Horrible ESPN article about PPA and on line poker

[AJackson]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...amp;id=2789482

I thought the George Raymer story was bad. At least that was just a stupid mistake.

Here's a piece of crap that was posted on ESPN. Take the time to comment, hopefully the editor will take note.

[88jayhawks]

terrible article and i hope no one buys his POS book

[BG1124]

Negreanu's response to the article... http://www.cardplayer.com/blog/entry/188

[Kimbell175113]

At least his email address is at the bottom of the article.

[joe c]

[ QUOTE ]
terrible article and i hope no one buys his POS book

[/ QUOTE ]

go give it one star on amazon.

[Joe Tall]

I'm amazed with the amount of poker programing and revenue generated from poker advertising (mostly online sites) for ESPN that this article was published.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm amazed with the amount of poker programing and revenue generated from poker advertising (mostly online sites) for ESPN that this article was published.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why?
Seems like a lot of those ESPN columnists are idiotically obnoxious and lost in their own worlds on a lot of sports ESPN covers.

If the columnists weren't allowed to bash sports that ESPN doesn't cover that would pretty much mean that all their articles would have to be positive about every sport...except hockey and rugby I guess.

I don't regularly read their articles, but I'm sure they've bashed MLB (pverpaid players, steroid use), NFL (too long, not exciting, criminals, whatever), NBA (thug-culture), whatever.

I think Lon Simmons wrote some articles really bashing how boring and dumb soccer is. And this was when ESPN and ABC were showing every single world-cup game.

They can bash the sports themselves all they like which is appropriate for a journalism situation I think.
They can't specifically bash their own network by saying how dumb they think SportsCenter has gotten or how ridiculously over-the-top Mike Tirico or Gary Thorne is.
Otherwise, it seems to me that most stuff is fair game.

They may want to consider hiring writers who actually have more than 3 fuctioning brain-cells though.
But his column actually doesn't seem that much worse or misinformed from a lot of stuff I've seen.

Ever read or listen to Skip Bayless much?
His way is not uncommon. Really egotistical and just lost in his own world of over-opinion no matter how incredibly misinformed or ridiculous it may be.

[gurgeh]

I want to send a response and CC someone at ESPN. No luck in finding an appropriate email address yet. If anyone finds one before me, please post it.

[gurgeh]

CustomerCare@pokergamesupport.com

Best I could find.


Dear Mr. Kriedler,

I am writing to you in reference to the column listed above. I am a poker enthusiast, having played for several years and having earned virtually all of my income from online poker games during 2006. I therefore humbly suggest that you leave the topic of poker, online or otherwise, alone. Your column betrays a shocking lack of knowledge of recent events concerning online poker and related legislation, and yet you seem perfectly willing to write about it as if an expert. I also recommend that when writing on a topic you know nothing about, try running your piece past an editor who knows the difference between what is witty and insightful and what is ignorant and asinine. I assure you that what comes off in this column is exclusively the latter.

Sincerely,

Me

[Wongboy]

Bob - I agree with your point, but I think there is an important distinction here.

It is not unusual top see an ESPN columnist who bemoans the fact that the NBA has gotten "thuggish", or that player salaries are out of control, or that the average American family is priced out of a day at a MLB ballpark. All of these are negative aspects of the sports, but the key here is that the writers are usually genuinely interested in the success of the sport and they are voicing their concerns in an effort to make the sport better.

I also see articles that say a sport is dumb, boring, or whatever. Usually the writer makes it very clear that this is a personal opinion.

The difference here is that the writer is supporting the criminalization of a sport that generates a substantial portion of ESPN's coverage. He isn't saying "Online poker is dumb, I don't know why anyone plays it". He is saying "Online poker is evil, people should not be allowed to play". This contrasts greatly with the extensive coverage of Moneymaker's story as an online qualifier and the highlights of online poker pros when they play in ESPN televised events.