whoooooooooosh!

Seriously, I have absolutely no idea what I'll end up doing: I'm actually best suited to being an academic specialising in the economics and politics of football, I suspect. Plus, that'd give me an excuse to bore everyone rigid by writing at length too...

One thing I've learnt over the past year, though. Until very recently, I took every bit of criticism VERY seriously, and personally too I suppose: I'd always ask myself "what can you do better? Your writing is pissing people off!" But if you look at the Guardian, Times or Scotsman's blogs, what leaps out is the absolutely unbelievable amount of stick practically all sportswriters seem to receive: never mind being unable to please everyone even some of the time: they just can't seem to win at all.

And to be honest, if I had that amount of flak, and took it to heart, I'd probably either be unable to write anything ever again or would go and top myself somewhere. So I've started biting back and defending myself instead (and doubtless sounding more pompous and condescending than ever in the process). But I wonder if pretty much all journos, figuring it's impossible to satisfy everyone anyway, end up just ignoring any criticism they get, simply in order to get by?

Obviously, this must apply more in the internet age than ever before - but I wonder if people like DoY or Jayson Blair found this themselves too? It's a tough business, and you clearly need a very thick skin in order to prosper.

Posted By: thebigfeller, Nov 8, 15:32:27