As a fan i'm going love my team and hate my rival that is what I do as a fan, and I consider myself a professional fan, so my love and hate is even more biased than most. As a Bleacher Report writer I try my hardest to put my bias aside for my team and give a realistic review on my team, but try and keep it optimistic for all the other fans to relate and to give some hope. If I was a professional writer, I would have to drop all my biases and be straight forward because that is my duty as a writer.
What I am seeing now in many news networks is that there are favorites, and the biases have become so much that it almost makes you sick going to an ESPN or a Fox Sports site because you know what is going to be said. Now, i'm not just saying that because my NFL team is picked on, because I know that they deserve about half of it. My NCAA Men's basketball team is one of the favorites and it still makes me sick how much certain networks drool over them.
Let me prove my point.
Bill Williamsom has probably been a great writer for some while. If he wasn't great he would not be writing for ESPN. He was a writer for the Denver Post I believe, or somewhere in Denver. He writes for the AFC West, and here is some of his reaction and reviews from the Raiders first game, in which they beat the Cowboys 31-10.
"The first thing we are going to do is disregard the outcome. While teams always want to win, winning and losing in the preseason doesn't mean a thing. If you don't agree, please refer to the one-season second tenure of Art Shell as the Raiders' coach in 2006. Oakland went 4-1 in the preseason and went 2-14 in the regular season."
"What is worthwhile in the preseason is the performance of key players and key units. Let's take a look at what worked and what didn't work for the Raiders on Thursday night."
He later went on to put Jamarcus Russell's performance in which he looked more confident and went 6/9 with no INT's and one scramble for 18 yards in the Incomplete section of his grading scale.
I would say, that is reasonable to write about if you are unbiased, maybe the Jamarcus thing should have been rated Good and not incomplete. Despite all the pressure he has about his work ethic and having Jeff Garcia as a back up, he still managed the game well. But I'll say its ok to give him an incomplete, if you are unbiased.
Now lets look at how Williamson reacted to his "former" teams rocky mountain start. Kyle Orton, who is supposed to be the man to replace former Probowl QB, Jay Cutler had a real bad start to say the least. He threw for 3 INT's in 4 drives. Orton was named the starter almost immediately when he went to Denver. Let's take a look at what Williamsom said about his QB.
"As strange as it sounds, Orton did some decent things Friday night. He was near brilliant on the first series before throwing a dreadful interception in the 49ers' end zone. Orton then threw two regrettable passes for interceptions on the next two series."
That kind of sounds like he is bringing some optimism to his Bronco followers, but that isn't what a professional writer does, who is representing four teams not just one.
I wonder what he would have wrote if Russell would have thrown 3 INT's in four drives. I'm sure it would say something about maybe its time to give up on Russell and go with Garcia. That would of made a great article for a QB controversy. So what did Bill write about Orton's performance after Chris Simms played well?
"Readers of this blog may be aware I'm not high on Orton, but I don't think his disastrous preseason debut in San Francisco on Friday night should cook his starting career in Denver. Not yet, at least."
He later goes on saying that Orton deserves more time. I'm a Raider Fan, i'm used to getting bashed by the media, but I try my hardest to write positive articles about the Raiders, because i'm biased and I'm not a professional writer. So what is Bill's excuse? I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels this frustration about these big sports networks that have man crushes on certain teams.
Let me know what you think.