Taking criticism is part of the job but is as kjironman1 said, he had been critical of him for a while now, who enjoys the same person going after them over and over again? In today's social landscape, the avenues have changed and a writer can respond back. I'm guessing if kjironman1 doesn't mind dishing it out as much as he indicates he has, he doesn't mind taking a single tweet.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a writer or other public figure responding to a critic. It's the world we live in now and I actually think it's pretty cool.
You say that money talks, and don't whine about Quick. Okay, I'll bite. Then the Oregonian should have bought a piece of the Blazers from Paul Allen, to gain the right to whine. Taking your logic a step further, the government shouldn't be criticized by the people, only by those who can buy influence. The only voters in elections should be the rich and their paid lobbyists. Heh heh. This thread is fun.
The government should be criticized. And there is a difference between whining and criticizing. But the media is easily influenced by people with money. So then the sheep follow what the media is saying about the government, no matter how wrong or right it may be.
That site relies upon readers typing in their salaries. The more you make, the less likely you use an employment site like that. Big city star beat reporters aren't going to type it in. Young smalltown, small-paper jobseekers looking for their second reporting jobs, might. In his influential job, Quick has made friends with dozens if not hundreds of influential Portlanders who can offer him a couple hundred thousand dollars per year. He's locally famous.
This makes me think about the whole brouhaha between Kevin Durant and the Oklahoma City newspaper a couple of years ago when it ran a headline calling him "Mr. Unreliable" or something like that. I think it was a column, an opinion piece, and I thought it was fair. However, the paper came under fire and apologized to Durant. Did they do it because they felt it was wrong, or did they do it because the overly-sensitive, IMO, Durant might leave because the paper criticized him? I thought it was the latter, and it put the whole paper's credibility in question.
As someone who's worked in this field and has for 25 years, I can tell you that reporters generally are very low paid. Only the absolute top of the business in the biggest markets might draw six-figure salaries, and even then probably guys that are getting on television. Print journalism routinely rates among the worst jobs to have in America.
To be fair, I even wondered what he said when I asked you on a different thread? I really don't get what Quick said that offended you? In fact Quick sweats the shit outta of Lillard and always says good things. But I agree Quick has had a bad history with the previous teams but not with this one
Man tell me about it. Quick is actually not bad to me, he says a lot of great things about this current team to the point it gets to homer levels once in awhile. And again he looooooves Lillard a lot and writes nothing but great things about him. I kinda feel for Quick on this tweet. I don't see what he did wrong
The paper is owned by the Thunder owner, so there's a conflict of interest. The owner can send a message to Durant through a slanted article. You just described Quick. I mean when he was big time with the Oregonian, appearing occasionally on TV and radio, not now in his lesser position. If he didn't make a couple hundred thousand, he could have. He meets many company owners who would like a locally famous figurehead in their marketing department.
Writers write...sometimes twitter gets them into trouble because they react impulsively to something or someone. What I think is awesome is that Quick responded to kjironman...that speaks volumes to the fact that he was bothered by the criticism..if he were a highly influential media figure..he wouldn't bother to draw attention to any detractor..kj baited him and he took the bait...as to his entire body of work and all that...I don't care enough to look into it myself but his interview with Harkless last game was pretty snarky....basically saying, up until now you've sucked...what changed.....after the interview I thought...what a stupid question that was to a guy who just had a great game
You've got to appear more than occasionally on TV and radio. I am saying you have to have regular shows. In essence, you have to be working two fulltime jobs. If he even cleared $100,000, he'd be in probably the top one-tenth of the percentile in his industry.
Like i said..I'm an Ironworker. I take worse than that just about every day of my life. Quick can't even begin to get under my skin. I have no problem at all with him bumping me a bit. I even responded to his tweet and offered to have coffee with him if he chose to. No answer or response as expected.
I looked at a number of other sites as well but you may very well be correct. He might be getting certain endorsements or even extras from some other places.
So Quick is KJs bitch, and y'all know I got Clownzano. Who else wants to take one up with a reporter? Next up: Dwight Jaynes
I've said it a bunch of times not only here but on his articles. Quick is a very talented writer. One of the best to ever cover the Blazers. He has gotten too close at times and he said things that were beyond reporter privilege. The cases are many including Pippen, Sheed, Broy and Batum among others. Then he went negative on the Blazers as a whole for a while when it was unwarranted. Lately he has been on the Lillard train. What i have seen is it goes bad just about every time with him. I personally feel it would be best for him to leave the Blazers alone. Honestly just my opinion and i have absolutely no problem with him responding to it the way he did.
Paul doesn't just have a portion of the franchise laying around for sale. He is on TV now WAY MORE than he was before. He is now the main Blazer Insider instead of sharing with Richman and Freeman.
