Fame Like This I don’t Need
Any Blogger whether they are part of the auto racing genre of the ’sphere or the more widely read political side of it desire to be read and respected for their literary output. I’ve had my share of accolades including having Full Throttle included as part of the Best of the Blogosphere book authored by Peter Kuhne and Adrienne Crew. (Thanks again!)
However some fame isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Those that have been following NASCAR for a while are aware of Jayski, practitioner of the “throw it up and see what sticks” style of journalism. You may also be aware of the many rumors surrounding a Robby Gordon purchase of Robert Yates Racing. Jayski has led that charge.
As one of the many denials of the story offered by RYR this one makes me glad I didn’t have a ticket to ride this rumor train:
Q: IS YOUR TEAM CONSIDERING ALIGNING WITH SOMEONE? IS THAT WHAT IT’S GOING TO TAKE TO COMPETE?
A: Doug Yates, “We’ve been exploring opportunities and that’s some of the things that are swirling. Robby’s [Gordon] not buying our whole place [never reported that here], I want to put that to rest. Man, you guys caused us a lot of pain, I’ll tell you that. That Jayski guy is killing me. I want to tell you something: If you guys weren’t talking about us, I’d really be worried. Because the reason you guys are talking about us is because you expect more of us, and I appreciate that. And we are determined to get back to where you can say some good things about us when we get there.”
Ah “fame” isn’t it wonderful? Unless your Jayski at the moment and getting called out by a major racing team.
NASCAR, NEXTEL Cup, Jayski, Robert Yates Racing, Robby Gordon, Sports, Auto Racing, Motorsports, Full Throttle
The J in Jayski is for joke, as in he is one.
Thanks for the correction Dude. I always thought the “J” stood for jerk-off.”
I stand corrected!
Jayski’s site needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
If it’s pure rumor, he says so, and his post doesn’t include a link.
However, other than that all Jayski does it centralize NASCAR news on the web, and provides a link to the story for the visitor to form their own opinion.
In the case in question, this is all that happened. He read something on a site, and posted it with a link to the site that reported it. The downside is that the site linked to (the LTN radio show) was taken offline, and when it returned there wasn’t a trace (that I could personally find) about the deal.
So isn’t Doug kind of shooting the messenger here? Granted Jayski get 100 times the traffic (or more) than the sites he references, in most cases.
His style is essentially re-blogging, but it’s also a central location to find links to articles that one may not find otherwise.
I can’t say I personally agree with the way he runs the site, as not much of the content is actually original. I much prefer Dude’s style, or Marc’s, or my own in where we write our own words about an issue and keep to a more traditional journalism approach.
But, Jayski does what works for him. Sure his site needs improvements. It doesn’t validate, most of the content isn’t original, and some other nit-picking points. But then again, we could sit here and find faults with any site out there, including our own.
In the end, I personally can’t fault Jayski. Why isn’t anyone picking on the source, LTN? That’s where the bull$*** lies.
In the end, people need a source they can trust. Whether the information is re-blogged or original thought.
A site that should be credible, LTN, obviously had some issues. You’d think that a show that celebrated its 1000th show a couple months ago would be a credible source. The obviously got it wrong, but was it a misinterpretation, a bad source, or just plain being an attention whore?
After following Jayski for many years, I find the credibility there. Mainly from that fact that the content is from another source and a link provided. If that source is wrong, is that Jayski’s fault or the original site’s fault?
The only thing Jayski did was let you know it’s there.
Let’s take for example something currently on his Cup News and Rumors page. It says Ward Burton’s signed/signing with one of the new Toyota teams. It goes on to say that the original article was taken down, and they asked Jayski to remove the report. He declined to do so, as people had already seen it. The link in not there, nor a reference to where it was found.
Would something like this be credible? To some, perhaps. To others most likely not. The question is was there really an original article? IF so, why not say by whom? Further, why was it removed? Did someone from the team in question, or Ward’s PR people, or whatever, ask for its removal? Or was the original article pure fiction? Then again, is the post on Jayski’s actually one of his “hearing things” that’s been disguised due to the recent scuffle with Yates?
Which leads us to the “been hearing” posts that every now and then show up. Sometimes they pan out, sometimes they don’t. But at least it’s distinguishable as something that may or may not be true.
I know, it sounds like a long winded case for Jayski. It’s not, really. It’s more Devil’s Advocate than anything. Although, I really think the Yates comment was a case of shooting the messenger.
I personally don’t like re-blogging. Read it, and write your own words about it, and make it personal. Then link to the source of the information if need be. However, looking back at Jayski’s over the years, the site has always been like that. That’s what made it popular. Being a source of NASCAR information from ton’s of other sources, in one spot. You can check a quick snippet of an article, and proceed on to the source if it is of any interest.
Hell, I’ve got a couple pages with articles from other sites. Does that make me a bad guy? I don’t think it does. After someone reads my take on an issue, they can click to check the headlines from another site, and proceed if it’s of interest. Granted it’s not the staple of my site and is more of a convenience factor that was requested early on in the first version of our site. When I reformatted last spring, that was one of the things some of the users wanted to see stick around. Does that make my site a joke? If those pages were “THE” site, and nothing else… perhaps. However, with that not being the case I don’t think so at all.
So, my question is, in your opinion what makes Jayski a joke? Other than re-blogging?
I know nothing of Jayski, & as you say he is only re-blogging, what I can’t stand are sites that make sensational headlines, on sheer speculation, in order to gain “hits” on the site. After a while you learn which ones not to go to.
Regarding stupid blogs………..the only one that comes to mind is Fullthrottle & the fool that runs it.
.the only one that comes to mind is Fullthrottle & the fool that runs it.
Hey I resemble that remark! I’m just a bit older is all. If you keep this up Peter I’ll see what I can do about turning your flag back into the Frog ensign.
anything but that, marc
Well, while Jayski isn’t “publishing” his thoughts really, if you look at the roots of what a “blog” is, Jayski’s is just that.
The root of “blog” is actually weblog. Which started out as mere collections of things someone found on the net that they thought were interesting.
Of course the “blog” has transformed into an incredible platform in today’s version of the net, but this site remains in its original form. It’s still a collection of other information found on the net.
I still say I’m not a fan of a site based entirely on re-blogging. But at the same time, Jayski’s does sever a purpose. Even if it is only as a collection of links to information which I can further research, which cuts my research time in half.
If it were me, I’d like to see the site more user friendly, and aesthetically pleasing, but it appears that each page is an actual html document, and in order to go back and reformat all the pages in that site would be a task I wouldn’t want to take on. However, nothing says you couldn’t make a change and carry on from there. In that light, I wonder how much control ESPN has over that?