Don't Be Fake on Social Media, But Have Standards

This blog post is mostly inspired by the blog posted by Steve Kaczynski over the weekend entitled "Just Be Yourself On Twitter." It's a great post and I encourage you to check it out: http://stevekaczynski.com/?p=38

His thoughts are 100% accurate, in my opinion. I, too, believe there are too many "Tweet-Bots" on Twitter who are too afraid to show their real personality and tweet only industry-related articles in an effort to look professional. I want to make this perfectly clear: I absolutely believe you should share interesting and informative industry-related articles. It is important when establishing your professional credibility.


However, do you want to stand out as unique and offer your own touch? Or would you rather be part of "the crowd?" This can be tough because you don't want to seem like a "diva" or arrogant by your peers. However, I feel that being able to offer your own opinion on your industry is a benefit to not only yourself, but your employer. It shows the ability to think outside the box and be willing to stand by your opinion. Think of it like a Presidential cabinet: You can have differing opinions as long as you come to a clear consensus and can work together. Hopefully your opinion is well thought out, tactful and professional.

My opinions on sports are well known and I give my sports opinions in the style of a radio show host. My professional opinions are just as strong, however, I deliver them with more professional tact. Why? It's simple: professional opinions are supposed to be delivered intelligently, instead of the "two or more people sitting at the barstool talking over Budweisers" style of sports, pop culture and entertainment discussion.

I also like to talk about pop culture (and relentlessly rip away at the utter American embarrassment known as "Jersey Shore") in snarky tweets, and my utter hatred for LeBron James and all things Pittsburgh. I also don't make it shy that if you haven't looked at a Ford, GM or (2011 and beyond) Chrysler product when car shopping, you're cheating yourself.

There are standards of decency on any level, however.  Here are my "Standards and Practices" for non-professional social media (LinkedIn is a completely different ballgame because it's a professional site):

1) Network TV appropriate: I do not drop S-bombs or F-bombs on Twitter, for example. Nor do I cross the line into extremely risque territory. Quite frankly, there are certain trending topics on Twitter that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole and I can't believe they become trending topics. If you wouldn't say it in front of your parents, don't say it on Twitter or Facebook.

2) No personal insults: unless we're talking about LeBron James (but even then there's a line that I don't quite feel comfortable crossing). It's just not classy. Not much else to say here.

3) Avoid really strong political opinions: To be clear: it is very, VERY important to be active and interested in politics in this country. However, to be abrasive and insult the other party is polarizing and not always the smartest approach. If you're a liberal, would you talk politics over Thanksgiving dinner with your ultra conservative father in law? Imagine that except your beliefs aren't left at the dinner table, but broadcast to dozens to thousands of people.  I prefer "The Daily Show" approach: you can tip your hand to where your beliefs lie, but it's far easier point out the absurdity of the political system in a humorous manner.

4) Avoid TMI: I'm what you would call a "sharer." However, there are topics I avoid like the plague. I don't talk about relationships on my social media sites, nor do I talk about family outside of light humor or when someone needs prayers. I also avoid talking about when I'm not in the best mood. It's not that I don't want people knowing what's going on in my life, it's that I don't want that information to be public knowledge.  It's better saved for private discussion, not broadcast to the world. I understand that everyone has different thresholds between private information and public information, however, most of you know what sounds the alarm on the "cringe meter" and what doesn't.

5) Be you: It's great that you enjoy talking about your industry. It shows that you're interested and enjoy what you do. However, being a "tweet-bot" removes the "social" from "social media." Isn't the whole part of being social to let yourself and your personality shine? You HAVE to play in the social space in order to "get" the social space.  If you don't, you think you know but have no idea.

For most of us: we are people first with a profession and hobbies. Why can't there be a nice mix in what you share with your friends and followers?

Sports Journalism in Cleveland: A Dying Breed

Every time I think "legitimate" sportswriters in this city can't get any worse, they find a way to outdo themselves.

I'm going to get this out of the way right now: God bless Tom Withers of the Associated Press. He's one of the few writers left with integrity in this city. God bless Terry Pluto for keeping us optimistic every week with sound logic. The TV sports guys are very reputable and respectable as well. God bless all of you and please, please, PLEASE keep up the good work.

But shame on the other writers who have an agenda to fill. Shame on the writers who invent reasons to dislike a coaching staff. The offending writers will not be named in my post since their names don't deserve the strokes of my keyboard. We all know who they are, and quite frankly I don't feel like drawing a line in the sand because I don't like to burn bridges. Quite frankly I'd love to talk sports over a beer or two with some of these writers, no matter how much I disagree with their columns. This is not a personal attack and I don't intend on slinging mud.

However, this offending piece in Sunday's Plain Dealer nearly caused me to spit out my coffee when I read it. I'm not going to defend Mangini in this piece; my thoughts on him are well documented. That's not the point. The point is that this passes for sports journalism in 2011: a writer inventing a "theory" that the former Browns coach would help his former team win a championship at the Browns' expense. It's ludicrous. It's irresponsible. Most of all: it's a pathetic attempt to kick sand in someone's face while they're down as a means of driving web traffic and selling papers. You'd swear Mangini must have egged this writer's house, keyed his car and poisoned his dinner all while making an indecent pass at his wife.  It feels like a personal attack on the former coach of the Browns. There is no question that this piece was crafted with the intent of attracting eyeballs, page views and comments below the article.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with seeking page views and comments. Hell, I know a thing or two about pushing buttons that spark spirited discussion. (see: my Twitter feed, which is almost all conversationalist tweeting. Also, if you're a Facebook friend you know that my Facebook statuses are usually worth at least 5 comments an update) But there is a big difference between pushing the right buttons for a spirited debate and publishing absolute tripe.  Columns like this fall in the latter category.

This is a new low for Cleveland sportswriting. There's a difference between being a sports personality and a sports reporter, especially when the column in question isn't an editorial column.

There's a reason newspapers are a dying breed and GOOD blogs have emerged in their place: amateur sportswriters are offering more intriguing, better written content that better represents the pulse of the fan instead of "traditional" sportswriters pushing their agenda on the general public.

The traditional writers can bash and look down on bloggers all they want. The good bloggers who write excellent content are far hungrier, write better columns and offer better opinions than the "professionals" who push their shameless agenda for the sake of selling papers, drawing eyeballs and drawing comments.

Here's to the true professionals who represent their field with integrity and class. You know who you are and I commend you for it. Here's to the excellent sports bloggers in this city who produce quality content on a regular basis, it is wonderful that we have a platform called social media. It's a shame our platform isn't as big as the platform the professionals have and its a shame it can't be our full time (or even part time) jobs.

Something tells me if we were given the platform they have, we would take the ball and run with it to levels that would reinvigorate local sports writing.  Maybe someday we'll have that chance.

Unhappy With Shurmur? Too Bad!

When Eric Mangini was fired the day after the regular season ended, Browns fans had visions of sugarplums and Jon Gruden dancing in their heads. The euphoric dream of Mike Holmgren as President and Super Bowl winning head coach Jon Gruden roaming the sidelines had a segment of Browns fans jumping for joy.  It made sense: After all, Gruden was mentored by Holmgren in Green Bay in the mid-90's and Holmgren enjoys his extra free time as President.

So, why didn't it happen? Why are some Browns fans so upset that the new Browns head coach is NOT Jon Gruden or Mike Holmgren? (many among this segment of fans can't even spell or pronounce Mike Holmgren's name right. They call him "Holgrem." Needless to say, they don't know their football like they think they do.) This segment of Browns fans wanted the splash hire and to excite them and they would accept nothing less than a big name. However, this segment of fans needs to realize this: Neither Jon Gruden or Mike Holmgren were the best coaches for the job.

Why? I'll tell you why: the "splash hire to excite the fans" almost never works out. A certain segment of Browns fans (that I refer to as "the mob") are obsessed with the "fan rallying hire" and it almost never works out. That's the Washington Redskins model, and it stinks.  This segment of Browns fans needs to STOP thinking with this sort of logic. As the old adage goes: "If you listen to the fans, you'll be sitting with the fans eventually."

Ask yourselves: Who was Mike Tomlin before he was hired by the Steelers?

Who was John Harbaugh before he was hired by Baltimore?

Mike McCarthy by Green Bay? Sean Payton by New Orleans? Mike Smith by Atlanta?

They were nobodies.  Many fans were upset in those cities. Hell, Atlanta tried the splash hire the year before with Bobby Petrino. It was an absolute disaster. I repeat: an absolute disaster.

So you're in the crowd that wanted Jon Gruden? Consider this: His record is below .500 after taking Tony Dungy's team to the Super Bowl. He has never developed a young quarterback, either. He also has a track record of being difficult to work with according to his players.

So you wanted Mike Holmgren? (although you probably call him "Mike Holgrem") Consider this: He's in his 60's and has openly admitted that he enjoys his free time and I highly doubt his heart would still be in it like his heart was in previous head coaching jobs. 100% of Pat Shurmur is better than 90% of Mike Holmgren, especially since Holmgren is still in the building to advise.

So you're upset with Shurmur's track record as Rams Offensive Coordinator? Consider the fact that he was working with a rookie quarterback, an average offensive line and zero receivers. He had as much talent to work with as Brian Daboll did.  Talent is what makes coaches look good most of the time whether you're a head coach or a coordinator.  Besides, head coaching is more about managing assistant coaches and players than it is the pure X's and O's.

Besides, with Browns General Manager Tom Heckert acquiring personnel Coach Shurmur will look like a genius. Coaching is 75% talent on the field unless your players quit on you (see: Wade Phillips in his final year in Dallas for a perfect example of this).  The rest is relationship building, player management and the actual player development a.k.a. coaching.

Shurmur's track record of quarterback development is very encouraging as well. Good QB play is half the battle in the National Football League. On the other side of the ball: I'm very interested in who the defensive coordinator will be. He must be a strong assistant coach with a track record of success in order for this to work out. Most successful first time NFL coaches have strong coordinators on the opposite side of their specialty (offensive coaches need strong defensive coordinators, and vice versa).

The bottom line is this: Browns fans need to accept and embrace Coach Shurmur. The Browns now have one unified organizational philosophy, which we may not have had with Mangini as coach (that being said: I still feel firing Mangini was a bad move and think he will be a great head coach someday with the right General Manager). We need to be patient and not try to run him out of town like we did the moment Mangini was hired in 2009.

Welcome aboard Coach Shurmurnator, now get 'er done!