Lastest Phil Hersh column

[prettykeys]

And would he have made it had it been anyone other than Sasha? That's almost worse than attacking everyone indiscriminately.

Probably not! But his point still stands. I really disliked Kirk jabbing at Sasha's character, because even if Kirk was once a skater herself, she's joined the ranks of the rest of us spectators.

And I don't think anyone would even call me a big Sasha fan.

 

[Mathman]

He is only arguing that athletes should be given that benefit of the doubt and their words should be taken at face value. I'm going to make a longer post re: Hersh/Kirk, but I agree with him. It's a startlingly gracious journalistic position for someone who can be rather caustic and almost classless at times.

That's not the point. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with Hersh because Jenny did poorly at Worlds in 2005? Or do you have some other reason for believing as you do? If Kirk had won instead of lost, would that affect your opinion on journalistic responsibility?

Hersh is trying to prove a point, not by rational argument, but by making snide and irrelevant digs at Jenny. If he has a point to make, let him make it.

 

[prettykeys]

That's not the point. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with Hersh because Jenny did poorly at Worlds in 2005? Or do you have some other reason for believing as you do? If Kirk had won instead of lost, would that affect your opinion on journalistic responsibility?

Hersh is trying to prove a point, not by rational argument, but by making snide and irrelevant digs at Jenny. If he has a point to make, let him make it.

Sorry, I'm not following you. I agree with Hersh's position that questioning Sasha's character (by implying she was making excuses and is afraid of failure, etc.) was petty. Jenny could have been Michelle Kwan or YuNa Kim and I would disagree with that act.

 

[Layfan]

Here is where Hersh is in the wrong about the Jenny Kirk thing.

In her web log Kirk raised the issue of Sasha's candor in her timing of public pronouncements regarding her comeback attempt and her injuries. (Quite frankly, I have questions about Sasha's candor, too.)

Hersh chastised Kirk for this. Hersh holds that a "real journalist" believes everything he is fed, at least in the case of an athlete discussing the athlete's own injuries.

So far so good. Then Hersh procedes to bolster his side of the argument by calling Jenny a "a person who knows all about losing," mentioning Jenny's unremarkable efforts at World Championships.

This is journalism? To say, I know that Sasha is telling the truth about her tendonitis because Jenny Kirk finished 17th at Worlds?

I think Hersh unfortunately undermined what he was trying to say with his clunky tone. However, he wasn't exactly holding that "a real journalist believes everything he is fed, at least in the case of an athlete discussing the athlete's own injuries." What he meant was that as a journalist, he can't simply start claiming that he distrusts Sasha just because he has an instinct - ESPECIALLY with out calling her and asking her about it. It simply would be completely unethical and his newspaper would never publish it. Jenny Kirk is much freer to say whatever is in her head on her blog. But you can bet that she will not feel as free to speculate that way in her new column for the L.A. Times. That was Hersh's point and it was a perfectly reasonable one.

 

[Mathman]

Sorry, I'm not following you. I agree with Hersh's position that questioning Sasha's character (by implying she was making excuses and is afraid of failure, etc.) was petty. Jenny could have been Michelle Kwan or YuNa Kim and I would disagree with that act.

I will try again.

(a) Hersh's point is that he believes that journalists should, as a matter of principle, accept at face value the expalnations that athletes make regrading their injuries.

That is Hersh's thesis. Now he procedes to prove his thesis. Here is Hersh's argument in support of his thesis.

(b) Jenny Kirk. the skater, is a loser.

That argument ("b implies a") is a nonsensical, whether you believe (a) or not.

 

[prettykeys]

I will try again.

(a) Hersh's point is that he believes that journalists should, as a matter of principle, accept at face value the expalnations that athletes make regrading their injuries.

That is Hersh's thesis. Now he procedes to prove his thesis. Here is Hersh's argument in support of his thesis.

(b) Jenny Kirk. the skater, is a loser.

That argument ("b implies a") is a nonsensical, whether you believe (a) or not.

I never got the sense that (b) was ever part of his argument. It was just him taking a cheap shot; like-for-like; eye-for-an-eye. I'm not sure how you made that connection. You must have X-ray vision? :think:

I never saw that kind of relationship to those statements. Excuuuse me.

 

[prettykeys]

I think Hersh unfortunately undermined what he was trying to say with his clunky tone. However, he wasn't exactly holding that "a real journalist believes everything he is fed, at least in the case of an athlete discussing the athlete's own injuries." What he meant was that as a journalist, he can't simply start claiming that he distrusts Sasha just because he has an instinct - ESPECIALLY with out calling her and asking her about it. It simply would be completely unethical and his newspaper would never publish it. Jenny Kirk is much freer to say whatever is in her head on her blog. But you can bet that she will not feel as free to speculate that way in her new column for the L.A. Times. That was Hersh's point and it was a perfectly reasonable one.

Thank you.

Maybe people should look at actions a little more objectively rather than simply defending people who coincidentally happen to have the same opinions as them and drawing invisible lines...

Reminds me of this for some reason.

 

[mylastduchess]

Well Its pretty hard to argue against overscoring when Joannie Rochette in Skate Canada got 4 points higher in PCS alone than Joannie Rochette in Cup of China. I mean hello who else gets 4 points higher for skating worse.

Joannie Rochette who landed 5 clean triples could not beat Joannie Rochette with 3 clean triples. Go figure...

 

[bekalc]

Isn't Yu-na faster than Rochette? And I really disagree that Joannie has more connection to the music..Nor do I think she is a better performer. And I think Hersh was just using hyperbole with his comment....

 

[so_proud]

Reasons.

Way better? I don't know why people think there is a huge seperation between the two...I would say that Joannie has the best skating skills in the world. :

Since Yuna started competing at international events (from Novice to Senior), there was no single time she didn't get in the podium. The number for the 1st place is larger than that for 2nd and 3rd, as far as I remember. She has worlds records in short, long, and the combinations. She won the Grand Prix Series 7times consecutively. She is a two-time GPF champion. She is the current world champion. What else? There could be more, but these would just be general factors that make her separated from Joannie, I think.

 

[Mathman]

I never got the sense that (b) was ever part of his argument. It was just him taking a cheap shot; like-for-like; eye-for-an-eye. I'm not sure how you made that connection. You must have X-ray vision? :think:

I never saw that kind of relationship to those statements. Excuuuse me.

Well, here is what Hersh said:

...At least one comment suggested that Cohen's comeback after three years away from competition was nothing more than a publicity grab on her part.

Former U.S. world team member Jennifer Kirk joined that chorus,

Ah, she "joined the chorus' -- I am surprised Hersh didn't write -- "she joined the shrill chorus" or "she joined the strident chorus" -- rather than presenting her own thoughful opinion. OK.

...writing in her Blog, ``Something about her statement doesn't add up.''

Note how Hersh just subtly changed statement. He is trying to make Kirk look guilty by spuriously associating her with those who thought that Sahsa's 'comeback' was just a publicity stunt. But what Jenny actually said was, "Something doesn't add up."

Although Kirk stopped short of doubting that Cohen is injured, she insisted it would be no surprise if Cohen did not compete at all this season:

Let's look at that statement. Kirk "stopped short" (that is, she didn't say it) that she doubted Cohen was injured...

What Jenny actually said was that it would be no surprise if Cohen did not compete this season. That is simply a matter af fact. It would indeed be no surprise. Hersh hemself now puts the odds generously at fifty-fifty.

More of what Jenny actually said:

``However, it seems to me that maybe Cohen didn't realize in May just how tough this comeback was going to seem in October,'' Kirk wrote.

I think so, too. Maybe.

Jenny's closing opinion:

``My guess? Sometimes the fear of failure can be more painful than any injury.''

Is Jenny's guess right? Wrong? If Sasha had felt better prepared and more confident of victory, might she have tried to push through her pain?

These are legitimate questions, and although we don't know the answers, each of us is entitlted to "my guess."

Or are we? Here is Hersh's response to Jenny's guess.

(Failure is something Kirk is familiar with, having slopped to 17th and 18th-place finishes in her two world meet appearances and quitting a year before the 2006 Olympics; Cohen, by comparison, has an Olympic silver, two world silvers, a world bronze and no finish worse than fourth in five world and two Olympic appearances.)

Ah, thank you for that demonstartion of professional journalism and exercise in logic. Can we get on with it now? Yes, says Hersh, having got that parenthetical remark off my chest...

But the question about the show and the timing of the withdrawal is legitimate.

Thank you. Kirk agrees. So do I.

Unlike Kirk and those who sent comments, I had the advantage (and responsibility) of raising it the way a real journalist does

Self-congratulatory -- Look at me, this is how we real journalist do it -- but more importantly, argument by intimidation." If you don't agree with me, you are not a "real journalist."

-- by letting Cohen give her side of the story before commenting on it.

(In this case, there really is no other side of the story...

Real journalism. There is only one side of the story.

The rest of the column is an interview with Sasha, presented largely without comment or criticism by Hersh. Sasha on Sasha.

 

[R.D.]

I dunno. I think Hersh makes good points but he does choose sides and that's probably the reason a lot of skatefans hate him so much...

 

[janetfan]

I dunno. I think Hersh makes good points but he does choose sides and that's probably the reason a lot of skatefans hate him so much...

:agree:

Hersh does give skating fans more to complain about.
I thought everything Jenny wrote was OK. and I feel the same way about Hersh.

When skating fans have no comments about what they write that's when it can be said they failed as sports journalists.

 

[ehdtkqorl123]

When skating fans have no comments about what they write that's when it can be said they failed as sports journalists.

Good point

 

[shallwedansu]

Go Mathman!

Phil needs to stop talking with his butt cheeks and stop pretending like he knows anything about figure skating. We all know he extracts posts from figure skating forums and translates them into his assy language and tries to pass it off as "journalism."

 

[janetfan]

That's not the point. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with Hersh because Jenny did poorly at Worlds in 2005? Or do you have some other reason for believing as you do? If Kirk had won instead of lost, would that affect your opinion on journalistic responsibility?

Hersh is trying to prove a point, not by rational argument, but by making snide and irrelevant digs at Jenny. If he has a point to make, let him make it.

His point was made. Jenny made rather snide remarks about Sasha and Hersh simply returned the favor.

Why the big surprise about this? Skating needs more journalists and bloggers and even Hersh is better than nothing.

 

[janetfan]

Good point

Sports talk radio has discussion and arguments all day about the games and often about what the journalists write about the games. Lots of big arguments and it is great that it keeps the interest going.

Skating needs more and not less reasons to be talked about.
Seriously, how many times can people have the same discussion about points from past competetions?

ETA: Or about cheating from past competitions :yes:

 

[i love to skate]

His point was made. Jenny made rather snide remarks about Sasha and Hersh simply returned the favor.

Since when does a journalist fight an athlete's battles for them? I don't see Jenny's comments as being snide. Snide would have been if she had said "Sasha has failed to skate two clean programs in a major competition or Sasha chokes under the pressure". That would have been at the same level as Hersh.

Again, Jenny was writing her opinions on a personal blog. Would Hersh come after me if I had said the same thing on my blog (if I had one?)

 

[janetfan]

Since when does a journalist fight an athlete's battles for them? I don't see Jenny's comments as being snide. Snide would have been if she had said "Sasha has failed to skate two clean programs in a major competition or Sasha chokes under the pressure". That would have been at the same level as Hersh.

Again, Jenny was writing her opinions on a personal blog. Would Hersh come after me if I had said the same thing on my blog (if I had one?)

Journalists both defend and attack athletes every day of the week. It is their job.

And sure Hersh might make a tacky remark about you if he had a reason to. The guy does seem rather shameless at times which is why even people who hate him read his column and discuss him on skating boards.

If he is browsing GS tonight we have made his day

 

[ehdtkqorl123]

Again, Jenny was writing her opinions on a personal blog. Would Hersh come after me if I had said the same thing on my blog (if I had one?)

Hmm but she also wrote several opinions on LA times.