Throughout my time on the message boards there is one trend that I tend to question on the message boards: Do posters take more content from columnist's writings or do columnists take more from the posters on these message boards. Suffice to say, the columnists are accredited and supposed "experts" in their fields. The problem I have with this the posters on the message boards more often than not cite their source as a columnist, article, or site.
Not to single out one poster on these boards, but the greatest example i have is Banned Poster's recent blog entitled: " Bud Selig: The Good, The bad, The Ugly." Literally within a day of his post, Scott Miller, A CBS Sports Senior Writer as everyone knows, posts his article on Selig, "Budding Legacy." Not only that, within his article it contains "Good Things has done" (sadly grammatically wrong) and the bad. Ironically, I find BP's Blog more accurate, better written, and more thought out. And why?, Because it is the original. It's time they should give posters and bloggers the credit they are due!
I'll just sum it up with the fact that columnists on CBS, ESPN, CNNSI, FoxSports, etc can grab a lot of material from the excellent bloggers and posters their respective cites have. CBS allows them to see which ones are the most visited, most commented on, etc. They then have the ability to take these and post on the main site which gets a lot more visits and take credit for work that may not exactly be their own or even their research. I just think the posters should get the credit they deserve. All they tend to get is a small link, often overlooked below the main columnist's article (if that) to their blog or post.
Judge for yourself:
Banned Poster's Blog:
Time Posted: January 17, 2008 6:13 am
Scott Miller's Article:
Time Posted: Jan. 18, 2008