Bloggers Have Done Lots of Things That Nancy Clark Hasn’t
Nancy Who? Well, that’s part of the point. Nancy Clark is apparently some sportswriter who recently wrote a column slagging bloggers:
Today I’ll be talking with Dan McCarney. The bloggers won’t.
I’ll also be posing questions during Iowa State’s media day to Bret Meyer, Todd Blythe and Jason Scales.
The bloggers won’t.
Monday, I’ll be chatting with Kirk Ferentz.
The bloggers won’t.
I’ll also get in a word at Iowa’s media day with Drew Tate.
The bloggers won’t.
Tuesday, I’ll interview Mark Farley at Northern Iowa’s media day.
The bloggers won’t.
Now, I have no earthly idea who Dan McCarney, Bret Meyer, Todd Blythe, Jason Scales, Kirk Ferentz, Drew Tate, or Mark Farley are. But that just might reflect my utter lack of sports knowledge. Let’s just assume that Dan, Bret, Todd, Jason, Kirk, Drew, and Mark are the biggest stars to hit the sports scene since DiMaggio.
There are still a few things Nancy Clark hasn’t done that bloggers have. For example, Captain Ed says to Nancy:
Oh, and by the way, I interviewed Lynn Swann and J. C. Watts last year. I interviewed Bernard Goldberg and Rep. Mark Kennedy. You didn’t.
My examples aren’t as good as Ed’s, but here are a few:
I interviewed TankerKC, the first known person to express any doubts on the Internet about the authenticity of the forged CBS National Guard documents. Nancy Clark didn’t.
Other than his posts on Free Republic, I published the first statements on the Web from Harry W. MacDougald (aka Buckhead), who is generally credited with breaking that scandal, about how and when he formed his suspicions about the forged CBS documents. Nancy Clark didn’t.
I interviewed Bob Sipchen, editor of the L.A. Times
Sunday Opinion “Current” section. Nancy Clark didn’t.
And I interviewed Senator Carl Levin — or at least pretended to. Nancy Clark didn’t even try to fake that one.
But it’s not just about the interviews. I provided the tip for a front-page story about Justice Ginsburg in the L.A. Times. Nancy Clark didn’t. I had an op-ed piece published in the L.A. Times. Nancy Clark didn’t. I have been mentioned in books by Dan Gillmor and Hugh Hewitt. Nancy Clark hasn’t. I caused a panel from the Ninth Circuit to issue a correction to one of their opinions. Nancy Clark didn’t.
You might start to get the impression that it’s all about me. Well, maybe in my mind. But in the real world, other bloggers can play this game — much more effectively. Just a few off the top of my head:
Dean Esmay interviewed Swift Vets Steve Gardner, Van Odell, and George Elliott. Nancy Clark didn’t.
Bill from INDC Journal interviewed CBS Evening News reporter Richard Schlesinger about the forged documents scandal. And he helped break that story to begin with by interviewing a forensic document examiner named Dr. Philip Bouffard. Nancy Clark didn’t.
Jeff Goldstein from Protein Wisdom has interviewed, or at least pretended to interview, individuals ranging from Ted Kennedy to Karl Rove’s breakfast burrito.
Nancy Clark hasn’t.
And Nancy Clark sure as heck didn’t do any of the stuff described here.
Need I go on?
I don’t think so. But I am counting on commenters and other bloggers to fill in for me. What have you done that Nancy Clark hasn’t? (With your blogs, I mean.)
P.S. If I were writing irony as fiction, I couldn’t do better than to juxtapose this actual passage from Clark’s column:
Know that if the information is coming from the mainstream media – the accredited reporters, broadcasters and photojournalists – they are following strict professional guidelines that the looser outlets don’t require. The information has been verified, has been scrutinized by editors, has been fact-checked and proofed.
with this editor’s note from the beginning of the column:
Editor’s note: A column by Nancy Clark published in Thursday’s newspaper included the incorrect use of the word “voracity”, instead of the word “veracity”. Clark submitted the column without the error. The mistake was generated by an editor after she filed the column.
Man, this stuff just writes itself.
UPDATE: Thanks to Ed for the link as well as the pointer to Sister Toldjah’s excellent post on the same topic.
Nancy Clark went to college and she’s an accredited “professional journalist,” don’t you know (if you consider a sportswriter to be a journalist). She “fact checks” and has “editors,” just in case she gets Drew Tate’s passing statistics wrong. This is one high-powered woman, and I’m not sure lightweights like Patterico, PowerLine, INDC, Dean Esmay, or Hugh Hewitt should mess with her. We better back off and re-group, because “journalism” is after all one of those professions that requires rare, highly developed skills like talking to people, making telephone calls, transcribing quotes, and writing declarative sentences.
We can only bow in submission to such talent. What did we do to deserve the efforts of people like Nancy Clark?Mark D (a9eb8b) — 8/6/2005 @ 6:54 am
She thinks she’s Brenda Starr…rip her to shreds!TCO (3c2924) — 8/6/2005 @ 7:39 am
A sportswriter of all people. Countles rumors, whispers, and occasional flat-out fantasies make the sports pages. If they couldn’t go to print without identifying the sources of their supposed “breaking stories,” there would be nothing to run with but the box scores. I think a lot of the sources have learned how to play these writers like fiddles.Tom Blumer (a042f5) — 8/6/2005 @ 10:12 am
Local bloggers in this past week’s 2nd Congressional District (yes, including me) played a role in defeating the Democratic candidate whose deceptive TV and radio ads made it appear he was a Bush supporter when he was a Bush basher. The vid got to Trey Jackson, who put up the vid and blogged on it, getting it the national exposure it needed. Rush noticed it and used it as he beat up on Hackett (the Dem) and the video for most of his program on election day, and for a while one the day after Hackett lost.
Rush says “The Blog that broke Ad-Gate”
BizzyBlog:Tom Blumer (a042f5) — 8/6/2005 @ 10:27 am
Election: Local Center-Right Blogs Have Earned a Victory Lap
I posted on this as well, and ofter looking at her last few articles, her big claim to fame is, get this, Catholic Womens Highschool Baseball, big news eh?DazzlinDino (219629) — 8/6/2005 @ 10:58 am
[…] When it comes to reporting stories which are not in line with their agendas or which darken the bright narratives they compose for their favorites, the MSM has long-resorted to playing the “lalalal, I can’t hear you,” game. And they resent like hell the bloggers who are insisting that they take their fingers out of their ears and grow up. […]The Anchoress » Journalism’s recovery from coma? (a936fc) — 8/6/2005 @ 11:25 am
Bloggers, by the very nature of BLOGS are superior to the MSM. Bloggers post a lot of things that would never, ever make it into the MSM.Ghost Dansing (8e49e0) — 8/6/2005 @ 1:04 pm
I worked for Hans Bethe, Nancy Clark didn’t
I chatted with Beverly Sills (actually several famous opera singers, my mom was a member of the Santa Fe Opera Guild), Nancy Clark hasn’t
I knew J. Robert Oppenheimer (Ok I was just a kid), Nancy Clark didn’t
I discused on several occasions physics with John Bardeen, Nancy Clark didn’t
I went to a birthday party Judy Garland threw for Liza Minelli (Ok, I don’t remember it, and everybody in first and second class was invited, I have pictures), um Nancy Clark hasn’t
My wife met and chatted with Tony Randall at the White House, Nancy Clark didn’t
I greeted President Kennedy in Los Alamos, Nancy Clark didn’t
I have sung with the then Denver Symphony (now Colorado), Pheonix Symphony, and the Hartford symphony, Nancy Clark hasn’t
I jammed for an afternoon with Dizzy Gillespie (which is kinda funny as I stink as a jazz bassest), Nancy Clark hasn’t
I tell Sam Ting jokes, bet Nancy Clark doesn’t even know who Sam Ting is
And ya wanna know what, it hasn’t made me more important or more honest than anyone else. It does make me a name dropper and a braggart which is why my name is wrongCommadore Name Drop (7d9319) — 8/6/2005 @ 1:59 pm
I haven’t linked to my blog as it is mostly for my family and students.Commadore Name Drop (7d9319) — 8/6/2005 @ 2:05 pm
Well, Nancy Clark should be grateful to bloggers…now I’ve actually heard of “her” and I hadn’t. Now, I’ve actually heard of those famous people she’s interviewed, but I hadn’t (ever heard of)… but she probably won’t (be grateful).Curious Reader (0f4734) — 8/6/2005 @ 3:53 pm
I’ve also written my name in the snow with no hands.
[Me too. Without urinating. – Patterico]Bill from INDC (2cdd57) — 8/6/2005 @ 4:52 pm
I’m just wondering if this woman works in a town where there are a lot of “sports blogs” where people spout their opinions without having much real knowledge. Could that have been the source of her diatribe? I’m guessing the people she interviewed have something to do with the Iowa sports scene. Sort of like the rabid fans that know everything about what a local sports team SHOULD do, or should’ve done during a game who call sports talk radio. If that’s the case, I’d understand her trying to emphasize that she actually talks to the players and coaches so she knows facts from the horse’s mouths rather than just having opinion and conjecture on her side.
I didn’t read the column (see… spouting an opinion with no facts) but I’m thinking that this lady may not have meant to attack ALL blogs, but specifically the local fan blogs. Why else would her examples of who she talked to be so lame and local? Isn’t it possible that the political bloggers are looking a little too defensive here? I suppose it’s also possible that, if she did lump ALL blogs together and wanted to make a political/social point on her sports pages, she definitely overreached. Either way, the furor darned near makes the point that bloggers can make a mountain out of a molehill. My vote: chill!
[My vote: read her piece. It’s one click away. — P]irishlad (3a8e4b) — 8/6/2005 @ 5:17 pm
Read it. New vote: OVERREACH, because she’s ignorant of the Swifties and stretched her point too far. But, what she was talking about, other than that bad example WAS sports blogs (note other examples specifically about opinion spouting local sports blogs and radio shows). So, she made an ignorant reference, but, dude, she’s an IOWA sports writer fer gosh sakes (nothing wrong with Iowa, but it’s not exactly NYC). Even with the overreach, and the shot at my beloved Swifties, seems like a lot of fuss over damned little. My concern is that making mountains out of molehills like this, especially on a “dreaded conservative leaning blog,” is just more ammunition when the moonbats want to ignore it when a real mountain is pointed out (say… I don’t know… the reasons for the WOT). As my dear departed dad said: pick your battles.irishlad (3a8e4b) — 8/6/2005 @ 6:47 pm
Nancy Clark works for a nothing newspaper in a nothing town doing virtually nothing (Catholic women’s high school baseball, how can anything be more low profile). Why all the fuss about nothing?docdave (aa2c5c) — 8/7/2005 @ 5:24 am
Stop bashing Clark. She broke the Raphael Palmero clean on steroids story before anyone in America; she, and she alone, she was the first to interview East German female swimmer Fritz von Rommel; it was Ms. Clark who picked Mike Tyson; I could go on. I think. Oh, and she’s also a sports “nutritionist” who begins a book on the subject like this: It is now an accepted fact that humans are electromagnetic beings. As such, the best possible modality for healing is energy. People with modalities and electromagnetic stuff are important to our culture.Howard Veit (baba22) — 8/7/2005 @ 5:42 am
Whoopsie, I just got an email from the Nancy Clark who is the authoriss of the modality stuff. She has never been a reporter in Oregon. The Nancy Clark in Oregon is writing a book as soon as she can find her crayons.Howard Veit (baba22) — 8/7/2005 @ 5:47 am
Rathergate anniversary – 32 days and counting – MS
The New York Times is faced with an impossible dilemma (much like CBS in September, 2004). Either (1) continue to ignore the scandal and face further erosion of credibility and loss of relevance or (2) acknowledge the scandal (with its best leftist s…The Cassandra Page (59ce3a) — 8/7/2005 @ 10:14 am
“Blog ‘reports’ lack media’s credibility”
This means, of course, that blogs are much more dependable sources of information.
Tsar LazarTsar Lazar (5df00d) — 8/7/2005 @ 10:45 am
Of course you’re right, she’s a small fry, but if this be a “battle” I think it was over before it started.
Some targets are so fat and so stupid you just pick them off while driving by in the pickup. It’s called roadkill where I come from.Mark D (1d6514) — 8/7/2005 @ 3:12 pm
Uhmm…has Nancy blown a coverup in Canada? Some Captain did.Mike H. (cbc75c) — 8/7/2005 @ 3:42 pm
She actually has a damn good point, which boils down to something really simple that my Grandmother used to tell me: “Don’t believe everything that you read.” Unfortunately, she was quite pig-headed in the way that she chose to express herself. Especially since that’s a knife that definitely cuts both ways.bcoffee (44c540) — 8/9/2005 @ 11:50 am
BTW – It’s worse: Clark’s from Iowa, not Oregon.
I can guarantee it’s nowheres-ville, I live there.Oregon? (e63478) — 8/9/2005 @ 12:04 pm
Has Nancy Clark Interviewed Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich? I did. I also videotaped it it and played it on my blog.
I like this game…Trey Jackson (5950b8) — 8/9/2005 @ 9:22 pm
Hey, we interviewed Nancy Clark, and Nancy Clark didn’t.Orson Swindle (1dc5b8) — 8/23/2005 @ 12:34 pm
I recognized when I was in over my head, shut up, listened, and learned the Truth (read: became more conservative).
Nancy Clark didn’t
– but we have hope…
[Irishlad, let’s truly keep her in perspective. It is Iowa, not Paducah, Kentucky we’re talking about here.]
In truth, it is not Nancy as a person, but Nancy as a type we are concerned with. This educated-well-beyond-what-her-common-sense-will-bear-bimbo exists everywhere real men and women are too afraid, untrained in proper argumentation, or leftwardly spun by MSM outlets into uncertainty to express our conservatism. The more folks learn and practice conservatism here in blogland, the more likely it is to flow out into the bricks, mortar, and flesh all around us; and the less likely we’ll have liberal idiots running areas of our country into the toilet and watching helplessly while Mother Nature flushes.Repairman (0a5dce) — 9/21/2005 @ 8:27 pm
This one makes sence “One’s first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything – and one’s last is to come to terms with everything.”Fabian Castor (cbda67) — 6/14/2007 @ 1:27 am