THE RELENTLESS PURSUIT OF THE DONG SHOT: Will Leitch, the founding editor of Deadspin, did two things for Internet sports blogs. First, he showed that they could be both hugely successful and broad -- publishing posts in a number of voices (from Leitch's own measured wit to others' frattier hijinx) and on a number of topics (ranging from serious to trivial or scandalous). Second, he gave a platform to a bunch of people whose popularity bloomed in direct proportion to their crudity. Bissinger famously blamed (and blames, judging from his podcast with Simmons a few weeks back) Leitch for Deadspin's crudity, and there's at least some validity to that because Leitch egged his charges on, but in the post-Leitch era it's clear that Leitch also limited them. His successor, AJ Daulerio, has done nothing of the sort.
A couple of weeks ago, Daulerio ran a story (apparently a popular one, judging from Deadspin's roundup) that I just read, because I'm no longer a regular Deadspin reader. You all know that I hate Brett Favre. I also am irritated by Jenn Sterger. But the story that Daulerio ran, which accused Brett Favre (a married man) of sending Sterger pictures of his equipment (not the team-issued kind) in an attempted seduction, based on information that Sterger told Daulerio in a friendly conversation (not an interview) and said was not for publication, is just shameful. It's a harmful story certain to impose real personal consequences on both of its subjects, it lacks confirmation, the source didn't think was for publication when discussing it, and she isn't standing behind it. I don't think that Sterger is a bad person (just irritating and insubstantial), but Daulerio seems to be unwilling to entertain the notion that anything she said in unguarded conversation might be untrue or exaggerated.
Gawker Media's current publication threshold seems to be "if anybody at all said it, we'll print it and hide behind a CYA explanation of the shady circumstances under which it came to us (or we'll claim that the fact that a quasi-celebrity said it is news itself); then we'll repeatedly allude to the allegations as fact for months or even years afterward, without subsequent reference to the flimsy evidence." One of the allegations in the story is that one of the offending pictures featured Favre in Crocs and not much else. Now all Favre posts are accompanied by pictures of Crocs. If I ran a widely-read publication and Sterger said to me, in a casual conversation about something unrelated, "AJ Daulerio is a child molester -- wait, I shouldn't have said that, don't print it," you know what I would do? I would not print it. For all the fun that Gawker was when Leitch, Coen, and Lisanti were editing its flagships, it really deserves a good hard legal spanking right now, whether on libel or copyright grounds.
At least I finally have an answer to the question, "what would it take to get Isaac to side with both Brett Favre and Jenn Sterger and to agree with Buzz Bissinger, all in the same post?"
I think you may be giving Leitch a bit too much credit for journalistic integrity here. Deadspin never made a habit of allowing accuracy or honesty to get in the way of serving up red meat for its degenerate commenters, even when it had an editor that could actually write a bit.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't the first time that AJ has practiced questionable, irresposible journalism, and his readers have tried to call him out on it. Deadspin has gone WAY downhill since Leitch left (while Leitch's work has improved quite a bit, especially with his latest book release), to the point where I don't read the entire site anymore, either. In fact, the only thing I look forward to on the site is anything that Drew Magary writes. His mailbag is, at this point, better and more frequent than Simmons'.
ReplyDeleteI would welcome this form of journalism any day over the "legitimate" news practice of assembling content through the use of unnamed sources. At least here, someone can ask the source whether she, in fact, said what Deadspin claims and, if so, whether it is true. (I am assuming there is virtually no chance that it is true if she didn't say it, but I suppose it could have been a lucky guess by the writer.) If the first answer is no, then Deadspin lied. If the second answer is no, then the source lied. If the second answer is yes, then the player is a perv. Try that with the unnamed sources that dominate traditional media, where anonymity is routinely traded for access. Sometimes it is necessary, but often it hurts journalism more than it helps it. I am rather impressed that the writer named his source even at the cost of probably losing this source forever. It is only bad journalism because the topic is so pathetic.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you tell this story to a sports gossip blogger and you think he isn't running it because it wasn't said during a formal interview, you are a moron and should exit the media business as soon as possible.
Can someone leave a link to the video of Bissinger laying into Leitch? This post made me think about it, and I can't seem to find it anywhere.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I frequent the sports blogs on a regular basis. Deadspin has long been one of the most prominent, and is easily on my top 10 most frequented sites list (at last check, this site was no. 1, Facebook was no. 2), and I'll get back to how that changed.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Will Leitch is an important figure, I think. He wrote well and helped others find their voice, but I think there is something more to it than just his strength as a prominent national sports blogger. We could talk about the crudity/whatever of sports blogs, but I think that what made Leitch important is he was a real ambassador for the idea of the sports blog, or even blogs in general. Leitch represented the pinnacle of the sports blogosphere, and often did it in such a way as to become not only essential reading, but a recognizable name in front of sports blogs. It is to his credit that he survived the wrath of Buzz Bissinger. I can't remember a time when I was more angry at a person than after Bissinger went nuts. I still don't think Bissinger's learned his lesson on that. But Leitch withstood the torrent, even brought Buzz on to defend his point of view, and ended up earning a sense of legitimacy for some, select sports blogs.
That said, if Leitch was the grand statesman, the Abraham Lincoln of sports blogs (not the first, but certainly among the most prominent), then A.J. Daulerio has to be the Andrew Johnson (ultimately impeached). The quality and tone of deadspin changed when AJ came on, and certainly not for the better. No matter who followed Leitch, it wouldn't have been as good, but with AJ taking over, it's been a problem. He has continued to cross proverbial lines in the sand. Is deadspin still readable? Yes, because I don't let AJ's major errors (I agree with you, that as much as I hate Brett Favre, this crossed the line BY FAR) overshadow my enjoyment of what the site does well.
But that's not to say it hasn't had an effect. I now go to thebiglead.com more than deadspin. Heck, kissingsuzykolber has even entered my top 10. The argument that Bissinger and others seem to frequent is that sports blogs offer nothing to those who follow/cover sports. That by nature of their lack of access, the fact that anyone can have a blog and that they don't have the same ethical standards, they are illegitimate, the bastard sons of the ill-informed. I would argue that because of their lack of access, blogs offer a different perspective that may be closer to the average die-hard fan. I would also argue that just because anyone can have a blog does not mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Leitch even argued that if a site doesn't present coherent statements, a new perspective and plenty of updates, it will die out by lack of audience. The final argument Bissinger made may be the most true, though. Ethics, particularly in the recent case of Brett Favre's Croc/Dong Shots v. Daulerio, can be damaging to the whole of the sports blogosphere through no fault of anyone else. But sports blogs are not all Daulerios. Royalsreview offers some of the best and brightest minds analyzing the latest trends, the minor league news, the insider-type analysis without the access that even the Kansas City Star cannot provide. Thebiglead offers plenty of strong national news without crossing AJ-type lines. Blogs not only have a place, they can be great providers of perspective and insight, or even the lighter side of sports. But no matter how hard the leaders of these sites work to gain that legitimacy, they are also judged by their competition. And Daulerio's performance, because of its prominence, has hurt the legitimacy of other blogs.
Sorry that was so long.
ReplyDeleteIt is to his credit that he survived the wrath of Buzz Bissinger. I can't remember a time when I was more angry at a person than after Bissinger went nuts. I still don't think Bissinger's learned his lesson on that.
ReplyDeleteWhat lesson? Buzz was right - cruelty, venom and crudeness were always important parts of Deadspin's content model, and the Internet and sports worlds are the worse for it.
But they're not. Covering today's events from a different point of view, somewhat closer to the fans, was the important part of deadspin's content model. Just taking a look at today's coverage: the Dead Wrestler of the Week is a great segment that is rarely crude, often matter-of-fact, even researched. There's the "breaking" of the Favre decision by a source early this morning. There's the Fight Football League. There's analysis of Hard Knocks. There's Rick Reilly dissection. There's the delightful message Ochocinco received on his locker. I guess what I'm saying is this: I disagree with the "always" and "important" parts of your reply. Buzz's lesson is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which he seems steadfastly against. His point isn't that Deadspin gives other sports blogs a bad name on occasion. His point is that all sports blogs are somehow illegitimate, which is another thing entirely.
ReplyDeleteBissinger was right about Deadspin as Deadspin is currently constituted, but I still think he was wrong about it as it then existed, and he was wrong about Leitch. And the particulars of his attack were not just wrong in principle, but wrong in fact. He conflated Leitch with Deadspin's commenters (and then-occasional, but not regular, contributors) and assumed that Leitch was just like them -- which is why he accused Leitch incorrectly of never having read the great sportswriters of the past (or Bissinger himself) and apparently didn't realize that Leitch had a book published before Deadspin was even created.
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, he was dead wrong on his basic point, which was that the Internet should get out of the sportswriting business, because only the print journalism model is capable of turning out worthwhile content. Bissinger is not stupid, but that point is. Even Bissinger now admits that.
Yes.
ReplyDelete<span>Bissinger was right about Deadspin as Deadspin is currently constituted, but I still think he was wrong about it as it then existed, and he was wrong about Leitch. And the particulars of his attack were not just wrong in principle, but wrong in fact. He conflated Leitch with Deadspin's commenters (and then-occasional, but not regular, contributors) and assumed that Leitch was just like them -- which is why he accused Leitch incorrectly of never having read the great sportswriters of the past (or Bissinger himself) and apparently didn't realize that Leitch had a book published before Deadspin was even created. </span>
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that's an important distinction - from its earliest days Deadspin worked hard to cultivate a culture of crudeness and cruelty amongst its commenters, for the simple reason that long threads filled with snide putdowns were good for Gawker's business model. As editor Leitch was responsible for the excesses of the comments he encouraged, even if he rarely matched those excesses in his own writing, and it was deeply gratifying to finally see someone call him out for it.
<span><span>Covering today's events from a different point of view, somewhat closer to the fans, was the important part of deadspin's content model.</span>
ReplyDeleteBut that's also been part of the problem - too often being close to the fans became indulging and encouraging their worst impulses. The Crocs croc is just the natural culmination of the site's longstanding tradition of indentifying the people that its readers didn't like and initiating pageview-friendly Two Minute Hates against them.</span>
I agree that it wasn't fair to blame sports blogs generally for the idiocies of Deadspin and its peers, but blaming Leitch for the flaws in his site was both deserved and fair.
I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying people that readers (or editors) don't like and initiating pageview-friendly hates against them. The problem is when the content is not true or not sufficiently reliable to be called true.
ReplyDeleteAnd dealing with idiocy in the comments is easy -- I never read them before, and I never will.
As someone Leitch linked to quite often, I think the idea of Leitch as ambassador is dead-on. Deadspin used to find the best of the blogosphere and bring it up as it grew in popularity. Getting a link on Deadspin was a great way for an up and coming writer/blogger to grow in confidence - with the next step being cameoing on Deadspin (done.) and then moving out of the blogosphere into more "respected" channels (not yet.). With newspapers, etc going the way of the dinosaur, the Deadspin model gave aspiring writers an alternative and Leitch seemed to realize that - that's how he could accurately say what was out in the blogosphere. Now, Deadspin publishes the same old voices, with only Magary and the "Masked Reporter" of the wrestling columns standing out. Daulerio has closed the door for new voices. It's sad.
ReplyDelete