Re: Obviously, any such QB rankings will be subjective...

Quote
RamsFanSinceLA

Quote
zn

Quote
Rams43
However...

I do think that rankings by players or coaches would likely be far more bias-free than those of media types and certainly fans.

And I will say this. While trying to distinguish between #6 through #12 involves some hair splitting, don’t you think?

I don't agree that as a whole group, "media types" are biased. It just always seems to me that every fan of every team accuses the media of not seeing things THEIR way (as fans). Wonder why.

But even that's a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, pundits as a rule are far more objective than any dedicated fan. It would be an upside down universe if that were NOT the case.

But on the other hand, national pundits (as I frequently say) follow 32 teams and do not know any of them as well as we know the Rams. And that's part of the dynamic. No one watches 256 games a year while also paying equal attention to both sides in each game.

Still, I always resist the idea that "media types" are this homogenous, easily stereotyped "thing." Naw, from my experience, that's just not the case. But again fans always complain about "the media" when they do not hear their own thoughts echoed back to them. Part of the complaint is to over-generalize about what "the media" is.

For example, Charles Robinson is part of "the media." But his tweets from Rams camp had a ton of interesting info and he sure did not display any mythical "prejudice" to the Rams. He came, he saw, he reported. On the other hand I liked it because he was pretty optimistic about the Rams. So who knows. That's my bias though not his.


...

...

With that statement in blue, aren't you saying that "fans" are this homogenous, easily stereotyped "thing"?

Yes. In this sense.

Fans as a rule have a passion and a bias. Nothing obligates us (like say professionalism) to be anything but emotionally invested, dedicated partisans. That's the very nature of being a fan. Some of us can be somewhat more objective than others, but the bottomline is that we are fans.

Honestly, have you ever listened to fans of other teams complaining about an analysis of their team they don't like? And how it can get into ridiculous extremes, including bashing the character of the pundit and/or claiming there's a conspiracy theory. (This stuff happens on twitter on a daily basis.) Well...all fans are like that, at heart, to one extent or another (though not all of them go to those extremes). I think denying that is just denying a simple reality. Again. By definition we are partisans.

But there's no symmetry between saying the media is not easily homogenized and stereotyped (they're not), and then saying fans ARE that. No. That's a false logic. It doesn't reverse.

So rather than be trapped by a false equivalence, I would put it this way.

No. It is not true that sports media is all homogenous and easily stereotyped. I know damm well that's not the case. So whenever some pundit says something about the Rams I don't like or don't agree with, I never get off on trashing "the media." That's an entirely false approach.

Yes. It is true that fans are by their nature partisans, or they're not even fans. We have emotional investment and a high degree of one-sidedness in how we view things--we are and act like partisans, to one degree or another. That's just what being a fan IS.

But I also added an "on the other hand" which you missed. It is also true that no national pundit or analyst knows as much about any of the 32 teams they cover as we know about the Rams. So quite often, we find that a national analyst doesn't quite get this or that thing. That's to be expected. It's not a conspiracy. There's limits to what one give media guy can know about any single team.






















....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2019 10:22AM by zn.