What's new

The Athletic

Timberwolf

Timberwolf

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2008
10,328
50,217
Marty said:
Good summary. I'm subscribing to the first two you mention but not the Spurs one, I listened to the first one but Jack Pitt-Brooke's voice was a turn off. Definitely a better writer than speaker.

The only Spurs pod I subscribe to is TFC Extra Inch.
Click to expand...
Jack Pitt-Brooke sounds like Will from the Inbetweeners:

35e6f657-0e9e-4f51-992f-7747d9a33bce.jpg


I have a sneaking suspicion they're the same person.

jack_pitt_brooke.png


I do enjoy his new podcasts, though, and reckon the Spurs one is the best since Cock On Ball back in the day.
 
Gb160

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,673
93,424
Timberwolf said:
I do enjoy his new podcasts, though, and reckon the Spurs one is the best since Cock On Ball back in the day.
Click to expand...
It's refreshing not to hear the same old tired hacks spouting the same old cliche ridden tripe.
Probably still a virgin.
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Amo said:
I don't think clickbait means "any interesting or eyecatching or evocative title."
Click to expand...

Even if you don't think it technically counts as clickbait (which, let's be honest, is an incredibly boring argument nobody can be bothered having) it's still an intentionally extreme/blunt/evocative headline that's clickbait-like in the sense that it's using the same sort of techniques that make clickbait work. When one of their fundamental arguments for why we should all shell out for their content is that they "don't do clickbait", having clickbait-esque headlines like that is still a bit hypocritical IMO. If they're going to be all high and mighty about it then they can't even flirt with clickbait otherwise they just look daft.
 
Amo

Amo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
15,799
31,486
'O Zio said:
Even if you don't think it technically counts as clickbait (which, let's be honest, is an incredibly boring argument nobody can be bothered having) it's still an intentionally extreme/blunt/evocative headline that's clickbait-like in the sense that it's using the same sort of techniques that make clickbait work. When one of their fundamental arguments for why we should all shell out for their content is that they "don't do clickbait", having clickbait-esque headlines like that is still a bit hypocritical IMO. If they're going to be all high and mighty about it then they can't even flirt with clickbait otherwise they just look daft.
Click to expand...

Well yes but I just strongly disagree that this counts as anything close to clickbait. In fact, think it's a rather good title and you're being overly sensitive. So to me the debate is rather redundant. The last thing I want is for them to be scared of being expressive.
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Amo said:
Well yes but I just strongly disagree that this counts as anything close to clickbait. In fact, think it's a rather good title and you're being overly sensitive. So to me the debate is rather redundant. The last thing I want is for them to be scared of being expressive.
Click to expand...

Not sure how I'm being sensitive really. Someone mentioned that they thought it was a bit hypocritical of them and I was essentially just saying I agree. They make a very deliberate effort to criticise the traditional press and their use of clickbait and then use the fact that they "don't do clickbait" as a major selling point for why you should subscribe, because their articles are so good that you'll want to read them anyway, without them needing to resort to cheap tricks to catch your eye. Like I say, if they're going to have that self-righteous attitude about it then there's a certain irony if they write anything that even resembles clickbait. Like I say I don't really understand why that makes me "sensitive", I just find it mildly amusing that they're already showing signs of straying from their supposed moral highground.
 
Amo

Amo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
15,799
31,486
'O Zio said:
Not sure how I'm being sensitive really. Someone mentioned that they thought it was a bit hypocritical of them and I was essentially just saying I agree. They make a very deliberate effort to criticise the traditional press and their use of clickbait and then use the fact that they "don't do clickbait" as a major selling point for why you should subscribe, because their articles are so good that you'll want to read them anyway, without them needing to resort to cheap tricks to catch your eye. Like I say, if they're going to have that self-righteous attitude about it then there's a certain irony if they write anything that even resembles clickbait. Like I say I don't really understand why that makes me "sensitive", I just find it mildly amusing that they're already showing signs of straying from their supposed moral highground.
Click to expand...

Yes but all of what you wrote is redundant if it isn't actually clickbait and I don't think it is. And if it isn't, as is my opinion, then all of what you're saying doesn't actually apply here. They haven't showed signs of straying from their moral high ground based on this article and title; even The New Yorker has pisstake pages in their print edition and online.

If the title is fine, as I believe it to be, then no compromises have been made with regards to their founding ethos.

Just so I know where you're coming from, can you suggest a non-clickbait title to replace the one they went with?
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Amo said:
Yes but all of what you wrote is redundant if it isn't actually clickbait and I don't think it is. And if it isn't, as is my opinion, then all of what you're saying doesn't actually apply here. They haven't showed signs of straying from their moral high ground based on this article and title; even The New Yorker has pisstake pages in their print edition and online.

If the title is fine, as I believe it to be, then no compromises have been made with regards to their founding ethos.

Just so I know where you're coming from, can you suggest a non-clickbait title to replace the one they went with?
Click to expand...

Again, whether or not it's clickbait isn't what I was talking about. It's a clickbait-style headline though there's no denying it, so like I say I find it mildly amusing (not rolling around in hysterics) that after all their talk of "not doing clickbait" they're straying into that kind of territory already and they've only been going in the UK for a couple of months. I'm not really sure what this has to do with piss-takes or the new yorker so I don't really have anything to say about that.

As for a less clickbait-esque headline - I'm not a professional journalist/sub-editor (obviously) but given that the main point in the article actually turns out not to be about how Jose is bigger than us, but is actually about how he's had his best successes at clubs that aren't in the "elite" echelons of the footballing world and therefore the Porto and Chelsea-era Mourinho could make a return with us, I would make it something about that.
 
Amo

Amo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
15,799
31,486
'O Zio said:
Again, whether or not it's clickbait isn't what I was talking about. It's a clickbait-style headline though there's no denying it, so like I say I find it mildly amusing (not rolling around in hysterics) that after all their talk of "not doing clickbait" they're straying into that kind of territory already and they've only been going in the UK for a couple of months. I'm not really sure what this has to do with piss-takes or the new yorker so I don't really have anything to say about that.

As for a less clickbait-esque headline - I'm not a professional journalist/sub-editor (obviously) but given that the main point in the article actually turns out not to be about how Jose is bigger than us, but is actually about how he's had his best successes at clubs that aren't in the "elite" echelons of the footballing world and therefore the Porto and Chelsea-era Mourinho could make a return with us, I would make it something about that.
Click to expand...

There is denying it. I'm denying it. There. It's denied.

There's no denying that it's not clickbait-style. How's that then?
 
spursfan77

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,684
104,964
Anyone else notice that the majority of the articles on there, and not just our ones, are always on the glass half full side of things. When they are on a particular club or something they’ve done they never really seem overwhelmingly positive.
 
Hakkz

Hakkz

Svensk hetsporre
Jul 6, 2012
8,196
17,270
spursfan77 said:
Anyone else notice that the majority of the articles on there, and not just our ones, are always on the glass half full side of things. When they are on a particular club or something they’ve done they never really seem overwhelmingly positive.
Click to expand...

Then you mean glass half empty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zaphod
How transfers actually work (The Athletic)
Replies
4
Views
1K
DenverSpur
DenverSpur
carmeldevil
Article from Athletic on Gretar Steinsson
Replies
7
Views
2K
Jody
Jody
Sandro30
Harry Kane: The making of Tottenham & England striker
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
DJS
DJS
Top