When I started this blog a little over two years ago, I needed some random, slightly clever title for it, emphasis on slightly.
Jeff Dubay seemed like the perfect minor broadcasting "celebrity" worthy of immortalizing with this blog. Little did I know his life would implode, again, soon after I launched the blog. I'm not a fan of his schtick, but I do root for him, despite his appetite for self-destruction.
My goal was never to build a a vast online audience or a social media empire, I just wanted a place for opinions to be shared on people who think they're really, really special because they are seen or heard daily in the Twin Cities.
I have promoted the blog a bit, but I've mostly given that up. I tried promoting it via a couple of avenues, but I've since come to enjoy watching blog postings find their audience organically. I share each blog post via Google, and usually tweet a link to it once or twice, otherwise I'm rather low key when it comes to promotion.
I won't cite a lot of analytics, but I will share a few interesting tidbits when I look at how this modest collection of essays has reached the masses during the two years I've churned out content.
I'm averaging about 12 posts a year, and I never intended for this blog to have weekly content.
I'm not delusional, page views are no promise that a viewer has read a word I wrote. But that's one of the few measurements I have available in trying to decide if anyone notices the content I create.
I've tried a few experiments with Google and learned that my blog postings are near the top of Google searches for some of the broadcasters I've toasted.
Number one, easily, is Alix Kendall.
My April 2014 blog post about Kendall and her lawsuit against the cops has generated more than 13,000 page views in nearly two years.
I'm no analytical genius, but it doesn't take one to know that female TV broadcasters are frequently Googled.
Kendall must be quite popular with the Googlers of the Twin Cities. As a matter of fact, there's a blog site that features thousands of pictures of newswomen nationwide wearing boots. (Rena Sarigianopoulos, my new least favorite broadcaster, has been featured on the site.) That blog started as a site dedicated to the worship of Kendall.
So the fact that Kendall generates the most traffic to this blog is not a surprise. I should probably write about her more often just for the web traffic, but I'm not as fascinated by her, or her boots, as some people.
It's a close race for first runner up. The edge goes to a guy known on KFAN radio as Meatsauce.
His post grabbed a lot of attention in June 2014 because I tweeted the link to him, and he tweeted the link to his followers. As you'd expect, Paul Lambert wasn't enamored with my critique of his success in radio. I don't hate him, I don't love him and I didn't flatter him when I reviewed his charmed life, but he shared my writing, perhaps to rally those who love him to his defense. It worked, it appeared, as my blog post about him blew up quicker than any other I've written.
But ultimately Kendall proved to be more appealing to the Internet than Lambert, not to my surprise, so he's a distant second with barely half of Kendall's page views.
In third place, not far behind Lambert, is a post about Kelsey Soby. I've penned a couple of posts about Soby, but it was the first one that has her at more than 6,000 page views. Not to my surprise she generates a lot of Internet steam, although that has slowed down thanks to her retirement from being a morning traffic babe.
In fourth place is my post about Emily Engberg. The out-and-about imp for the channel 5 afternoon chat fest is easy on the eyes, and she has managed to generate nearly 5,000 page views.
From there things drop off dramatically. No other blog post has generated 2,000 page views. The closest would be a long dissection of Jason Matheson's career. That post is a steady performer, helped in part by the fact that a Google search of his name sometimes puts my posting at the bottom of page 1. He's no Engberg, clearly, but he's an established broadcaster that has a strong name in this market. So thanks, buddy, for the blog traffic. I'm not a loyal fan of his work, but I like his attitude, so it's hard to root against him.
Some of my older blog posts have low page views, often because I didn't drop a name into the title, I suspect. Name checking the primary subject, if there is one, helps generate traffic. Posts that don't have a name in them are the worst performers, according to page views.
Although I have several post titles that reference Dubay, none of them top 1,000 page views. And my very first post, about Dennis "Rusty" Gatenby, has more page views than any Dubay post, although it, too, has less than 1,000 page views.
Showing promise is a November 2015 post about Shayne Wells, the new traffic babe at FOX 9. It has nearly 1,400 page views, which is pretty good compared to everything I've written about Dubay.
Another measurement of interest in the comments I receive. None of my posts receive a truckload of comments, and the comment tally includes responses I make, and I respond in some capacity to most of the comments I receive.
Many posts have no comments, but the post with the most is my Lambert analysis. His total is due, in part, to the fact he tweeted it to his followers, and several of them read it, and responded. The post manages to generate an occasional comment nearly two years later.
Kendall gets the most page views, but her post is second when it comes to comments. She has never tweeted a link to my writing, to the best of my knowledge, so I'm guessing that has something to do with it.
My first post about Soby is the third most popular with those who comment. Beyond that my blog has a small, random handful of comments.
These numbers don't tell you a lot, and I don't care. I just wanted a snapshot for comparison purposes should I continue this blog in the years to come.
One last note, my post about Keith Leventhal is doing pretty well. It has nearly 1,000 page views, which is impressive given nobody in the Twin Cities knows who he is. I suspect half of that traffic is due to the fact he visits the post on a daily basis.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Rena Sarigianopoulos you've broken my heart
My goal isn't to tell the world how terrible the Twin Cities broadcasting scene is. I mean that.
But it's what we don't like that gets us fired up. We are less likely to tell somebody they did a good job than we are to tell somebody they suck.
So I tend not to kiss a lot of ass. If you work in broadcasting, you know you're going to have people who don't like what you do. It doesn't matter who you are.
And the reality is that it doesn't matter if they love you or hate you, all that matters is that they're watching or listening to you.
I have been an avid watcher of KARE11 over the years. I watch every station's newscasts now and then, but all things being equal, I gravitate to the local NBC affiliate.
So I've seen Rena Sarigianopoulos many times over the years. I don't know if I have a favorite local broadcaster, but there are a few that make me cringe. Sarigianopoulos was not one of them.
As I noted not so long ago, Sarigianopoulos and her sister are doing one of these interactive news shows where the viewer is so important to the product. The fine folks at KARE really want to know what we think.
It's not good.
I still don't know what the hell the name means. They call it "Breaking the News." They talk about serious news topics, produce complete fluff and offer mindless banter. And so far it has made me cringe.
They seem desperate to connect with viewers, and the show is far from polished. It has been painful to watch. They know this, too, as the first time I watched the show they shared Tweets criticizing the show. (Nice job ripping off Jimmy Kimmel.)
I'm a discerning viewer, however, so perhaps I'm the exception to the rule. Regardless, I've lost a lot of respect for Sarigianopoulos and her station after watching the March 22 edition of her news gabfest.
The show seems to be targeting the dolts who think hearing the opinions of our intellectually superior TV people are important, as well as the dolts who think having their comment shared on a local broadcast is some sort of validation.
I don't watch much TV in the early evening, so the time slot for this Mensa meeting disguised as a news magazine doesn't fit into my schedule. It took weeks for me to finally watch an episode, and I proclaimed that I wouldn't be tuning into it again any time time soon. That was a month ago.
For the record, my first comment about the show on Feb. 15 was simply a reaction to their discussion of one of the water cooler topics of the day. If I was a "hater," as Sarigianopoulos wants to proclaim, I'd have ripped the show right out of the gate. My hatred of the show was so evident, clearly, that the social media guru for the show shared my first reaction to the lead story with the dozens of people who follow the show via Twitter.
As a "hater," I didn't rip the episode nearly enough. I expressed displeasure with a segment, but didn't "hate" on it, and I did criticize the brutal segment of the show where the social media guru tried to favor us with his on-the-spot analysis of Twitter and Facebook reactions. It didn't come off as professional, and I'm not fond of the trend of "reporting" the social media feedback to news or fluff peddled by our TV elite.
Yes, I wrote a blog post outlining all the things I didn't like about the show, and how it let me down. Welcome to America, where the consumer is entitled to have an opinion.
Last week I found myself sampling the product again. And once again it didn't win me over.
I tweeted reactions to it, and responded to a few comments made by others who tweeted their reactions as the show unfolded.
That's partially true, as I stopped watching before the end of the program. Since the show is partially about discussing news topics, they trotted out something called Peter Parker, a DJ on the new Hubbard hip hop station. People who watch Breaking the News want to know what a hip hop DJ thinks about pop culture fluff, it seems. It was at that point I couldn't stomach the show. I turned the channel to anything else available.
I continued to follow the Twitter conversations about the show, responding to a few things along the way, but watched something else. That's when a clown who claims to be a KARE11 photojournalist tried to bust me. I quote tweeted something about #BTN11 and he responded with, "Looks like you watched through the show by your comments."
I questioned if he had reached that conclusion based upon my responding on Twitter after changing the channel. Then I told him, "I'd look again."
The goofball responded with, "Cool story bro."
I have no idea what he was getting at, so I responded with "if you say so." And that was the end of my Twitter interactions for the March 18 edition of the show.
I don't know what this photojournalist was trying to accomplish with his initial comment, but he didn't convince me that KARE11 conducts drug testing as part of its hiring process.
So for the third time in its nearly three months on the air I watched Breaking the News on March 22. That's two weeks in a row. I must be really bored, or terminally ill.
I started off my evening with a couple of meaningless observations: I noted that I still have no idea what the hell the name of the show is supposed to mean, and I noted that the opening segment was awkward, given Sarigianopoulos was standing with all sorts of visible mic cords hanging off of her. Clearly I'm a "hater."
The show opened with talk about the news of the day, including a segment about how local Muslims feel about international terror. It was a pretty good segment. It's not going to win an award, and it's a rather predictable piece, but it was well done. I didn't slap the Breaking the News team on the back for it, but I did find the Twitter reaction of its viewers to be curious, and I noted that.
I didn't hide my disdain for a segment they teased. It appeared to be about how former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, a media whore if ever there was one, is trying to parlay his expired NFL career into another moment in the spotlight. I don't necessarily disagree with Kluwe's opinions, I simply have little tolerance for his antics and choose not to read about them or watch them.
I'm also not a fan of watching stations shill for a network's entertainment division. Whether it's Jason DeRusha shilling for a show on CBS, Alix Kendall shilling for a show on FOX or Sarigianopoulos shilling for NBC's ninja warrior show. I turned the channel.
Once again I kept an eye on social media, and I did turn back to the channel several minutes later. I was interested to hear what they had to say about the Bent Paddle kerfuffle that broke last week. Unfortunately I failed to flip back to KARE11 in time to catch it, and I don't care enough to seek out the segment online.
So I watched the end of the show and tweeted a few other comments, most notably my unwillingness to feed Chris Kluwe's ego.
And that's when KARE11 and it's cutting edge news crew flushed all respect I had for the station right down the toilet.
I'm not sure if Sarigianopoulos was trying to be clever and funny, or demonstrate that she's a TV bimbo.
I had tweeted early in the show that the camera work appeared as if the camera guy was trying to get an upskirt shot of Sarigianopoulos as she was sitting at a desk. It was very awkward, and as I learned via Twitter during the show, it was the crew's first night with a fancy new camera.
I find it a bit sad that the FOX News Channel has a reputation for upskirt moments during its broadcasts. As I learned a couple of years ago, there are Youtube videos dissecting such moments in slow motion. Yes, that's the weird world we live in.
Two shots of Sarigianopoulos using that new camera were rather awkward, and obviously made me think of FOX news. I noted this via Twitter.
After I turned back to Breaking the News, I watched a couch shot of Sarigianopoulos and her fill-in sidekick talking, and it was hard not to notice that it looked like Sarigianopoulos could use a new pair of tights. The holes in her tights were large enough to be noticeable on a 50-inch TV. Not a crime, of course, just awkward, and being the funny tweeter that I am, I noted that it was time for Sarigianopoulos to buy new tights at Target.
After the show she replied via Twitter: "Thought you changed the channel? You can't fool us...you just love to hate. #hater #socialbully
Was she trying to be funny, or was she tweeting brainlessly? I changed the channel, and missed two segments in the middle of the show. Never did I say I wasn't turning the channel back after the Kluwe segment.
More important, how the hell am I a hater? I don't like Kluwe, at all, and won't hide the fact. While I didn't praise Sarigianopoulos for wearing tights without holes during a previous episode, am I really a "hater" for pointing out the awkwardness of her wardrobe, or the weird camera angles, on Tuesday evening?
I'd like to think she was simply having fun with my wardrobe criticism, but her #socialbully hashtag suggests otherwise. It suggests to me that she's arrogant and lacks critical thinking skills in canvassing Twitter feedback to her show.
I criticized her show for "shilling the network" and ripped the Kluwe segment (which I didn't watch,) but when did I tell people to go to hell for watching the garbage she's peddling? I have noted via Twitter that the program seems to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, but that's hardly bullying.
Sarigianopoulos has turned out to be a major disappointment. But I shouldn't be surprised, given everything I've had the misfortune of reading about her. And by that I mean crap that is spewed by Cheryl Johnson. (I can turn off Kluwe, but I can't help but peruse Johnson's "gossip.")
And if I had any doubt about whether or not Sarigianopoulos was trying to be flirty and fun, her response to my question about how I was guilty of bullying proved she's not the sharpest knife in the dishwasher. She responded, "um, no. You tweet hate about BTN daily and yet you continue to watch. Does it make you feel good to make others feel bad?"
Daily? I've watched the show three times, sweetheart, and I don't tweet about it when I don't watch it. Continue to watch? Yes, twice in two consecutive weeks.
Does it make me good to make others feel bad? Who feels bad? When was I telling people they were idiots who should be ashamed of themselves for their opinions?
Sarigianopoulos lacks critical thinking skills, and seems to be delusional.
As if this weren't enough, one of her behind-the-scenes cronies decided to lecture me, too, although she wised up and deleted her tweets to me.
A producer named Nikki lectured me in a series of tweets she doesn't stand behind, evidently. She threw out the "bullying" claim and suggested that I'm making personal attacks of some sort. Yes, I criticize opinions and I don't fawn over her lousy program, but her delusions were fantastic.
Part of her lecture said that while the show exists for the exchange of opinions, somehow there's an unwritten rule that I'm only allowed to offer constructive criticism. She didn't say it quite that way, but that's essentially what she said, although I can't prove it to you, because she's embarrassed by her opinions, it seems.
So there you have it, a weak show staffed by people with lackluster critical thinking skills, thin skin and not enough sense to ignore what they don't like on Twitter. (They ought to hire Dawn Mitchell to join their show.)
But it's what we don't like that gets us fired up. We are less likely to tell somebody they did a good job than we are to tell somebody they suck.
So I tend not to kiss a lot of ass. If you work in broadcasting, you know you're going to have people who don't like what you do. It doesn't matter who you are.
And the reality is that it doesn't matter if they love you or hate you, all that matters is that they're watching or listening to you.
I have been an avid watcher of KARE11 over the years. I watch every station's newscasts now and then, but all things being equal, I gravitate to the local NBC affiliate.
So I've seen Rena Sarigianopoulos many times over the years. I don't know if I have a favorite local broadcaster, but there are a few that make me cringe. Sarigianopoulos was not one of them.
As I noted not so long ago, Sarigianopoulos and her sister are doing one of these interactive news shows where the viewer is so important to the product. The fine folks at KARE really want to know what we think.
It's not good.
I still don't know what the hell the name means. They call it "Breaking the News." They talk about serious news topics, produce complete fluff and offer mindless banter. And so far it has made me cringe.
They seem desperate to connect with viewers, and the show is far from polished. It has been painful to watch. They know this, too, as the first time I watched the show they shared Tweets criticizing the show. (Nice job ripping off Jimmy Kimmel.)
I'm a discerning viewer, however, so perhaps I'm the exception to the rule. Regardless, I've lost a lot of respect for Sarigianopoulos and her station after watching the March 22 edition of her news gabfest.
The show seems to be targeting the dolts who think hearing the opinions of our intellectually superior TV people are important, as well as the dolts who think having their comment shared on a local broadcast is some sort of validation.
I don't watch much TV in the early evening, so the time slot for this Mensa meeting disguised as a news magazine doesn't fit into my schedule. It took weeks for me to finally watch an episode, and I proclaimed that I wouldn't be tuning into it again any time time soon. That was a month ago.
For the record, my first comment about the show on Feb. 15 was simply a reaction to their discussion of one of the water cooler topics of the day. If I was a "hater," as Sarigianopoulos wants to proclaim, I'd have ripped the show right out of the gate. My hatred of the show was so evident, clearly, that the social media guru for the show shared my first reaction to the lead story with the dozens of people who follow the show via Twitter.
As a "hater," I didn't rip the episode nearly enough. I expressed displeasure with a segment, but didn't "hate" on it, and I did criticize the brutal segment of the show where the social media guru tried to favor us with his on-the-spot analysis of Twitter and Facebook reactions. It didn't come off as professional, and I'm not fond of the trend of "reporting" the social media feedback to news or fluff peddled by our TV elite.
Yes, I wrote a blog post outlining all the things I didn't like about the show, and how it let me down. Welcome to America, where the consumer is entitled to have an opinion.
Last week I found myself sampling the product again. And once again it didn't win me over.
I tweeted reactions to it, and responded to a few comments made by others who tweeted their reactions as the show unfolded.
That's partially true, as I stopped watching before the end of the program. Since the show is partially about discussing news topics, they trotted out something called Peter Parker, a DJ on the new Hubbard hip hop station. People who watch Breaking the News want to know what a hip hop DJ thinks about pop culture fluff, it seems. It was at that point I couldn't stomach the show. I turned the channel to anything else available.
I continued to follow the Twitter conversations about the show, responding to a few things along the way, but watched something else. That's when a clown who claims to be a KARE11 photojournalist tried to bust me. I quote tweeted something about #BTN11 and he responded with, "Looks like you watched through the show by your comments."
I questioned if he had reached that conclusion based upon my responding on Twitter after changing the channel. Then I told him, "I'd look again."
The goofball responded with, "Cool story bro."
I have no idea what he was getting at, so I responded with "if you say so." And that was the end of my Twitter interactions for the March 18 edition of the show.
I don't know what this photojournalist was trying to accomplish with his initial comment, but he didn't convince me that KARE11 conducts drug testing as part of its hiring process.
So for the third time in its nearly three months on the air I watched Breaking the News on March 22. That's two weeks in a row. I must be really bored, or terminally ill.
I started off my evening with a couple of meaningless observations: I noted that I still have no idea what the hell the name of the show is supposed to mean, and I noted that the opening segment was awkward, given Sarigianopoulos was standing with all sorts of visible mic cords hanging off of her. Clearly I'm a "hater."
The show opened with talk about the news of the day, including a segment about how local Muslims feel about international terror. It was a pretty good segment. It's not going to win an award, and it's a rather predictable piece, but it was well done. I didn't slap the Breaking the News team on the back for it, but I did find the Twitter reaction of its viewers to be curious, and I noted that.
I didn't hide my disdain for a segment they teased. It appeared to be about how former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, a media whore if ever there was one, is trying to parlay his expired NFL career into another moment in the spotlight. I don't necessarily disagree with Kluwe's opinions, I simply have little tolerance for his antics and choose not to read about them or watch them.
I'm also not a fan of watching stations shill for a network's entertainment division. Whether it's Jason DeRusha shilling for a show on CBS, Alix Kendall shilling for a show on FOX or Sarigianopoulos shilling for NBC's ninja warrior show. I turned the channel.
Once again I kept an eye on social media, and I did turn back to the channel several minutes later. I was interested to hear what they had to say about the Bent Paddle kerfuffle that broke last week. Unfortunately I failed to flip back to KARE11 in time to catch it, and I don't care enough to seek out the segment online.
So I watched the end of the show and tweeted a few other comments, most notably my unwillingness to feed Chris Kluwe's ego.
And that's when KARE11 and it's cutting edge news crew flushed all respect I had for the station right down the toilet.
I'm not sure if Sarigianopoulos was trying to be clever and funny, or demonstrate that she's a TV bimbo.
I had tweeted early in the show that the camera work appeared as if the camera guy was trying to get an upskirt shot of Sarigianopoulos as she was sitting at a desk. It was very awkward, and as I learned via Twitter during the show, it was the crew's first night with a fancy new camera.
I find it a bit sad that the FOX News Channel has a reputation for upskirt moments during its broadcasts. As I learned a couple of years ago, there are Youtube videos dissecting such moments in slow motion. Yes, that's the weird world we live in.
Two shots of Sarigianopoulos using that new camera were rather awkward, and obviously made me think of FOX news. I noted this via Twitter.
After I turned back to Breaking the News, I watched a couch shot of Sarigianopoulos and her fill-in sidekick talking, and it was hard not to notice that it looked like Sarigianopoulos could use a new pair of tights. The holes in her tights were large enough to be noticeable on a 50-inch TV. Not a crime, of course, just awkward, and being the funny tweeter that I am, I noted that it was time for Sarigianopoulos to buy new tights at Target.
After the show she replied via Twitter: "Thought you changed the channel? You can't fool us...you just love to hate. #hater #socialbully
Was she trying to be funny, or was she tweeting brainlessly? I changed the channel, and missed two segments in the middle of the show. Never did I say I wasn't turning the channel back after the Kluwe segment.
More important, how the hell am I a hater? I don't like Kluwe, at all, and won't hide the fact. While I didn't praise Sarigianopoulos for wearing tights without holes during a previous episode, am I really a "hater" for pointing out the awkwardness of her wardrobe, or the weird camera angles, on Tuesday evening?
I'd like to think she was simply having fun with my wardrobe criticism, but her #socialbully hashtag suggests otherwise. It suggests to me that she's arrogant and lacks critical thinking skills in canvassing Twitter feedback to her show.
I criticized her show for "shilling the network" and ripped the Kluwe segment (which I didn't watch,) but when did I tell people to go to hell for watching the garbage she's peddling? I have noted via Twitter that the program seems to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, but that's hardly bullying.
Sarigianopoulos has turned out to be a major disappointment. But I shouldn't be surprised, given everything I've had the misfortune of reading about her. And by that I mean crap that is spewed by Cheryl Johnson. (I can turn off Kluwe, but I can't help but peruse Johnson's "gossip.")
And if I had any doubt about whether or not Sarigianopoulos was trying to be flirty and fun, her response to my question about how I was guilty of bullying proved she's not the sharpest knife in the dishwasher. She responded, "um, no. You tweet hate about BTN daily and yet you continue to watch. Does it make you feel good to make others feel bad?"
Daily? I've watched the show three times, sweetheart, and I don't tweet about it when I don't watch it. Continue to watch? Yes, twice in two consecutive weeks.
Does it make me good to make others feel bad? Who feels bad? When was I telling people they were idiots who should be ashamed of themselves for their opinions?
Sarigianopoulos lacks critical thinking skills, and seems to be delusional.
As if this weren't enough, one of her behind-the-scenes cronies decided to lecture me, too, although she wised up and deleted her tweets to me.
A producer named Nikki lectured me in a series of tweets she doesn't stand behind, evidently. She threw out the "bullying" claim and suggested that I'm making personal attacks of some sort. Yes, I criticize opinions and I don't fawn over her lousy program, but her delusions were fantastic.
Part of her lecture said that while the show exists for the exchange of opinions, somehow there's an unwritten rule that I'm only allowed to offer constructive criticism. She didn't say it quite that way, but that's essentially what she said, although I can't prove it to you, because she's embarrassed by her opinions, it seems.
So there you have it, a weak show staffed by people with lackluster critical thinking skills, thin skin and not enough sense to ignore what they don't like on Twitter. (They ought to hire Dawn Mitchell to join their show.)
Dawn Mitchell is a third-string quarterback
I don't use my Twitter account on a regular basis, but I log in occasionally. And yes, I tweet links to my writing, sometimes, despite the fact I don't have many followers. My account isn't there for chatting with the unwashed masses, it's primarily for reading what others have to say, be it Rena Sarigianopoulos, Jason DeRusha, Keith Leventhal (who?) or "Boring" Joe Mauer.
Not so long ago Jared Allen retired from the NFL. (If this means nothing to you, it doesn't really matter.) There were a variety of posts that day, toasting the dopey goofball for his corny retirement announcement.
Dawn Mitchell, the secondary sports anchor for the local Fox affiliate, tweeted an "outtake" of some sort from an interview she did, evidently. (I didn't watch the clip, I didn't care enough to know.)
Her tweet was the first once I ran across, so I quote tweeted it, which is very different than replying to it, noting Allen was washed up, so what took so long?
Calling him washed up is harsh. He is past his prime, nobody would argue that. His playing time was reduced the past year or more, not because he couldn't do his job on defense, I suspect. My guess is that after years of pounding on the NFL gridiron he wasn't as spry as he was a decade earlier. Like most players, injuries limit minutes on the field, especially after a decade in the league.
He retired at 33, it's not as if he's about to enter a nursing home, but plenty of people don't survive 10 years in the NFL, and he played 12 seasons. I'm guessing wear and tear was taking its toll, and you can't blame a well compensated player for wanting to get out while he can still walk away on his own, especially in this day and age.
So yes, I was harsh in my criticism of his retirement. He's not really washed up. I quote tweeted Mitchell's clip, sharing it with the dozens of people who follow my account. She should appreciate that.
And what if she doesn't appreciate it? What should she do then? Ignore it. Yes, I drew her attention to my comment by quoting her tweet, but that doesn't require a response. Nowhere did I ask Mitchell to comment or respond. I made a statement. Don't like that I called Allen washed up? Ignore it and move on with your life.
But not Mitchell. She found it necessary to respond, saying that "I don't find your negativity appealing." She's well within her right to do that, but she looks foolish for doing so. Not because she gave me her opinion via a reply, but because of what she tweeted afterward.
I replied by telling her that I didn't realize I was seeking her validation. We then exchanged several comments, hers defending the honor of poor Jared Allen. I agreed with her on one point, but noted that it didn't change the fact he was not going out on top.
At that point she should not have responded and moved on with her life. Not being social media savvy, Mitchell chose otherwise.
Her next comment to me; "So?"
So I responded, by telling her that I called it like I saw it, and she drew attention to it. She noted, again, that she finds negativity unappealing.
At this point I'm confused by the lack of critical thinking on the part of Mitchell, so I replied by telling her I find music festivals unappealing. I don't care if she finds my negativity unappealing, therefore I shared with her something I find unappealing, which happened to be unrelated to our entire exchange.
Now you've gotta think that Mitchell is going to stop responding, as the exchange is clearly going nowhere, and I've made a mockery of it.
Nope, not Mitchell. She's not that savvy. Confused, she replies, "huh".
I assume her response was meant to be in the form of a question, wondering what I meant. I don't know, and it doesn't matter, as she quickly tweeted again, noting "answering a tweet sent at you is not drawing attention. Don't tweet into begin w duh."
Of course the flaw with her logic is the fact that I didn't send a tweet at her, I quote tweeted her, and never asked for a response. She gave it freely, and it did draw attention to my opinion, even if it was only my attention. Had she ignored my quote tweet I'd have forgotten I tweeted it, and today I'd still think Mitchell is smarter than she now appears, at least to me.
By the way, my final response was "tweet was not sent at you. Duh".
Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I clearly didn't ask her for a response, she unintelligently chose to do so.
You'd think a media darling who is trying to establish herself as a household name in the market, a la Mark Rosen, would be thankful her content is being retweeted in any form. I'll guarantee you most media jackals foam at the mouth when their tweets go viral.
A smart, savvy sports anchor-reporter takes every follower and retweet she can get and ignores the crap she disagrees with, especially when she's using her official station account. Trying to put people in their place, and attempting to insult them in doing so, makes you look like an amateur.
Word to the wise: Don't be a Mitchell.
Not so long ago Jared Allen retired from the NFL. (If this means nothing to you, it doesn't really matter.) There were a variety of posts that day, toasting the dopey goofball for his corny retirement announcement.
Dawn Mitchell, the secondary sports anchor for the local Fox affiliate, tweeted an "outtake" of some sort from an interview she did, evidently. (I didn't watch the clip, I didn't care enough to know.)
Her tweet was the first once I ran across, so I quote tweeted it, which is very different than replying to it, noting Allen was washed up, so what took so long?
Calling him washed up is harsh. He is past his prime, nobody would argue that. His playing time was reduced the past year or more, not because he couldn't do his job on defense, I suspect. My guess is that after years of pounding on the NFL gridiron he wasn't as spry as he was a decade earlier. Like most players, injuries limit minutes on the field, especially after a decade in the league.
He retired at 33, it's not as if he's about to enter a nursing home, but plenty of people don't survive 10 years in the NFL, and he played 12 seasons. I'm guessing wear and tear was taking its toll, and you can't blame a well compensated player for wanting to get out while he can still walk away on his own, especially in this day and age.
So yes, I was harsh in my criticism of his retirement. He's not really washed up. I quote tweeted Mitchell's clip, sharing it with the dozens of people who follow my account. She should appreciate that.
And what if she doesn't appreciate it? What should she do then? Ignore it. Yes, I drew her attention to my comment by quoting her tweet, but that doesn't require a response. Nowhere did I ask Mitchell to comment or respond. I made a statement. Don't like that I called Allen washed up? Ignore it and move on with your life.
But not Mitchell. She found it necessary to respond, saying that "I don't find your negativity appealing." She's well within her right to do that, but she looks foolish for doing so. Not because she gave me her opinion via a reply, but because of what she tweeted afterward.
I replied by telling her that I didn't realize I was seeking her validation. We then exchanged several comments, hers defending the honor of poor Jared Allen. I agreed with her on one point, but noted that it didn't change the fact he was not going out on top.
At that point she should not have responded and moved on with her life. Not being social media savvy, Mitchell chose otherwise.
Her next comment to me; "So?"
So I responded, by telling her that I called it like I saw it, and she drew attention to it. She noted, again, that she finds negativity unappealing.
At this point I'm confused by the lack of critical thinking on the part of Mitchell, so I replied by telling her I find music festivals unappealing. I don't care if she finds my negativity unappealing, therefore I shared with her something I find unappealing, which happened to be unrelated to our entire exchange.
Now you've gotta think that Mitchell is going to stop responding, as the exchange is clearly going nowhere, and I've made a mockery of it.
Nope, not Mitchell. She's not that savvy. Confused, she replies, "huh".
I assume her response was meant to be in the form of a question, wondering what I meant. I don't know, and it doesn't matter, as she quickly tweeted again, noting "answering a tweet sent at you is not drawing attention. Don't tweet into begin w duh."
Of course the flaw with her logic is the fact that I didn't send a tweet at her, I quote tweeted her, and never asked for a response. She gave it freely, and it did draw attention to my opinion, even if it was only my attention. Had she ignored my quote tweet I'd have forgotten I tweeted it, and today I'd still think Mitchell is smarter than she now appears, at least to me.
By the way, my final response was "tweet was not sent at you. Duh".
Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I clearly didn't ask her for a response, she unintelligently chose to do so.
You'd think a media darling who is trying to establish herself as a household name in the market, a la Mark Rosen, would be thankful her content is being retweeted in any form. I'll guarantee you most media jackals foam at the mouth when their tweets go viral.
A smart, savvy sports anchor-reporter takes every follower and retweet she can get and ignores the crap she disagrees with, especially when she's using her official station account. Trying to put people in their place, and attempting to insult them in doing so, makes you look like an amateur.
Word to the wise: Don't be a Mitchell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)