Hello, my name is Greg, and I’m a sports blogger. My nom de internet is The Nachoman, but I don’t hide my identity as the mild-mannered physics teacher who gained his superpowers began writing a blog in 2005.[1] In the slang of sports bloggers, by revealing my identity to the world at large I have “come out of the basement.” Fortunately, I work in a community that is wholly supportive of my extracurricular writing; my school even hosted the blog for its first three years. Others are not so lucky. Seriously – folks have been fired from their jobs in mainstream media when they have been discovered as bloggers.
By reading this fabulous work of literature, you join the community of blog readers. Maybe you are aware that you are a part of a quiet but massive revolution in the making. It seems that I cannot open a browser window without finding another member of the “traditional” media[2] blasting bloggers, painting them with a uniformly negative brush. Bob Costas, Buzz Bissinger, Wilbon and Kornheiser, Joe Morgan, and more, all have expressed firm anti-blog sentiment. Yet, newspapers and television shows seem to steadily be losing fans and advertising dollars… to sports blogs.
This week, interspersed with the usual baseball references and witticisms, the Nachoman provides some rebuttals to blog critics. This isn’t to say that all blogs are wonderfully written, the heirs apparent to the Grantland Rice Chair of Sports Literature. Think of how many sports blogs are out there… many, maybe even MOST of them, deserve the criticism sent their way. I don’t read those.
My two major themes today are (1) the best blogs are usually of HIGHER quality than the sports coverage available through other sources, and (2) despite the fact that many blogs deserve to be criticized, the legacy media had better get their house in order before they throw stones from a glass porch. Or something like that.
Read on, because I promise not to mix any more metaphors.
The John Morrell Hot Dog Play of the Game
Monday night, Cubs-Reds… Ken Griffey leaped above the Great American Ballpark fence to rob Alfonso Soriano of a home run.
Turnabout is fair play, though – later in the game, Cubs center fielder Felix Pie leaped above the fence to rob Mr. Griffey of his own homer.
Prurient story of the week
Fir seal has relations with a king penguin
It’s actually a rather interesting event, from a zoological perspective. If one thinks that the mating habits of other species are worth studying – and millions of dollars worth of tax-funded NSF grants suggest that you DO think so – then deviant sexual behavior by a pinniped certainly bears mention.
Say the scientists who videotaped the incident: “This is thought to be the first recorded example of a mammal trying to [mate] with a member of another class of vertebrate, such as a bird, fish, reptile, or amphibian.”
These scientists have obviously never hung around an ape fraternity house.
More Cubs-Reds
Cubs fan Deep Dish watched the middle innings Monday with the Nachoman, during which things looked bad for the Cubs. I was alone by the ninth inning, when Francisco Cordero entered with a 2-run lead and a 92% probability of winning the game. Two leadoff singles made the game rather exciting, or nerve-rattling, depending on one’s point of view. The inning turned when Mike Fontenot attempted to score on a wild pitch with one out, and Mr. Cordero tagged him out.
Deep Dish emailed me after the game, referring to Fontenot’s failed attempt to score:
“I followed the ninth on Gameday -- what a fabulous way to blow an opportunity.”
“Exactly,” replied the Nachoman. “Why in the living heck would Cordero walk three guys, including the man in front of Derek Lee?”
So what do legacy journalists have that bloggers do not? Information?
Back in the day,
By reading this fabulous work of literature, you join the community of blog readers. Maybe you are aware that you are a part of a quiet but massive revolution in the making. It seems that I cannot open a browser window without finding another member of the “traditional” media[2] blasting bloggers, painting them with a uniformly negative brush. Bob Costas, Buzz Bissinger, Wilbon and Kornheiser, Joe Morgan, and more, all have expressed firm anti-blog sentiment. Yet, newspapers and television shows seem to steadily be losing fans and advertising dollars… to sports blogs.
This week, interspersed with the usual baseball references and witticisms, the Nachoman provides some rebuttals to blog critics. This isn’t to say that all blogs are wonderfully written, the heirs apparent to the Grantland Rice Chair of Sports Literature. Think of how many sports blogs are out there… many, maybe even MOST of them, deserve the criticism sent their way. I don’t read those.
My two major themes today are (1) the best blogs are usually of HIGHER quality than the sports coverage available through other sources, and (2) despite the fact that many blogs deserve to be criticized, the legacy media had better get their house in order before they throw stones from a glass porch. Or something like that.
Read on, because I promise not to mix any more metaphors.
The John Morrell Hot Dog Play of the Game
Monday night, Cubs-Reds… Ken Griffey leaped above the Great American Ballpark fence to rob Alfonso Soriano of a home run.
Turnabout is fair play, though – later in the game, Cubs center fielder Felix Pie leaped above the fence to rob Mr. Griffey of his own homer.
Prurient story of the week
Fir seal has relations with a king penguin
It’s actually a rather interesting event, from a zoological perspective. If one thinks that the mating habits of other species are worth studying – and millions of dollars worth of tax-funded NSF grants suggest that you DO think so – then deviant sexual behavior by a pinniped certainly bears mention.
Say the scientists who videotaped the incident: “This is thought to be the first recorded example of a mammal trying to [mate] with a member of another class of vertebrate, such as a bird, fish, reptile, or amphibian.”
These scientists have obviously never hung around an ape fraternity house.
More Cubs-Reds
Cubs fan Deep Dish watched the middle innings Monday with the Nachoman, during which things looked bad for the Cubs. I was alone by the ninth inning, when Francisco Cordero entered with a 2-run lead and a 92% probability of winning the game. Two leadoff singles made the game rather exciting, or nerve-rattling, depending on one’s point of view. The inning turned when Mike Fontenot attempted to score on a wild pitch with one out, and Mr. Cordero tagged him out.
Deep Dish emailed me after the game, referring to Fontenot’s failed attempt to score:
“I followed the ninth on Gameday -- what a fabulous way to blow an opportunity.”
“Exactly,” replied the Nachoman. “Why in the living heck would Cordero walk three guys, including the man in front of Derek Lee?”
So what do legacy journalists have that bloggers do not? Information?
Back in the day,
[3] sports news was generally acquired through three types of platforms. Local newspapers provided expansive coverage of local teams, by sending beat writers to the games and to interview the involved parties. National coverage was limited to standings, box scores and 2-sentence summaries. Maybe once a week the paper would provide statistics and commentary on out-of-town teams, but only if the local paper was good.
Local television stations would give 2 minutes or so of nightly highlights, mainly focusing on local teams unless a pitch hit a bird or something. Some stations provided a weekly 30 minute show giving some limited national highlights; some stations would air syndicated national shows like “This Week In Baseball;” otherwise, the only televised national sports information came from limited pre- and post- game shows for network telecasts.
Periodicals, such as Sports Illustrated or The Sporting News were really the sole reliable source for sportswriting on a national scale. They were sure to cover a pennant race, or an important regular season football game, or Auburn-Alabama (even if you didn't live in Alabama). In cities without NBA or NHL teams, periodicals were a fan's only link to goings-on in these leagues.
People often ask the Nachoman why I don’t enjoy the American League. Sure, part of my aversion is uppity anti-DH philosophical baloney. But the real reason is, I didn’t grow up with the American League. I have little connection with the history of those franchises. Cincinnati was an NL town, only NL teams came to the city, pretty much only NL teams were broadcast on the radio and on television. I can’t name more than a few notable players from AL teams pre-2001 (when I bought the satellite baseball package and began playing interleague fantasy baseball). In my baseball life, the AL might as well not have existed, unless NBC’s game of the week showed an AL broadcast.
Even out of town NL scores weren’t always readily available. In the late 1980s Marge Schott famously stopped showing scores on the Riverfront Stadium scoreboard – “fans come to see the Reds, not these other teams,” she commented. There was no “bottom line” ticker shouting constantly across the TV screen. Score updates might happen twice per game. Even the newspapers didn’t have all the scores the next morning, because west coast games often ended too late for the paper’s deadline.
Now, I can watch any game, any time, pretty much any where. Scores are available at a mouse click; in fact, I can choose from a number of competing sites as to which provides me with the information in my preferred format. I can find details of games that I might have missed even if I had attended. By paying mlb.com (or nfl.com, or various college websites), I can even see video highlights of whatever I want.
My readers are, of course, aware of the progress of technology. So are sportswriters in the legacy media. So why do I mention this? Well, it’s sometimes easy to lose perspective when in heated arguments. No logical person can possibly suggest that the internet has done anything but improve access to sports news and information. More to the point, it is more possible more than ever before for anyone, even Joe Schmo, to acquire a thorough knowledge of the daily happenings in a sports league. All it takes is a computer and the ability to read.
I would go as far as to suggest that a diligent, dedicated, and intelligent Mr. Schmo now can have far BETTER knowledge of the intricacies of a league than even the best professional journalists from two decades ago. Baseball-reference.com and mlb.com by themselves provide more information to me than a whole staff of production assistants could provide to professionals back in the day.
More queer baserunning, this time of the successful variety
Something was in the air on Monday night… about an hour after Cubs-Reds was decided on a failed attempt to advance home, the Cardinals and Rockies were tied in the top of the ninth with King Albert on second base.
Before I describe the relevant play, I must note that King Albert grew up in the Dominican Republic, and presumably he learned to play baseball there. On Hispañola, kids learn the game the Nachoman way – not much coaching, but lots and lots of playground-style, anarchic, but competitive games. Needless to say, Alberto Rex and his buddies developed baseball instincts.
Now back to the present day, or at least Monday. The Cards bullpen had been depleted the previous day, to the extent that only one reliever remained for possible extra innings. Rick Ankiel grounded slowly to second base, with A.R. sprinting for third on contact. Rookie second baseman Jonathan Herrera fielded the ball with his head down, wanting to ensure the out at first. As he cocked his arm to throw, he heard shouting: “four!”[4] Too late, Mr. Herrera finished his throw to first, retiring Mr. Ankiel while Albert Pujols sprinted home. Yes, the King had noticed Mr. Herrera’s deliberate fielding at second, and he charged for the plate, scoring the eventual winning run just in front of the tag.
So what else do legacy journalists have that bloggers do not? Access to players?
Well, yes. There’s no doubt that a credentialed reporter from a newspaper or television station is far more likely to obtain a locker room pass than Mr. Schmo.[5]
I ask, though… how important is “access?”
If a legacy journalist wants to do an in-depth feature on a team or a noted athlete, interviews and clubhouse access can be arranged more easily for him or her than for a blogger. “ESPN wants to talk to you for a feature article” carries far more weight with an athlete than “Joe Schmo of Schmo.com wants to do a story about you.” Furthermore, beat reporters, legacy journalists all, are regularly in the clubhouse and on road trips. They get to know the personalities associated with professional sports far more than a pimple-faced twentysomething living in his mother’s basement[6] possibly could.
Okay, but bloggers usually don’t file “feature articles.” Generally, a blog’s bread and butter is stories gained from openly available information sources, or from the blogger’s personal contacts. And, a good number of bloggers have become well-known enough to garner personal audience with professional athletes: Bill Simmons, TheBigLead, Deadspin, and others have done feature pieces with major figures in the sports world; big-time legacy journalists have deigned to interview these and other big-time bloggers.
And, how often does personal, individual access to players meaningfully improve a journalist’s sportswriting? I’ve heard the classic story many times about many different players: Player has a bad game, or has to bug out right after a game’s end. So, he hangs a sign on his locker, to the effect of “Dear media member, here is a list of quotations from me. Please take what you need.” Then he lists about five clichés which apply to that day’s game. If you’ve ever listened to postgame press conferences – those involving Dennis Green or Jim Mora excepted – the interviewee tends to spew a string of clichés, and the media horde dutifully writes them down, often changing the exact wording to suit their needs. Quotations from players are often published online very shortly after their utterance. So, tell me again… why is it so important for a writer to be in the clubhouse to hear these quotations personally? [7],[8]
Saves don’t mean Jack
Astros-Phillies April 15… Jose Valverde (and his catcher) cost the Astros 95% of a win. Mr. Valverde entered with a 3-0 lead, meaning his team should win 95% of the time. And then…
Homer.
Hit Batsman.
Strikeout.
Homer to tie the game.
Strikeout but the ball got by the catcher, runner to first base.
Double to score the (unearned) run and win the game.
I’ve been pretty hard on closers lately. Why? Because I think they get too much credit. And even that’s not a completely true statement… I think the WRONG CLOSERS get too much credit.
As always, I view baseball from the perspective of the probability of a team winning a game. A closer who enters in the ninth with a 3-run lead already has a 95% or so chance of winning; his successful outing only adds about a few percent to his team’s win probability. Working the ninth inning with only a 1-run lead can add more like 28% to a team’s win probability, but earns a save just like the 5% outing did.
Problem is, salary arbitration awards and, way, way too often, free-agent contract offers are heavily based on the silly “save” statistic. It's long been my thesis -- one of the Nachoman's 95 Baseball Theses that someday in a publicity stunt will be nailed to commissioner Bud Selig's door -- that "closers" are highly overrated merely because of the save. Just for fun, on Tuesday I compiled a list of all of the pitchers in baseball with at least 4 saves. I added up all of the win probability that these pitchers had added for their teams. When I say that Jonathan Papelbon has 168% of win probability added (WPA), this means that his pitching by itself has added 1.68 wins to his team’s record. On the other side, Jason Isringhausen BY HIMSELF has in net cost his team exactly one victory due to his -100% WPA.[9]
I don't know enough about statistics to run a true "correlation function", but I can see that saves don't seem to correlate much with a pitcher’s value. Look for yourself:
Local television stations would give 2 minutes or so of nightly highlights, mainly focusing on local teams unless a pitch hit a bird or something. Some stations provided a weekly 30 minute show giving some limited national highlights; some stations would air syndicated national shows like “This Week In Baseball;” otherwise, the only televised national sports information came from limited pre- and post- game shows for network telecasts.
Periodicals, such as Sports Illustrated or The Sporting News were really the sole reliable source for sportswriting on a national scale. They were sure to cover a pennant race, or an important regular season football game, or Auburn-Alabama (even if you didn't live in Alabama). In cities without NBA or NHL teams, periodicals were a fan's only link to goings-on in these leagues.
People often ask the Nachoman why I don’t enjoy the American League. Sure, part of my aversion is uppity anti-DH philosophical baloney. But the real reason is, I didn’t grow up with the American League. I have little connection with the history of those franchises. Cincinnati was an NL town, only NL teams came to the city, pretty much only NL teams were broadcast on the radio and on television. I can’t name more than a few notable players from AL teams pre-2001 (when I bought the satellite baseball package and began playing interleague fantasy baseball). In my baseball life, the AL might as well not have existed, unless NBC’s game of the week showed an AL broadcast.
Even out of town NL scores weren’t always readily available. In the late 1980s Marge Schott famously stopped showing scores on the Riverfront Stadium scoreboard – “fans come to see the Reds, not these other teams,” she commented. There was no “bottom line” ticker shouting constantly across the TV screen. Score updates might happen twice per game. Even the newspapers didn’t have all the scores the next morning, because west coast games often ended too late for the paper’s deadline.
Now, I can watch any game, any time, pretty much any where. Scores are available at a mouse click; in fact, I can choose from a number of competing sites as to which provides me with the information in my preferred format. I can find details of games that I might have missed even if I had attended. By paying mlb.com (or nfl.com, or various college websites), I can even see video highlights of whatever I want.
My readers are, of course, aware of the progress of technology. So are sportswriters in the legacy media. So why do I mention this? Well, it’s sometimes easy to lose perspective when in heated arguments. No logical person can possibly suggest that the internet has done anything but improve access to sports news and information. More to the point, it is more possible more than ever before for anyone, even Joe Schmo, to acquire a thorough knowledge of the daily happenings in a sports league. All it takes is a computer and the ability to read.
I would go as far as to suggest that a diligent, dedicated, and intelligent Mr. Schmo now can have far BETTER knowledge of the intricacies of a league than even the best professional journalists from two decades ago. Baseball-reference.com and mlb.com by themselves provide more information to me than a whole staff of production assistants could provide to professionals back in the day.
More queer baserunning, this time of the successful variety
Something was in the air on Monday night… about an hour after Cubs-Reds was decided on a failed attempt to advance home, the Cardinals and Rockies were tied in the top of the ninth with King Albert on second base.
Before I describe the relevant play, I must note that King Albert grew up in the Dominican Republic, and presumably he learned to play baseball there. On Hispañola, kids learn the game the Nachoman way – not much coaching, but lots and lots of playground-style, anarchic, but competitive games. Needless to say, Alberto Rex and his buddies developed baseball instincts.
Now back to the present day, or at least Monday. The Cards bullpen had been depleted the previous day, to the extent that only one reliever remained for possible extra innings. Rick Ankiel grounded slowly to second base, with A.R. sprinting for third on contact. Rookie second baseman Jonathan Herrera fielded the ball with his head down, wanting to ensure the out at first. As he cocked his arm to throw, he heard shouting: “four!”[4] Too late, Mr. Herrera finished his throw to first, retiring Mr. Ankiel while Albert Pujols sprinted home. Yes, the King had noticed Mr. Herrera’s deliberate fielding at second, and he charged for the plate, scoring the eventual winning run just in front of the tag.
So what else do legacy journalists have that bloggers do not? Access to players?
Well, yes. There’s no doubt that a credentialed reporter from a newspaper or television station is far more likely to obtain a locker room pass than Mr. Schmo.[5]
I ask, though… how important is “access?”
If a legacy journalist wants to do an in-depth feature on a team or a noted athlete, interviews and clubhouse access can be arranged more easily for him or her than for a blogger. “ESPN wants to talk to you for a feature article” carries far more weight with an athlete than “Joe Schmo of Schmo.com wants to do a story about you.” Furthermore, beat reporters, legacy journalists all, are regularly in the clubhouse and on road trips. They get to know the personalities associated with professional sports far more than a pimple-faced twentysomething living in his mother’s basement[6] possibly could.
Okay, but bloggers usually don’t file “feature articles.” Generally, a blog’s bread and butter is stories gained from openly available information sources, or from the blogger’s personal contacts. And, a good number of bloggers have become well-known enough to garner personal audience with professional athletes: Bill Simmons, TheBigLead, Deadspin, and others have done feature pieces with major figures in the sports world; big-time legacy journalists have deigned to interview these and other big-time bloggers.
And, how often does personal, individual access to players meaningfully improve a journalist’s sportswriting? I’ve heard the classic story many times about many different players: Player has a bad game, or has to bug out right after a game’s end. So, he hangs a sign on his locker, to the effect of “Dear media member, here is a list of quotations from me. Please take what you need.” Then he lists about five clichés which apply to that day’s game. If you’ve ever listened to postgame press conferences – those involving Dennis Green or Jim Mora excepted – the interviewee tends to spew a string of clichés, and the media horde dutifully writes them down, often changing the exact wording to suit their needs. Quotations from players are often published online very shortly after their utterance. So, tell me again… why is it so important for a writer to be in the clubhouse to hear these quotations personally? [7],[8]
Saves don’t mean Jack
Astros-Phillies April 15… Jose Valverde (and his catcher) cost the Astros 95% of a win. Mr. Valverde entered with a 3-0 lead, meaning his team should win 95% of the time. And then…
Homer.
Hit Batsman.
Strikeout.
Homer to tie the game.
Strikeout but the ball got by the catcher, runner to first base.
Double to score the (unearned) run and win the game.
I’ve been pretty hard on closers lately. Why? Because I think they get too much credit. And even that’s not a completely true statement… I think the WRONG CLOSERS get too much credit.
As always, I view baseball from the perspective of the probability of a team winning a game. A closer who enters in the ninth with a 3-run lead already has a 95% or so chance of winning; his successful outing only adds about a few percent to his team’s win probability. Working the ninth inning with only a 1-run lead can add more like 28% to a team’s win probability, but earns a save just like the 5% outing did.
Problem is, salary arbitration awards and, way, way too often, free-agent contract offers are heavily based on the silly “save” statistic. It's long been my thesis -- one of the Nachoman's 95 Baseball Theses that someday in a publicity stunt will be nailed to commissioner Bud Selig's door -- that "closers" are highly overrated merely because of the save. Just for fun, on Tuesday I compiled a list of all of the pitchers in baseball with at least 4 saves. I added up all of the win probability that these pitchers had added for their teams. When I say that Jonathan Papelbon has 168% of win probability added (WPA), this means that his pitching by itself has added 1.68 wins to his team’s record. On the other side, Jason Isringhausen BY HIMSELF has in net cost his team exactly one victory due to his -100% WPA.[9]
I don't know enough about statistics to run a true "correlation function", but I can see that saves don't seem to correlate much with a pitcher’s value. Look for yourself:
So what else do legacy journalists have that bloggers do not? An editor and a distinguished publication or TV network to which he or she is answerable?
This point in particular is made religiously by legacy journalists in their blog criticism, and is accepted uncritically: Since bloggers aren’t employed by anyone, they can write whatever they want, they aren’t checked, and they can’t be fired.
Deep Dish makes the first counterargument, grounded in his teaching of constitutional law: often the best independent voice is that which is unbeholden. Why are Supreme Court justices appointed for life? Because they can do what they think is right without answering to an employer or to an ignorant electorate.
We expect that legacy journalists to uphold principals of neutrality and objectivity. But conflicts of interest are ubiquitous in the world of sports media… perhaps an employer also has an ownership stake in a team (see Cubs, Chicago, or Braves, Atlanta, or .com, mlb). Even if a media outlet is free from direct entanglements with the team, its sponsors certainly are not. For example, Viagra might have just poured half of its advertising budget into an NFL promotion; how likely are they to buy ad space in a magazine that speaks negatively, if accurately, about the NFL’s many and varied scofflaws?
Furthermore, what does “accountability” really mean to a legacy journalist? It means an editor who demands accuracy before publication; and it means that the journalist holds a job only while he or she meets the high ethical standards of the profession.
Ha! Sorry, I told a bit of a whopper there. Hee. Hee. Accountability means that a journalist holds a job as long as said journalist helps to sell subscriptions and/or advertising, ethical standards be darned. I asked El Molé to list, off the top of his head, notable journalists who have lied, embellished, or otherwise peed in the fountain of truth:
Jayson Blair of the NYTimes (made up stories wholesale), Janet Cooke of the Washington Post (gave back a 1980 Pulitzer Prize for her story about an 8-year-old heroin addict), Stephen Glass of The New Republic (made up stories wholesale), Armstrong Williams (paid by Bush administration to write columns supporting its education policies), Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, Ann Coulter (if she's considered legitimate), Dan Rather (and the forged Bush National Guard memos), Dateline NBC (and the staged SUV explosions), Buzz Bissinger (accepted false Tony La Russa dogma as fact)… and there’s more, much more, at wikipedia.
These are only NOTABLE journalists who were CAUGHT finagling. I would suggest that it’s pretty darned easy for a print or television journalist to make things up and get away with it, especially back in the day. When average people see something in the paper or on TV, they believe it, even if it seems questionable. First of all, consumers are under the assumption, right or wrong, that an editor has already checked any facts. Secondly, an individual checking a fact must (a) remember the fact as stated, and (b) find time later on to do the necessary research. In 1986 such fact checking was virtually impossible for Joe Schmo. In 2008 a dedicated Mr. Schmo can use the internet, but he still must have access to the original fact to be checked.
It is much more difficult for a blogger to fabricate or misrepresent the truth. Why? Because BLOGS ARE USUALLY READ ONSCREEN AND ONLINE. How hard is it to alt-tab over to google, and to execute a search on a questionable claim? If a blogger misquotes someone, it’s child’s play to find the actual quotation from an alternate source. Blog readers check up on writers out of habit. Even I, puniest of the sportsbloggers, have been frequently corrected by readers when I am anything but 100% clear and correct. If the Nachoman, with a readership of about five, can’t get away with minor and innocent misstatements, think about the outpouring of email that would greet Bill Simmons[10] were he to fabricate a fact.
More about Jack
One of my favorite commercials of the past year involved Jack, the sphere-headed mascot of Jack-In-The-Box fast food restaurants. Competitors to Jack-In-The-Box had begun advertising “Angus Burgers,” which I believe had been selling well. Jack shot back. JINB is not franchised in the east, so many of my readers may never have seen this… I love how Jack, despite being nearly bereft of facial features, nevertheless makes me laugh with his facial expression at the end.
Come on, click on it, it’s only a 30 second video.
Emmitt Smith on Pacman Jones[11]
“If he’s not getting arrested, I’m OK. That’s just me. If he’s not getting arrested, I’m OK. As long as you’re not getting arrested, you’re OK.”
Emmitt, Pacman has been arrested. Many times.
“As long as you’re not killing nobody or getting anybody shot at and going to jail, I have no issues with that. Your personal life is your personal life.”
Um, Mr. Pacman has very likely done all of the above. But great job, Mr. Smith, earning your keep as a multi-million dollar television sports analyst!
This point in particular is made religiously by legacy journalists in their blog criticism, and is accepted uncritically: Since bloggers aren’t employed by anyone, they can write whatever they want, they aren’t checked, and they can’t be fired.
Deep Dish makes the first counterargument, grounded in his teaching of constitutional law: often the best independent voice is that which is unbeholden. Why are Supreme Court justices appointed for life? Because they can do what they think is right without answering to an employer or to an ignorant electorate.
We expect that legacy journalists to uphold principals of neutrality and objectivity. But conflicts of interest are ubiquitous in the world of sports media… perhaps an employer also has an ownership stake in a team (see Cubs, Chicago, or Braves, Atlanta, or .com, mlb). Even if a media outlet is free from direct entanglements with the team, its sponsors certainly are not. For example, Viagra might have just poured half of its advertising budget into an NFL promotion; how likely are they to buy ad space in a magazine that speaks negatively, if accurately, about the NFL’s many and varied scofflaws?
Furthermore, what does “accountability” really mean to a legacy journalist? It means an editor who demands accuracy before publication; and it means that the journalist holds a job only while he or she meets the high ethical standards of the profession.
Ha! Sorry, I told a bit of a whopper there. Hee. Hee. Accountability means that a journalist holds a job as long as said journalist helps to sell subscriptions and/or advertising, ethical standards be darned. I asked El Molé to list, off the top of his head, notable journalists who have lied, embellished, or otherwise peed in the fountain of truth:
Jayson Blair of the NYTimes (made up stories wholesale), Janet Cooke of the Washington Post (gave back a 1980 Pulitzer Prize for her story about an 8-year-old heroin addict), Stephen Glass of The New Republic (made up stories wholesale), Armstrong Williams (paid by Bush administration to write columns supporting its education policies), Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, Ann Coulter (if she's considered legitimate), Dan Rather (and the forged Bush National Guard memos), Dateline NBC (and the staged SUV explosions), Buzz Bissinger (accepted false Tony La Russa dogma as fact)… and there’s more, much more, at wikipedia.
These are only NOTABLE journalists who were CAUGHT finagling. I would suggest that it’s pretty darned easy for a print or television journalist to make things up and get away with it, especially back in the day. When average people see something in the paper or on TV, they believe it, even if it seems questionable. First of all, consumers are under the assumption, right or wrong, that an editor has already checked any facts. Secondly, an individual checking a fact must (a) remember the fact as stated, and (b) find time later on to do the necessary research. In 1986 such fact checking was virtually impossible for Joe Schmo. In 2008 a dedicated Mr. Schmo can use the internet, but he still must have access to the original fact to be checked.
It is much more difficult for a blogger to fabricate or misrepresent the truth. Why? Because BLOGS ARE USUALLY READ ONSCREEN AND ONLINE. How hard is it to alt-tab over to google, and to execute a search on a questionable claim? If a blogger misquotes someone, it’s child’s play to find the actual quotation from an alternate source. Blog readers check up on writers out of habit. Even I, puniest of the sportsbloggers, have been frequently corrected by readers when I am anything but 100% clear and correct. If the Nachoman, with a readership of about five, can’t get away with minor and innocent misstatements, think about the outpouring of email that would greet Bill Simmons[10] were he to fabricate a fact.
More about Jack
One of my favorite commercials of the past year involved Jack, the sphere-headed mascot of Jack-In-The-Box fast food restaurants. Competitors to Jack-In-The-Box had begun advertising “Angus Burgers,” which I believe had been selling well. Jack shot back. JINB is not franchised in the east, so many of my readers may never have seen this… I love how Jack, despite being nearly bereft of facial features, nevertheless makes me laugh with his facial expression at the end.
Come on, click on it, it’s only a 30 second video.
Emmitt Smith on Pacman Jones[11]
“If he’s not getting arrested, I’m OK. That’s just me. If he’s not getting arrested, I’m OK. As long as you’re not getting arrested, you’re OK.”
Emmitt, Pacman has been arrested. Many times.
“As long as you’re not killing nobody or getting anybody shot at and going to jail, I have no issues with that. Your personal life is your personal life.”
Um, Mr. Pacman has very likely done all of the above. But great job, Mr. Smith, earning your keep as a multi-million dollar television sports analyst!
So what else do legacy journalists have that bloggers do not? Better writers, better writing?
Here’s why so many legacy journalists have disingenuously dug in their heels to defend against the blog incursion. In the day, writers spent years at the Podunkville Star-Picayune covering middle school soccer while they built a portfolio that would catapult them to covering minor league baseball at the SlightlyLessPodunkville Times. Jobs with major newspapers or television networks were difficult to find, and usually went to already grey-haired gentlemen who held the position until they retired or died. Those who attained the coveted sinecures often reveled in their hard-earned status as a VIP. Even today, prominent members of the sports media are endlessly fascinated with themselves. I continually hear Dan Patrick, Michael Wilbon, and their ilk debating in all seriousness about the newsworthiness or non-newsworthiness of a story… in many cases, the story in question was a non-story until these very commentators started talking about it!
Here’s why so many legacy journalists have disingenuously dug in their heels to defend against the blog incursion. In the day, writers spent years at the Podunkville Star-Picayune covering middle school soccer while they built a portfolio that would catapult them to covering minor league baseball at the SlightlyLessPodunkville Times. Jobs with major newspapers or television networks were difficult to find, and usually went to already grey-haired gentlemen who held the position until they retired or died. Those who attained the coveted sinecures often reveled in their hard-earned status as a VIP. Even today, prominent members of the sports media are endlessly fascinated with themselves. I continually hear Dan Patrick, Michael Wilbon, and their ilk debating in all seriousness about the newsworthiness or non-newsworthiness of a story… in many cases, the story in question was a non-story until these very commentators started talking about it!
Blogs provide an outlet for every talented (or untalented) writer who can put fingers to keyboard. Many folks who otherwise might not have been given a chance by the legacy media now can be heard. It's now YOUR job as a consumer of information to decide who you want to read; it's no longer an editor's place to decide who's good enough. I sure like having the broader choice... and if a blog stinks, just DON'T READ IT.
They stole his joke!
Each spring Woodberry Forest School hosts “invite-back weekend” in which students who have been accepted into the school can come for a weekend to help make up their minds about whether or not to come. In conjunction with this event, the Atlanta Cracker and I (with help this year from El Molé) put on a science demonstration show complete with moderately funny bits.
In this year’s show, we asked the crowd multiple choice questions that they answered on the school’s new “classroom response system” which displays summaries of the crowd’s answers in real time. The Atlanta Cracker’s favorite question, which he made up and which I mistakenly didn’t manage to ask, was:
Which of the following is the LEAST likely new Nintendo Wii game for 2008?
(A) Wii Knitting
(B) Wii The People: Constitutional Convention!
(C) Wii Origami
(D) Open Heart Surge-Wii
(E) Dick Vitale presents Wii basketball broadcasting
Turns out that Strong Bad
What, you’ve never heard of Strong Bad?
Strong Bad is a character on homestarrunner.com, home of the best cartoon series since Looney Tunes. Check out “Dragon” or “Englilish Paper.”
Do public relations professional ever earn their salaries?
El Molé, perhaps the Nachoman’s most prolific contributor, sent along this audio link to the official crappy theme song for the Nationals. One stanza of the lyrics:
We're nuts (nuts!) about the Nats
We're nuts about the Nats
We're crazy 'bout the Nationals
And nuts about the Nats
Please stop, this is a no retching zone.
Now, now, Nachoman, just because *you* think it crappy doesn’t mean that the rest of the world shares your opinion. To be fair, I let others come to their own conclusion. When this link arrived in my mailbox, my AP physics class was working diligently on their review assignments in preparation for Monday’s big exam. I had some classic rock playing on the classroom speakers. I shut off the classic rock and inserted the new theme song without saying anything. People looked up pretty quickly, with a “what the heck is THAT?” look on their faces.
My litmus test was Woodberry Forest’s senior center fielder, Luke Perry. I asked him if we could play this song on the new PA system at the baseball team’s final home game.
Luke just looked scared and shook his head emphatically.
Objections to blogs: Bloggers are in it for the money and the glory.
Um, most sports blogs are written out of love. Very, very few bloggers got started with the intent to make a living from their writing. Very, very few bloggers actually can make a living from their blogs. So, you say, the ESPN talking head who gets complimentary luxury box tickets to every sporting event imaginable has purely altruistic motives?
Objections to blogs: Bloggers too often put up tawdry stories, or pictures of nearly-naked women, just to draw traffic to their site.
Yeah, consider the primary audience for sports blogs: relatively young, heterosexual men. Certainly gay men read sports blogs, as do women of all sexual orientations. But I am prepared to wager substantial money that MOST – way, way over 50% – of sports blog readers either don’t mind or actively enjoy eye candy. I mean, why do teams provide cheerleaders?
And, of course, the Washington Post or Channel 9 News at 11 has never, ever catered to their lowbrow audience by including intrusive coverage of a celebrity who got in trouble for partying too hard. And Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star didn’t just write an article for Playboy. And if you believe that…
I’m done with ranting about legacy journalists.
Good.
I will NOT discuss this story, but I will link to it.
The White Sox are in trouble for using a Major League – style ploy to reduce their bad batting karma:
It’s gonna be a long night when…
… on Thursday night in Houston, BOTH seemingly nervous pitchers walk the first guy they face. On four pitches each. The Nationals ended up blowing out the Astros in just over three hours. Even once the blowout had been established, relievers such as Luis Ayala couldn’t throw strikes.
As you may have guessed, I worked this game for STATS. The upshot is that I got to see Lance Berkman, one of the hottest hitters in the game, go 2-3 with a walk. This is a scary-good hitter, folks… and remember, as a switch hitter Mr. Berkman takes more than half of his home at-bats from the left side, in a park which is deeply unfriendly to lefties.
Don Sutton’s Theory of Ballplayer Loquaciousness:
"A batter who hits a home run will talk nonstop to his teammates for the rest of the inning." My own observations in support of this theory do not yet encompass a sufficient sample size, but I haven’t found a counterexample yet.
I’m wondering if a Nachoman Corollary is necessary: "Especially when the home run hitter’s team is winning."
Next Week:
The fir seal gets an inflatable penguin.
NM
[2] Hmmm… “traditional” and “mainstream” are the words most used to describe radio, television, print periodicals, and newspaper journalism as distinct from blogs. I prefer to borrow a more appropriate euphemism from the airline and computer industry. I will rename “traditional” journalists as “legacy” journalists.
[3] June 23, 1986
[4] Aside: Such shouting at Woodberry’s varsity baseball field is hardly unusual, as the fourth hole of the golf course runs along the right field fence.
[5] Though that’s changing… The New Jersey Devils gained some positive press for allowing a set of bloggers to cover their games; the Dallas Mavericks have also opened doors to bloggers, though their owner’s motives were not so pure.
[6] The United Nations recently passed a resolution that the “lives in mom’s basement” stereotype of bloggers must be cited in all sports media discussions.
[7] Jay Mariotti of the Chicago Sun-Times, and Mark Madden of Pittsburgh talk radio, among others, are notorious for avoiding the sports figures they defames in writing or on the air.
[8] When legacy journalists all rely on a single person for clubhouse access, that’s called using a “pool reporter.” Why should a blogger relying on second-hand postgame quotations be viewed any differently?
[9] And this does not include his Wednesday meltdown.
[10] Who I worship as the king of all sports bloggers
[11] Thanks to TheBigLead for the quotations
No comments:
Post a Comment