2006. I'm not always happy with the slant of some articles and yeah, I do believe they go out of their way to find dirt, but that's what reporters do - they want interesting stories that will sell - so maybe we should focus on not creating the dirt in the first place. Look on the bright side: RU is relevant, which was certainly not always the case.

Why do I get the feeling this person works for this RAG!?

 

[RUChoppin]

They report on RU sports and I like to read about RU sports, including the good, the bad and the ugly. And when it's ugly, the SL ain't makin' shit up.

The Ledger doesn't "make shit up" - but they surely amplify the hell out of nonsense. If Darius Hamilton got a hangnail, they'd say "Hamilton has a hand injury that may sideline him - what will that do to the season?" They're only a half step from TMZ at this point.

 

[Upstream]

I will never take this silly pledge. They report on RU sports and I like to read about RU sports, including the good, the bad and the ugly. And when it's ugly, the SL ain't makin' shit up. And when it's good, as it has been in some recent years, we're the toast of the town - and when we get to some major bowls, just wait for the love, just like we had in 2006. I'm not always happy with the slant of some articles and yeah, I do believe they go out of their way to find dirt, but that's what reporters do - they want interesting stories that will sell - so maybe we should focus on not creating the dirt in the first place. Look on the bright side: RU is relevant, which was certainly not always the case.

I won't take this pledge either. For me it is a silly pledge. I just don't read the SL anyway. I stopped reading the SL years ago. Not because of how they treat Rutgers, but because it is a crappy newspaper. There are better news sources out there for regional and state news. And with the internet, you can find community newspapers that go more in-depth in local news.

For me to take a pledge not to read the SL is like me taking a pledge not to eat turnips. You might like em, but I don't.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

"Flood could be fired." that headline was so irresponsible its not even funny. Please. They then said, Flood's contract has a clause that he can be fired for failure to promote compliance within the athletics program, and if sending this email is determined to constitute a failure to promote compliance the school could make the decision to fire him.

F them and their sensationalist negative stories. I will read that crap again when someone links their "Rutgers could win the national championship this year" article.

 

[Knight_Light]

"Flood could be fired." that headline was so irresponsible its not even funny. Please. They then said, Flood's contract has a clause that he can be fired for failure to promote compliance within the athletics program, and if sending this email is determined to constitute a failure to promote compliance the school could make the decision to fire him.

F them and their sensationalist negative stories. I will read that crap again when someone links their "Rutgers could win the national championship this year" article.

Just FYI, writers do not make the headlines for most of their stories that end up in print (or even online).

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Just FYI, writers do not make the headlines for most of their stories that end up in print (or even online).

Yeah I'm aware. So what? The headline writers work for the same media companies. Im not saying boycott the writers, Im in favor of boycotting the company.

 

[Scarlet16E]

Remember the Maine!

They could use the series of articles and editorials from this affair in a class about yellow journalism.

It's very telling that all other media outlets have not joined in.

 

[DJ Spanky]

What I don't get is why people think a tiger will change its stripes. This behavior goes all the way back to their vendetta against Mulcahy. Anyone who thinks they're a friend of Rutgers because they occasionally write a few articles accentuating a positive aspect of the program is seriously deluded. Recognize them for what they are.

 

[pmvon]

If they go out of business, they will have no stripes. Just because they won't change doesn't mean we should continue to support their business by reading their articles.

 

[knightfan7]

What I don't get is why people think a tiger will change its stripes. This behavior goes all the way back to their vendetta against Mulcahy. Anyone who thinks they're a friend of Rutgers because they occasionally write a few articles accentuating a positive aspect of the program is seriously deluded. Recognize them for what they are.

And that particular instance shows that #s is talking out his a$$. They DO make stuff up.

 

[Upstream]

Just FYI, writers do not make the headlines for most of their stories that end up in print (or even online).

A distinction without meaning.

There are a whole lot of people involved in getting a story to print: the reporter, contributors, editors, fact checkers, copywriters, headline writers, etc. If some of these roles are done poorly, or if they don't even exist at all at the SL, that is a decision that the SL has made. If the SL doesn't have the right people and the right functions in place to put out a quality product, that is not a valid excuse for a sub-par product.