Wiki Experimentation

I am pretty awful with HTML and things of that nature. That's why I'm not very good with editing webpages like Wikipedia. I thought that this assignment was going to be challenging, but it turned out to be easier than I thought it was going to be.

I wasn't really sure what to try and change on Wikipedia. It seems like there is already information about everything. I decided to take it local and punch in my high school. There wasn't much info at all concerning my alma mater, so I decided to enter in some information about the types of sports at Sullivan West Central School. I also added a section describing how football plays in its own class different from the rest of the school's sports.

Next I went to a collegiate summer league baseball team that I interned with over the summer, the Niagara Power. I don't know much about the players on the team, but I did know one thing that was missing: the mascot. I added that while almost butchering the page in the process.

Next I wanted to make a change to an athlete's page. I decided to pick on new Knick Eddie House. I always made fun of how well-groomed House was during his playing days in Boston. I added a playful comment in the "personal" section that House is one of the most well-groomed players in the NBA and that his immaculate chin strap and eye brows are the toast of the league. I saved those comments, and then thought of something else to add. Literally one minute later, my addition was removed. The other two, as of right now, still remain.

Overall, I maybe spent 20 minutes tops entering in the information. I wasn't worrying about citing because this was all information I knew to be true, including Eddie House's eyebrows. The swiftness in which my post was removed tells me a lot about how Wikipedia is trying to establish itself as a credible source of information, and that is a good thing. It is certainly the most popular of all the wikis, and it was too powerful for me.

Talking To The President

For this assignment, I really didn't know where I was going to go to call in. I knew I wanted to do something related to sports, since that is really all I know. I tried to call in to WFAN New York on my way back from Spring Break, but after 10 to 12 attempts without even reaching the producer, I knew there was no way I was going to get through that traffic. I thought about calling WEEI to give a New York opinion on something related to Boston. The WFAN experience discouraged me, because there will be just as many if not more callers during the times I would be calling in.

Then I struck gold. I have only just recently started reading Barstool Sports. I don't care for it that much, but some of the links are funny and sometimes they actually do talk about sports. I noticed that the site has a "Barstool Power Hour" internet radio show three times a week. I listened in last Wednesday to get a reading on the show, since there was a call-in line. It is kind of amateurish. The sound quality is poor since it seems like the hosts are both calling in to a line. There really is no set topic of discussion. It is almost a free-for-all. But when "El Pres" was complaining about the lack of callers, I knew that this was the place to go if I wanted to get on.

I called in last Friday at around 3:15. The line went right through to the radio broadcast of the show, and then after a minute or two I was connected with the producer. Nobody was really talking about sports, and I think he was refreshed when I said that I wanted to discuss how CBS was performing as a network with its coverage of March Madness. He said he would put me right through, and I only had to wait about two callers to talk with El Pres. The entirety of my call-in can be heard HERE. Just fast forward to like halfway through? Something like that.

I talked with the guys for a good 3 minutes or so, and El Pres was very receptive of my ideas and thoughts. I didn't listen long after, but I don't think that anyone commented on my call. It wasn't as juicy as someone randomly asking whether Chipper Jones was a Hall of Famer or what superpower you would want to possess. Nobody wanted to talk about what a sucky job CBS does near the end of games.

Overall, it was a very exhilarating experience. There were definitely some butterflies in my stomach when I started talking to the producer. I was barely able to mumble what I wanted to talk about. Something clicked once my name was said on the show though, and I didn't really stutter or stammer while on the air. That was fortunate. Maybe next time I will go for insane, but this was a good time to keep it cool.

Review of "Talk Rad!o"

4.0 out of 5 stars Definitely an enjoyable read, March 16, 2010

By	Ross Bernhardt (Amherst, MA USA) - See all my reviews

After reading a bunch of different pieces about talk radio hosts, this encapsulated all of that into a fun afternoon of reading. Bogosian really nailed the persona of a talk radio host: brash, rude, seemingly above the listeners and other employees. That is what I usually picture when I listen to talk radio. I love him, I hate him, I want horrible things to happen to him; the full spectrum of emotions when listening to a talk radio host are felt. Bogosian really did a great job of creating a character that evoked such a reaction from the reader.

The length of the play is extremely manageable, and it doesn't need to be any longer. I don't really want to know what happens after that one night in the studio, I want to think about what happens. It's also short enough that it made me question why I keep going back to talk radio time and again. It frustrates but also keeps pulling me back in, and I feel like Bogosian does a great job of explaining this. This is fun read if you have an hour or two to spare."




-I really did like this play, and not just because it was so short. It had so much depth for its brevity, and it was funny to boot. Even though it was not sports talk, it gave me a look at what I might encounter when I call in to a radio station.

Stimulation

The fact of the matter is that it is not John Ziegler’s job to be responsible, or nuanced, or to think about whether his on-air comments are productive or dangerous, or cogent, or even defensible. That is not to say that the host would not defend his “we’re better”—strenuously—or that he does not believe it’s true. It is to say that he has exactly one on-air job, and that is to be stimulating.

This is why I don't really care for political talk radio, or political television. The whole idea makes sense from a business standpoint. When your listeners are interested, they are more likely to come back. It works for these stations, so why fix it.

The problem that I have with it is that it discredits the whole industry. Sure there is freedom of speech, but there is a limit for me. When you give your opinion and state it as fact, which many on talk radio and news channels do, people are taken along for the ride. That show that was described with the host faking interviews is awful. Practical jokes are one thing, but elaborate hoaxes like this one are simply unethical, especially when exposed to such a large audience.

The aim is to attract an audience and being outrageous and saying controversial things does that. I think that you can still be interesting and stimulating and attract an audience without being so controversial. That seems like a short cut to me. Come up with original and thought-provoking ideas that don't walk a fine line between disgusting and infuriating listeners.

I listen to sports talk radio, and most of the time hosts hoot and holler and try to stir the pot. I just don't think this is necessary. I as a listener would just appreciate insightful commentary and an open mind when other people don't agree with your thoughts. Maybe I am just wired differently than the rest of the country that seems to like this kind of stuff.

John Ziegler

Reading this piece gave me mixed feelings about Ziegler. Initially I liked the descriptions of his demeanor and on-air persona. The fact that he treats his listeners and callers with respect is refreshing compared to some of the hosts I listen too.

I primarily listen to sports talk radio, something that Ziegler used to do. Most sports talk hosts are brash, rude, and unapologetic. The best examples I can think of are Mike Francesa and Chris "Mad Dog" Russo of the famed "Mike and the Mad Dog" show on WFAN New York. The name "Mad Dog" is an understatement. If a caller said something that didn't sit well with one of these two hosts, they would unleash hell on that sorry individual. I thought that New England radio would be a little different, but "The Big Show" just ups the ante. Instead of two guys screaming at you, they have three. The calmest show that I could find was the "Dale and Holley Show." Those guys are inquisitive and listen to their callers, dealing with irrational thoughts calmly and rationally.

As I continued to read the piece, I just became frustrated with his outlook on political correctness. He claims that it has ruined his life, and when you look at his track record, it is no surprise that it has. At some point, you should learn from your mistakes, but he continued to walk that fine line complaining about it the whole way. All of the brashness my sports talk hosts is fine because they don't cross any boundaries in regard to PC. It almost sickens me reading about some of the things that he had said, even when he was doing sports talk. It is almost the definition of insanity. He keeps crossing the same lines while hoping for different results.

All in all, I don't think I would enjoy listening to Ziegler. I am sure he is very intelligent and well-spoken, but his brand of content seems to rub me the wrong way.

Twitter Tracking

Image from pastepotpete.com

This past week, I have followed a lot of people on Twitter. I never thought that I would be typing that sentence. I was one of the most staunch critics of Twitter on the planet. I hated it. I didn't understand the obsession. I hated the idiocy of celebrity "tweets." When I found out that I had to get a Twitter for this class, I was more than disappointed at becoming a hypocrite.

Then I started following people that were of interest to me, as well as a variety of other different Twitter feeds. Twitter is actually a very interesting form of new media. I love reading the random musings of my favorite writer, Bill Simmons (@sportsguy33). I enjoy following the eccentric golfer Ian Poulter. News services provide interesting info and links to match up. Rober Ebert and his twenty million tweets have been somewhat compelling, if excessive.

I was also able to use Twitter to send links out of my own blog. It doesn't do that much good, since I only have 7 followers. Still, it is just another way to try and spread the word. I hope that if I somehow can find more followers, the reach of my blog might grow.

Some of it still bothers me. Random people started following me, and I think it was spam. I was followed and un-followed a lot. Some tweets are too specific or too vague for my taste. I still do not get the whole re-tweeting thing. I am not logged on enough to see every single update. Some of the tweets are very lame. I also don't like how direct tweets can be seen by all of your followers. I guess I have to take the good with the bad.

I won't say that Twitter is the greatest thing ever, but it is definitely not the worst thing like I had originally thought. It can be a useful medium for random notes and small news bits, and funny back-and-forths. I will continue to use Twitter, but not because I have to. I don't believe it, but I want to use Twitter.

Commenting: Very Interesting

I have just begun to delve into the world of commenting. It is not something that I normally participate in. I really don't read a lot of stories online very closely, certainly not enough to post a comment. I always felt that it didn't really serve a purpose. What was the point of commenting? It doesn't change the story, doesn't usually add anything. It didn't make sense why so many people would have the urge to comment on a simple online story.

I decided to comment on three sports-related stories. The first story I commented on was about the Russian President wanting heads to roll after his country's poor performance at the Olympics. I tried to make a funny comment: "In Russia, you don't participate in the Olympics. Olympics participate you!" Six minutes later, the reply "You're dumb" appeared. It was also liked twice. However, my post was liked four times, so I am the big winner. I wasn't trying to add anything to the conversation or offend, but apparently my comment irked someone enough to reply.

The next story I commented on was about new Red Sox shortstop Marco Scutaro. I delivered my honest opinion about Scutaro, which happens to contradict what most Sox fans say. I didn't get any reaction, but I thought I might. I was trying to give my opinion because I truly feel that it was a bad move to sign Scutaro.

I also commented on an article about Alex Rodriguez being contacted by federal authorities concerning Dr. Anthony Galea. The story only had one comment, and it was an Anti-A-Rod comment. I could have fought back, but I decided to take the high road and issue an independent comment.

I didn't really feel any particular rush in commenting on any of these stories, nor did I feel that I contributed anything. An online story usually says everything that needs to be said. All other comments are ancillary. I usually only comment on blogs where things are left open, ideas circulate, and discussion is encouraged. I don't think that news stories are written to start discussions.

I find it much easier to comment on Facebook. I normally comment on things like status updates, and I usually wish someone a happy birthday every day. I will also comment on other people's posts if they are funny or maybe if I haven't talked to that person in a while. I feel like commenting on Facebook is easier because of the nature of the site. It is a social networking site, which encourages interaction between users. Commenting hasn't been around for that long on Facebook, but it was only a matter of time. I think it belongs there, whereas I don't see how commenting is useful for newspapers and their websites.