*Jiggly Grades Your Clickbait Media

Jiggly_333 · (This post was last modified: 01-17-2020, 03:03 PM by Jiggly_333.)

There's a problem I've noticed recently, which is that there is some really bad click-bait media floating around in the media section. Now, usually I don't pay attention because I generally don't care about media; but this person came after me. So, I dug into some more of their media and found out that it's just not up to proper media standards.

Now, I used to be an actual media grader when the league started, but that's not my credentials here. For those of you who don't know, Bex is an English major and I'm majoring in Journalism. So, if you want to pick a fight with either of us, you best use your words correctly. For me, it's not just that I'm a Journalism major, but I also already have about 4 years experience in editorial journalism with a couple of different sites (SBNation for two and a half years and FanSided for the past year). I don't think there's anything wrong with your grammar, per se. But, I do think that you skip over a lot of important journalistic techniques that would make your claims more credible.

So, @Boomcheck, I'm breaking out my red pen and I'm going to be grading your last two articles for no pay at all. Seriously, I'm refusing any pay I get from this. Attacks on specific users should not be met with free money because it's in the media section. While not everyone here is trying to be a professional writer, if you're trying to deflect that you're in character while taking personal shots then you should make sure your character is credible.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]The Curious Case of Marcella Tōriki[/div]

So I'm gonna stop you right here. While I didn't include it in this grading, your last article was named "Curious Case of..." and your following article was also "Curious Case of..."

It feels like you're using it as a crutch to mask over your intentions. Instead of being direct with your reporting, you're deflecting it by saying "Isn't this interesting?" It's your job to tell the audience that it is interesting and this article should matter to them. It seems like you want to straddle the line between offering an opinion and reporting facts, which is something is looked down upon. Either this is an opinion piece or it's reporting. Let's continue.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]

This truly shocks me as somehow the Sabercats let Toriki just walk on over to New Orleans after just ONE season at the helm as their lead back.[/div]

Wait a second, what is this lead? You lead off an article like you were already talking about the subject. You need to introduce what you're talking about. A better sentence could be "It truly shocks me that the Sabercats..." Instead, you chose to respond to a hypothetical question that doesn't exist.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]San Jose spent a 5th overall selection on this player and essentially got no return on it, leaving them without a legitimate threat at RB. Why did the Sabercats bend to Marcella's needs and grant them a 1 year contract out of the draft? Why does the league not protect teams in these cases and provide better compensation {in these cases?} <-That's a bit redundant. Do draft picks hold any value at all? Should we trust players?

So many question with so few answers. [/div]

Let's stop again and talk about credibility. How did you get your sources for this article? Are your sources credible. And I don't necessarily mean "people" as sources, I mean just articles you found. I know that you said before that you read a few articles and checked the wiki, but can you cite your sources at the very least.

And moving over to having people as sources, you can actually ask these people questions. If you're writing an article, it's customary to contact the target of your article to see if they can make a comment. In real life, there's of course going to be times where it's not even worth reaching out, but this is the NSFL. We're pretty much all on discord, you can send a PM, and if you want to pretend like you're a real journalist then you should take that opportunity especially if it's an attack on someone's character. People have a right to defend themselves and to ignore that right is essentially libel.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]{We will go back and dissect some reasons as to why this may have happened} <-awkward phrasing, starting off by going to the DSFL where she was drafted 6th overall by Norfolk. {The Seawolves finished 3-11 and missed the playoffs, relying HEAVILY on running plays through Toriki who hammered home 430 rushing attempts (The next closest was 301) to take home trophies for offensive rookie of the year and performance of the year, but she did not win the RBoTY award which was given to Ruff.} <-That's absolutely a run-on sentence. Ruff Ruff averaged more yards per attempt and had more rushing touchdowns, with his team going a respectable 8-5-1. Empty calorie numbers by Marcella and it makes people think that she may have some dirt on the coach to be used this much.[/div]

WOAH WOAH WOAH! Let's read that back again.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]Empty calorie numbers by Marcella and it makes people think that she may have some dirt on the coach to be used this much.[/div]

I understand that this is a hypothetical, but this is too extra for a professional publication. Sure, you're not writing for a professional publication, but if we're taking this in character like you want us to then I'm going to treat this like it's in a professional publication. To accuse a player of blackmail, even jokingly, is setting yourself for a possible lawsuit over libel in the real world. Don't just toss this sort of thing around.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]Regardless of all those signs, she {is} "was" picked by SJ with the 5th selection as they were in desperate need of a legitimate RB. Bjørn Ironside, fellow Norfolk teammate, was taken first overall by the New Orleans team {and this will come into play later.} <-This should be a separate sentence. Toriki {has} "had" a very productive season as the #1 back with the Sabercats and {is} "was" awarded offensive rookie of the year, with the Cats going 4-9. San Jose finished Last in their conference and no play off appearance, especially given that their QB in Dan Wright did not perform all too well.[/div]

I'm gonna stop it right here to say that even when I tried to fix that last sentence, it's just atrocious. What's the point of talking about Dan Wright? Couldn't you have mentioned him earlier? You might think that it makes sense, but the sentence has no meaning. I understand the point you're trying to make, which is that the Sabercats performed poorly that season because their QB performed poorly that season. The problem is that you don't actually state the claim that they performed poorly. Much like your lead sentence, you're acting like you've already made your point when you need to explicitly say it in order for the sentence to make sense.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]{Marcella made an announcement about testing Free Agency which sent the entire league into a frenzy with several teams desperate to land a player of her caliber.} <-This sentence also needs a lot of work done on it. This puts San Jose in a difficult position that they SHOULD NOT have to deal with. Imagine the message this sends to {others in the LR and team,, or their fans.} <-So which is your conjunction here? "And" or "or"? Also, you have two commas and depending on the answer to my question, they're probably in the wrong spot. This running back they spent such a valued asset on just said they don't care and nothing can stop them from leaving.

Yikes.

[/div]

Stopping here to say that it might be a good idea to choose better spots for your pictures. This is just a formatting thing, but you shouldn't have a single word paragraph followed by a picture. It just looks trashy, imo.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]{She inks a deal with NOLA, citing various reasons as to why she joined this team but this does not particularly seem to be about numbers but potentially entering a system where she can run and get winning football.} <-You could probably split this into a couple of sentences. See, the Second Line already have a star back in Gump who just came off an Offensive player of the year season and is not someone that will take a back seat but this will be brought up later. She has a few teammates out of Norfolk here which included first overall pick Ironside who is highly touted. Comfort. This is one of the reasons she has picked New Orleans as her destination as she seemed to have difficulty adapting to the west coast for whatever reason that may be.[/div]

I've stopped jumping into the text itself to fix it, but you really need to work on your tenses. Make sure what tense you're writing. You're writing about something in the past, but you're writing about it like it's actively happening. It makes me doubt whether or not English is your first language. And if it isn't, well I already told you earlier that you messed with the wrong people.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]{So} <-This has no place here a lot of people believed {maybe} <-"that" would be a stronger word choice Gump could be some receiving back, but you know what was strange? It did not happen at all. Both RBs ended up as last options for receiving {and} <-End the sentence here without the "and". instead they just slanted HEAVILY in favor of running the ball. {Both Forrest and Marcella have similar styles but it's not as if NOLA were world beaters despite their quick turn around that earned their management GMoTY honors on an 8-5 record.} <-Another horribly awkward sentence. {Nola} <-Watch out for capitalization has a great QB in my opinion, but they fail to surround him with legitimate talent {so they cater to this run heavy offense.} <-can be its own sentence

Maybe they could have, you know, given Francisco some ACTUAL WEAPONS TO THROW TO! He has a Vinny Valentine who is on his last legs and a bunch of younger talent-- They dropped the ball here by not making use of their stash of assets to make a move for a proper WR. Anyways ...[/div]

It feels like this paragraph is completely out of place in this article. It could've been a quick sentence aside, but instead you've made a point to talk about the passing game. You lost focus in the article and have lost the audience. Not that you already haven't lost the audience earlier.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]{They draft Mack Arianlacher(1ST OA), Austin McCormick(3RD OA), Mason Blaylock(8TH OA)} <-Watch your formatting. That spacing looks awkward in the first round alongside Jed Podolak in the second {who converted to a wide out.}[/div]

This is another personal preference thing, but this phrase may serve its purpose better within a parenthetical statement. It isn't important to the overall idea of the sentence, but it appears as though you want to make sure the reader knows this fact. The easiest way to pull it out as important side information is to put it in parenthesis, like you did earlier in the sentence.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]All this while adding Toriki. San Jose only got a QB at 2nd overall and Quindarius Tyerucker in the second as the RB replacement for what would be Marcella's departure from the team. Where's the compensation? I don't see it at all.[/div]

It feels like your entire argument lies in the idea of not understanding how the rules work, but we'll just look past that for now and focus on the quality of the journalism. Oh wait, that's your credibility. As a journalist you should understand the subject you're talking about and the very nature of free agency does not come with compensation packages for the team the free agent is leaving. The fact that this entire article rests on your refusal to understand that concept continues to wreck your credibility as a journalist.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]{The Butchers tried to lure her with a lucrative deal but she chose to go to a favorable spot in New Orleans who have a bright future and should project to win titles if all things go according to plan.} <-Run-on sentence Does Gump switch to some sort of quick WR to give Marcella full reign of the running game?Maybe that is part of what happened with the Sabercats ... She demanded a ridiculous amount of running in strategies like in Norfolk and they refused to bend to her will so she turned to Free Agency to find a place that would give her {to} "two" things.

A comfortable winning environment with 'friends'.
A strong running game.

{She claims she wants more communication, but why? She just came off a successful rookie season and shouldn't have too much of a say in how management builds the team. I believe her to be entitled, selfish and mentally weak.}[/div]

This is the ugliest and most disgusting claim to make. It lacks consideration, it lacks any sort of empathy, and it is not what journalism is about. I'm trying to hold off on really talking about your claim itself, but it's just so objectively wrong and meant to start shit. You give the argument of an old man saying "shut up and play football". You give no consideration to the person. I'm not even talking about the user, I'm talking about the player. The character. If you want us to believe that this is in-universe, you're also asking us to believe that the character you're playing, in-universe, is a self-righteous asshole who attacks others to make himself feel better. This does not provide you any credibility and once again loses the audience. To say that a player asking for communication is entitled is just plain callous and can even cost you your job. If you want to make her seem entitled, you can do that, but the reasoning behind her "entitlement" is very reasonable to the reader. Wanting to play around those she's comfortable with and in a system she's comfortable with is fairly standard stuff when it comes to free agents.

Quote:[div align=\\\"center\\\"]At least Ashley Owens struck out on his own to be a star and Austin still had other options to replace him. San Jose needs every piece it can get and I don't see them getting ANYTHING out of her walking out on them.

They should have been given one of those firsts in all honesty but New Orleans just get free assets to stockpile because apparently there is NO compensation. What's stopping bad franchises from staying that way? What does it do for the morale of the Sabercats that their future star RB just walked out on them like they meant nothing? Absolute disrespect and Marcella spit on the face of San Jose by pulling this stunt. If she had a sliver of honor she would have picked New Orleans and have them make a trade so that SJ gets something but nope. New Orleans gets o have their cake and eat it too.

This has me confused that I don't see any rules regarding this? Why are players allowed to do whatever they want? You can just peace out on a team that actually spent a high pick on you? I am not a fan. The mentality of Toriki is not that of a winner and I am not going to empower her, no.

I am going to shame her. She should go back to playing Rugby.[/div]

Sure, there's nothing grammatically wrong with these last couple of paragraphs, but there is something massively wrong with your integrity in them. It feels like you're really digging deep into trashiness. As your fake editor, I wouldn't publish this. I wouldn't even let you write this. I wouldn't even let you keep your job after presenting the idea for this article to me. You decide to take on a crusade to attack a single person with evidence based on the idea that athletes don't have feelings and emotions. If we take this as something in-universe, it would be on some random site that also sells "male enhancement pills" on the side. The ideas behind this are so flawed that, combined with the attacks on Rose Jenkins in your later article, you could honestly be called out for sexism (in-universe). You may think that stirring up shit is entertaining, but this isn't even written well enough to be entertaining. You do not give a reasonable argument and all of your credibility is tarnished and falls flat.

As much as I want to continue over to the article about me, I do not want to subject myself to any more of your ramblings. You have shown to have no journalistic integrity, a severe lack of grammar skills, and a personal goal to spew as much venom as you possibly can. Your articles are not informative nor do they include any fact-based opinions. The key pieces of an argument are ethos, pathos, and logos and you include none of those in this piece. You lack ethos as you lack credibility in sources and reputation. You lack pathos as you do not come up with a clear argument as to why the general public should be angry over this issue. You lack logos as you seem to invent connections with no backing. I give you an F. If you want to attack others in character as a journalist, act like a fucking journalist. Instead of trying to fling shit about others without their knowledge, reach out to them before you post an article or else it will appear to be a personal attack.

I didn't contact you beforehand about this article because it is a personal attack. The difference is that I am being very open about it. You can talk about my player being shit all you want. I do it too. Just be sure to tell me about it beforehand and I'll give you an okay. I might even give you some quotes. We each have our own story for our players and to try to take charge of another user's story is a dick move.

Don't Be A Dick.

[Image: image0.jpg]