Beers with Wynalda, FFCinPCB's interview

The two sentences immediately after are keepers also:

"A rather ordinary telecast for a rather ordinary game. MLS needs to do a lot better than this."

Exactly, again.

 

Don, your quote got me thinking about ripping off my own quote, based on yours:

"Well-behaved women seldom make history" - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Thatcher_Ulrich

Don't know if I've been crossed off Waldo's list, or if he is media savvy enough, added.

 

Well, here's an interesting point of view, considering it comes from Andrea Canales, who's also an ESPN employee, I believe.

If ESPN has an embargo on the subject, then how is she able to post opinions on what should or what should not?


Note the comments. Those are WAY typical! And I've been keeping track.

Like I said before... if ESPN actually wanted the thing quashed, they wouldnt have publicized the offending site.

 

The typical comments are one of support for Wynalda.

The typical quotes for some, but definitely not all, who consider themselves "journalists", well.....

 

I have never found Canales' work all that great and this adds more to that way of thinking. I love how she and others commenting on the situation simply jump to conclusions that PCB was wrong in what he did. Yet, the very reasons they are saying he is wrong are the exact reasons he was right......he had a recording.

Andrea and the posters on her blog never heard the tape so how can they make a claim one way or another about the merits of the interview?

 

So what I'm reading in this is that Canales belives everyone should conduct interviews in the fashion she conducts hers. Which is essentially to turn on your tape recorder and get some fluff quotes from whomever.

Is it not the jouro's job to try and find a new track, get inside information, and candid quotes? I don't read news because I want fluff, PR front. The idea that 90:00 would seek approval from Wynalda is to me ubsurd. That just proves there a tool of the industry and the people they report on.

I can however see how this looks from the other side, PCB did indeed say he was from 90:00 minutes but then published the interview on an ubscure website. At a glance there would appear to be somthing sort of unsavory about that.

 

Where did I say this?

 

Tom who I presume knows quite a lot about the circumstances of the interview and who I presume listened to the recording of the interview based on his posts and message about the interview on the home page said in this same thread

"PCB made it known he was with 90:00 magazine."

So either you did or Tom is incorrect in saying this. I don't mean to put words in your mouth but it seemed clear to me based on what I've read that you did.

 

Ok so just set the record strait. Is this statment correct??

"PCB made it known he was with 90:00 magazine."

Or was Tom incorrect when he posted it?

 

Ok whatever, if you want to set the record strait I'll be happy to take your word for it. But until then I'm just going to assume that Tom the man in charge of the sites editorial content was correct when he says

"PCB made it known he was with 90:00 magazine."

 

Oldy, but goody. The whole story will come out eventually.

 

You either made it clear to Wynalda that you were from 90:00 or you you didn't. Quite simple really.

The man whos in charge of editorial content posted on the site says you did. So unitl you want to come out and say otherwise I find it rather unreasonable that anyone who takes Toms word on the issue should catch flak for doing so.

Thats all I'm saying.

 

To set my position straight, I am quite certain that PCB made it known he was with 90:00. Now, as the editor of this site, it was my responsibility to verify exactly what was said in the interview, but I did not.

However, when PCB told me the story behind it, he gave me no reason to NOT believe him regarding the whole interview. Additionally, he has been a longstanding member of FUSA that has built up a solid reputation over his time posting on the board and such.

I can understand where people might think PCB was wrong for doing the interview and at FUSA for posting it, but I have talked to a few "professionals" in the business of writing and reporting about soccer who say we did nothing wrong.

I will stand by the decision to post the interview and for PCB for conducting it and putting it together. Whether for a fan site, a soccer news site or a magazine it does not matter. What was said was said. No one can take that back. Being a fan site as we are does mean we are any less credible than a full blown Soccer News site contrary to what Andrea Canales thinks.

Writers are writers whether they are paid to it or not. At FulhamUSA.com we have built up a solid reputation over the last two and a half years of posting solid articles in which most of them are original writings not just copy and pasted from other sites which many other websites do.

If I thought in any way the interview was inappropriate for the site or that it would tarnish what I think and hear from others is a good reputation, I would NOT have posted it. I did post and I am happy that I did.

 

Alright.

I'm not alleging the interview shouldn't have been posted or anything of the sort.

I was just simply repeating the information avalible from a reliable source, and all the sudden PCB jumps down my throat, as if I was grossly embelishing it. I just feel sorta wrong done by it.

 

If I came across getting on you or anyone else, I apologize. I was just trying to state the reasons behind the why the interview was posted and so forth and so on with regards to FulhamUSA.com in general.

PCB is the man with the inside info on this one. If you want specifics of it, he will be your guy.

 

I hope I am not belaboring this topic, but based on some pretty inaccurate guesses by so-called journalists out there on the net, I must point out that if you are interested in a real American soccer fan's honest and truthful follow-up to this interview, based on facts, please visit www.beerswith.com.

 

Thank you, sir.