OK, Suns fans, here's the deal. Some of you may have noticed that I've been neglecting my blog duties. As well, you message board patrons may note that I've been a little on edge lately. There's a good reason for it, and I felt it appropriate to share my epiphany with my readers.
Today was a good day. I got my insurance card (finally), the pigeon landed after a long holiday layover, the Death Star arrived, and azcentral's own Paul Coro spoke to me. Now, I wasn't sure why at the time, but upon reading my name in a column by PC made me smile and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It felt surreal having someone speak directly to me through a professional blog on a corporate website, and then it hit me. Paul wasn't talking to me. He was talking to a person who really only exists online.
It seems that I've been having an identity crisis of sorts, lately, and that response opened my eyes to what is really going on around here. The person writing is not the same as the person speaking (ambiguity intentional). I can actually distance and dissociate myself from the "character" I present online, thus separating myself from the iconic "Jey" (which, by the way, is not my "real" name).
If certain people don't get it, so be it. I am not going to change the identity that I so carefully constructed for satirical use in favor of "political correctness" (by extension, the opportunity to work more professionally).
I've had my integrity questioned, my fanship challenged, my methods criticized, and my insanity "duly noted." And you know what? Fuck* you. The only reason anyone could ever get pissed off at anything I say . . . is that I speak the truth.
You don't like my method for expressing my criticisms? Too bad. Focus on the problem, and don't worry about my attitude. There is no reason that a professional journalist should be speaking directly to a message board personality through his own corporate blog. It is highly unethical, as it shows how much you are forming your work based on external influences. You should be writing objectively - you should not be letting external biases creep into your work. You have enough of your own to worry about.
You don't think I'm a good enough fan? Outdo me. I challenge you to do what I do every day to express my loyalty to the Suns. All any of you do is talk on a message board and write cheaply written first person pseudo-blogs. I put effort into my work. I educate myself in more areas of study for the purposes of informing and entertaining than any of you consider for your own careers. This is not just some dude with an opinion spouting off on the Internet. This is an artist perfecting his craft, and who can ever question that I've chosen the Suns as my canvas? When you've crawled in my skin for three days, then you can question and/or criticize me. Until then, keep your blindfolded cheer leading to your corner closets. I'm working here.
To those who enjoy and appreciate the things I do in the name of Solar Redemption, thank you for your continued support.
There is no Planet. There is only A Clockwork.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I think I like ironic Jey better than iconic Jey. I don't know why you're pissed off at Paul for addressing you. I don't believe it was unethical. In fact, he did the right thing and deserves praise for doing so.
Whether your real name is Jey or not, whether you see yourself as different from the blog persona, that is not anything anyone should have to decipher in addressing or responding to you.
You - the Jey who is presenting himself here and on the message boards - is the entity to whom I and Paul Coro and anyone else is responding.
It's good that you devote yourself and your time and talents to this endeavor. I appreciate it a lot. I love the Suns and I love most of your writing. But flagging it repeatedly speaks of an ego problem or a narcissistic personality disorder. I don't use those words lightly.
This was not one of your finer blogs nor one of your better weeks, in my humble opinion.
No offense, Allan, but I think you missed the point on this one.
This entry is not about me, in any form of "me". This is a critique of mediated communications and its place in journalism contained within the framework of a pseudo-parable describing the implications of personality dissociation between the virtual self and "real world" self.
Basically, you critiqued the parable, but missed the message. Remember, my titles hold a lot of significance.
This is more accurate:
It is a philosophical piece examining identity written in the first person.
?
If you confused me at first, you've miffed me now. I'm lost.
The bottom line to me here - as I'm not following the fancy psychological, philosophical, verbal footwork - is: Did Paul Coro do the right thing by addressing "Jey" personally in his blog?
I say, Yes, with no reservations. In today's Gannett-run media world, journalists are encouraged to be in touch with readers, to be responsive and to respond. They are serving us/you/me. They are fighting against many, many other competitors for our attention, time, money, etc. They may not be great journalists, but they are trying to be responsive. To serve our needs and to address our concerns. I don't see the problem. I don't get the "unprofessionalism." I don't see anything "unethical."
"It is highly unethical, as it shows how much you are forming your work based on external influences. You should be writing objectively - you should not be letting external biases creep into your work. "
I disagree with this. Objectivity is a myth and I think in many places, it has been acknowledged - since Hunter S. Thompson's early breakthroughs with Gonzo Journalism - that objectivity doesn't exist, nor should it exist.
We are all human beings. We have our own biases. A professional journalist should recognize that he/she has biases and try to keep them out of their writing, unless it's in column writing or editorial writing. But the very act of deciding what to include or not include is one influenced by biases.
No journalist is 100% objective and anyone trying to be objective above all else is probably failing at the mission of journalism. Fairness, integrity, professionalism, thoroughness - all of these are more important to me than trying to be objective above all else.
"Did Paul Coro do the right thing by addressing "Jey" personally in his blog?"
That's the fundamental question I'm posing.
I don't want to explain this one because I feel that it defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to do. I don't want to say that it's a work of fiction because then it loses it's power. On the other hand, I don't want to say that it's "real" because that will ellicit reactions like your first one.
It is a philosophical examination written in the first person. That's all I really want to say in describing it. It brings up a lot of interesting questions, I think, one of them being, "Is this for real?" It blurs the line between cyberspace and physical space in order to draw out those questions.
Pardon me if it sounds pretentious, but the entry is designed to ellicit varying reactions.
"Objectivity is a myth"
Remember my previous entry?
Objectivity is a myth.
One thing we agree on tonight.
Have we come full circle? Or are we spiraling out beyond the atmosphere of a certain orange planet?
I'm spiraling off to bed.
By the way, looks like they've started that win streak.
There is no Planet. Only A Clockwork. That's where the Death Star comes in.
I look at it like this. We can't actually obtain objectivity, we can only follow Truth to a just conclusion. I stay honest by satirizing myself. If I do that, then I'm highlighting my own biases and hypocsrisies, this following Truth. It's not objective, but at least I'm not denying it.
*thus following Truth.
Forgive me, Jey. There is a huge hole in my otherwise broad and deep cultural knowledge. I never watched the Star Wars series, believe it or not, beyond snippets of the odd movie. I had to google Death Star just now.
So, that's a minor piece of the puzzle. As for the rest, maybe a new day will enlighten me as to the mysteries that lie barely below the surface of Jey's reality, iconic, ironic, or neither or both.
I seem to be receiving (e-mail) messages from a different source that may shed further light on the deeper truths...
But I do generally find it quite tricky to satirize one's self. Tricky and possibly over-indulgent.
See, I don't even know what "self-indulgent" means. I've heard that phrase a million times in my life, but it simply makes no sense to me how a person can indulge in himself.
I'm not made of chocolate.
There is nothing wrong with turning my perspective onto myself, examine what it is I'm doing and how I conduct myself on message boards, then highlight all the best and worst points at the same time. Do you not see the brilliance in completely dissociating from myself? It's not self-indulgent. It's self-critical. I just happened to bring everyone else along with me.
I got you to see through my eyes, and you didn't like it. Does that not tell you something about the self whom you claim to be so indulgent? Was it not uncomfortable? Was it not written in the FIRST PERSON?
Put it together, man. The artist has made a statement about himself. You just have to dig deeper in your analysis to see how I did it. That's what you're missing...the deeper meanings.
Don't get lost in the blurry area between fact and fiction. I put that there for a reason.
Somewhat related I guess, but here's something I saw and thought of you. Aw.
"Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic
wit and the person who doesn't get it"
YAYYYYYY for the insurance-card-thingy. ABOUT BLOODY TIME!
On a side-note, it is pretty funny actually to have a notable professional sports writer addressing the Jey so. It's like witnessing Hannity and Colmes addressing the "K". ;)
Post a Comment