Originally Posted by 757690
I actually agree with Schienfleld. That wasn't my point. My point is that it was a poorly written article. He has the right to write anything he wants, and when I think he does a lousy job, I have the right to state my opinion.
The reason why it was a poorly written article is because it was intentionally inflammatory and insulting to Baker when it didn't have to be. A well written journalistic article would have simply argued the facts, without calling Baker an idiot, without the condescending, know it all tone, without using all caps to make his point.
It read like a post on the ESPN message board, not one written by a professional journalist.
Except for he's writing for the ESPN blog which operates according to different standards. Since his job depends on hits from folks like us, writing inflammatory rhetoric is part of his task at times. That's not Schoenfield's fault, I'm afraid.
As far as stating your opinion goes, sure, you have the right to do so. But fighting name calling with name calling doesn't really constitute good argument. Neither does backing up your opinion with the statement that you have the right to it.
It's cool, though. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I suspect we ultimately see eye to eye on the Baker issue -- just not on how Schoenfield wrote about it.