Sometimes you don't realize just how far your content reaches.
Today, I got an email from Pat Jordan, the freelance writer who wrote the New York Times piece about the Four Aces.
One thing I've learned from doing this: You don't reach out to someone unless they've gotten under your skin… if even just a little bit.
PJ's email… and my response… after the jump.
I should be clear that instead of a responding with a jab, I used this direct-line to tell him what my problem was with his very public depiction of the aces.
On Apr 6, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Pat Jordan wrote:
hey, cb. question. if nobody reads newspapers any more, why are you and your readers so worked up over conlin's column and my story?
PJ, my point was, that sort of out-of-touch writing is one (of many) reasons why more people are turning to blogs and websites for their news. While I thought your observations about the game changing were fantastic, you used those four guys to get your point across. It's clear that you went there with an agenda, and used their brush-offs and perceived lack of personality to take them down a few pegs. How can you write an in-depth piece about those guys and not mention Halladay's two no-hitters last year, or Cliff Lee's tremendous playoff performances over the last two seasons? Instead, you pointed out each of their flaws, Lee's only two less-than-stellar playoff starts, and every other fault you could find with them. Heck, you put-down Lee for having a temper and throwing at Sammy Sosa, yet champion the fact that hitters were afraid of Nolan Ryan. That's hypocrisy, my friend. Conlin, a notorious curmudgeon, agreed with you, showing just how out-of-touch he is with his readers.
You made it clear in this – and other writings – that you have a chip on your shoulder against today's "big time" stars. And your portrait of the Four Aces recklessly depicts that.
Thanks for reading our blog.
Waiting on response…