Snobs vs. Slobs

—-

Mike Schur has already touched on this, as has Will Leitch, the folks at Kissing Suzy Kolber and A.J. Daleurio. Both were subjects of an episode of Bob Costas’ HBO show Tuesday evening as Buzz Bissinger basically set himself on fire getting angry at Leitch about sports bloggers.
—-

Some things to think about before we go any deeper:

First, I’m not really a sports blogger. In a technical sense, yes, our site runs on blogging software and, yes, I sometimes write here. But, I don’t consider myself a sports blogger and self-definition is very important.

So, if you think I’m defending sports bloggers or blogs in general (more on that in a second) because I’m a blogger… You’re off. My job (and former places of employment) would speak to my own loyalties to more traditional media. Well, I’ve worked mostly on the Web, so maybe not. I don’t know.

Of course, avid, rabid fans of the site also know that I can’t fucking stand Buzz Bissinger. He’s a condescending douche bag. He’s a talented storyteller, certainly, but his opinion seems to be that his own shit doesn’t stink.

I like Leitch’s site, Deadspin, a fair amount. The site has linked to us a couple of times, famously (to Taft and I, at least) for one of our Handsome Man Teams. I’m not in love with his general bent towards sport—he’s a Cardinal fan, after all—when he speaks of how big media and the leagues (there’s my establishment sympathies there) ruined sport for the “fans,” whoever they are. But, Leitch has a really good outlook on himself, sports and the quasi fame that he enjoys. Like Dan Le Batard, Leitch seems to understand that, ultimately, this is all kind of meaningless (I’ll get to that in a minute).

Building off that, I love Dan Steinberg as a writer and used to work with him. He was always a really nice guy to me when we worked together.
—-

Schur—who was not on the panel, but interviewed for another segment—wrote a nice piece on the topic. Like the level-headed fellow he appears to be, he explains that there are good bloggers, there are bad bloggers, etc.

Picking a random blog comment and wielding it as a club to bash “blogs” is like picking a random romance novel off an airport bookstore shelf and saying, “This book sucks. Fuck you, Tolstoy—your medium is worthless!

Moreover, a point Schur dances around, but doesn’t address is one I’ve been discussing with my grad school classmates all year. Bloggers are not monolithic. “Blog” is simply the software. Blogger, Wordpress, Movable Type and the like are software. Software. Software!

Everyone has a different idea of what a “blogger” is. Some people find it to be the Gawkers of the world; Real(ish) reporters with backing. The Gawker folks (or the people at TMZ) do real reporting often, spend a lot of time reflecting on news stories already reported and have a ton of snark. Some people see bloggers as total outsiders, throwing bombs at big media. Fire Joe Morgan, of course, does this as well as anyone.

There are tons and tons of definitions in between. All these mean nothing. Blogs are simply software. Software! No different from PhotoShop, CCI, Quark or whatever.
—-

The recap of the Costas show is as such: Costas would ask a question to the panel (sometimes to Leitch specifically), someone would start and Bissinger would freak the fuck out.

Bissinger broke out some of the classics. That bloggers are basement-dwelling nerds. That they don’t understand the games they cover. That they can’t write with any style.

These arguments are tired and foolish.

There are a lot of conversations about blogs that start or end with a phrase that sounds a little like this comment from Deadspin: “What I can’t figure out is why people like Costas and Buzz think that there is a movement to have blogs replace all reporting. Just because Deadspin has no access, favor, or discretion, doesn’t mean that Will (or anyone else that I can think of) wants the media members with the cameras, microphones, and pens to go away.”

This is true, but I don’t think it’s the central argument here.

There are also a lot of conversations that reflect another Deadspin comment: “But the gig is up for columnists, as that is what they have essentially been doing for years: watching a game, reading some coverage, and providing their opinion. They realize that now anyone can do their job. And a select few are even doing it better.”

This is also true and it’s closer to the point.
—-

Dan Steinberg is one of the best writers out there and he happens to, you know, work for the Washington Post. A blog, yes, but the Post. The reason Steinberg is great is because he knows the point in this whole argument: This is all meaningless.

Take Michael Wilbon. Wilbon is among the nicest men I’ve ever met, but he takes himself way too seriously. On PTI, he lambastes Tony Kornheiser for dressing up in costume and doing the penguin dance and the like, arguing that he, Michael Wilbon, is a serious journalist.

Uh, no.

He’s a sports journalist. He covers manufactured events in which grown adults dress in costume, chasing a ball. He’s won awards for doing this.

The main problem with the traditional sports journalists’ argument is that they take themselves seriously. As the Deadspin commenter says, columnists don’t do anything. They provide their opinion, as I do, as Taft does, as anyone.

The software have democratized sports opinion and that hurts no one more than the current opinion makers. It’s a pretty grand paradigm shift and one that makes the current opinion makers dreadfully scared.

The software means someone can call out the idiotic color analysts and columnists. It makes for more accountability for the actual morons who have microphones. Blogging software means we can laugh with our athletes as they embarrass themselves. Blogging software gives us the minds of people who create hyperbolic characters out of public figures (not, you know, unlike SNL).

It means opportunity now isn’t the most important thing. It takes the politics—you need to know someone to get hired at a newspaper, you need to kiss ass to get a column, etc.—out of the process. Anyone with a computer can spout on the Web. Anyone can be funny, insightful or interesting.

Yes. The software means that there is a lot of crap on the Web. For every KD (or Batgirl or MJD or With Leather or Fanhouse or even Bill Simmons), there’s 100 people like me. That’s fine. But, without the software and the opportunities therein, there would be no KD or Simmons or whoever.

We’d all be left reading Buster Olney.
—-

Maybe it’s because I don’t read as much political or local journalism as I do sports journalism, but I never see as much blog-bashing as I see in sports journalism. I like to think it’s because political journalists respect free speech more—sport depends on a strict meritocracy and a strict set of rules, thereby making authority very important and therefore making sports fans and writers more conservative—but that’s probably foolish.

Not to get too journalist-y, but I imagine a big part is that political journalists have worked on all sides of the coin. They’re written without access, they’ve written from the buses of candidates. The information they have is more than the information Wonkette has and—more importantly—political journalism has always had tabloids to deal with. Now, the tabloids are online. No big deal.

But, sports journalists only had to deal with sports radio and, man, a lot of “real” sports journalists hated sports radio for so long. They thought it brought down the dialogue (it sorta did), but, eventually, everyone got in on it. ESPN bought a national network, as did Fox. They put their writers on air and everyone got on the sports radio bus.

(All things being equal, sports radio is much worse than Web opinion writers. At least Web opinion writers get to preview what they write before it posts. Sports radio morons just mouth off and then try to defend what they say. They sometimes steal stuff and get mad when they’re called out.)

The difference now, of course, is that sports radio is an expensive venture. Traditional print and TV journalists knew that Joe Average Fan couldn’t get into it, so the traditional media were fine with sports radio.

But, now, again, the democratization has hurt the status quo. In the same way cable has pushed network TV to write and producer better programming, the sports Web opinion writers should press the traditional print media to do a better job.

They haven’t. They don’t understand embedding video or writing shorter pieces or staying away from cliches or catering to your readers (instead of telling them what to think).

So, consumers go to ESPN.com for scores. Or they go to the team’s Web site for news. Or they watch TV. And this kills the traditional print media people because they’re suddenly irrelevant.

Most importantly, though, they don’t understand that their job is meaningless. Sport is entertainment. Writing about is is entertainment. Wilbon acts like he’s splitting the atom when he’s really just writing about LeBron fucking James.

Anyone can (and does) do it.
—-

You know what’s a great comparison that’s sort of connected? It’s the SABR people v. the old baseball people. All the elements are there. SABR people augment the old scouts; the two are not mutually exclusive.

The bigger point is this: Managers like to get cute with bunting and the hit-and-run and the like. They like to get cute with changing pitchers and the one-inning closer and the like. They like to make baseball out to be more complex than it is.

Managers make claims that relievers and starters are different because of “mindset.” This is untrue. A pitcher is a pitcher is a pitcher is a pitcher. A good pitcher can get outs and a crappy one cannot.

Managers make claims that bunting is important when it isn’t. A team of nine home run hitters will outscore a team of nine Ichiro!-clones. Playing for one run is less effective than hitting the ball as hard as you can.

Managing is not a holy temple. It’s something a few people have lucked into and they treat it as though it’s the same as being president. It’s not.

Just like having opinions on sports.
—-

Maybe I’m making the same points that have already been made. Sportswriters just don’t like the idea that some of us can do what they do. Sure, Web opinion writers aren’t always great. There’s a lot of crap, but, as Schur says, there’s a crap books written.

The problem is that they act like they’re doing some great value to the world. They’re not. It’s just sports. Buzz Bissinger isn’t Mother Theresa or the King of England. He’s just a sportswriter.

Just like Will Leitch.