This Is American Soccer got intrepid with Internet blogging recently and did something of actual journalistic worth:
TIAS interviewed Stephen Goff. I'm at once jealous and thrilled.
Here's what I found most interesting:
"[Goff:] yeah, I try not to put too much opinion or analysis in my work and I think that is the stuff that players get annoyed about. I’m not saying that was the case with Ives, but in general if a player knows you have a strong opinion about something, than yeah, they are going to treat you differently than other reporters. So, I’m very careful about what I say and write about particular situations. I just don’t have as strong a voice as some of the other columnists or bloggers out there. I choose not to. I feel like I’m a journalist; I’m a reporter. I don’t want to take sides. I don’t want to express any opinion. I try to play it down the middle as much as I can. I avoid those situations. "
I've always wondered about that. When comparing Goff to Ives, Ives is much, much louder and outspoken, at least when comparing their blogs. Ives is simultaneously news and analysis, Goff tends to be more news-oriented, and even the opinion he sprinkles like journalistic jimmies throughout his WashPost pieces is sporadic in frequency. He definitely aims to keep his pieces as neutral as possible.
I have mixed feelings about this. While I'm glad he has a very professional attitude, I would appreciate it well if Goff took a more Ive-ish stance towards reporting and told the masses what he thinks. If Goff decided to post his unadulterated opinion about something, I would read it. I want to hear what he has to say.
Ives was interviewed in a similar way by a blogger, but that was a good while back. I can't find it on his archives.
These kinds of interviews always fascinate me because I look up to people like Arroyave, Canales, Ives and Goff and I love to see how they got to be where they are. I would give plenty much to become a beat writer.
Thanks, TIAS. You've made my heart glad.