Recently I wrote a post about the media and racing, making a case that the media is too close to the business to be critical and give it the push it needs often times. One of the respondents wrote a rebuttal that was quite good and made me think. However, one part I do disagree with:
Traditional journalism has also been replaced by bloggers or, as one person now calls them, sloggers. In the absence of a name or a face, they are people who sit by computers and criticize.
There are some sharp people out there, who are accountable (their posts are archived) and that argue, debate and put forth alternative points of view with passion and a point. Whether you are heaping praise or being critical, you have to do so with a point. It does not matter if you have a journalism degree or not, and it certainly does not matter if your name is Bill, or Sue or Chalk Eating Weasel.
For example, one new blogger wrote a response to Ray Paulick's comment below where Ray stated he was “guilty as charged for siding with horsemen” in many of his opines. "Mr. Paulick's claim that not siding with the horsemen would leave the sport without horses is an oversimplification to the point where it becomes an insult to the reader’s intelligence", he says, among other things. We very rarely read such politically incorrect opinions in the regular press and hey, maybe it is link bait, but it is good link bait. What he says is essentially correct, or at the very least debatable, no matter how much we as insiders don't want to hear it. You would never read this opinion in the mainstream press in this sport.
He is a man with an opinion, who backs it up with some fact and some passion. If he is a 'slogger' pass me more slog please.