I thought this interview was fascinating, particularly to anyone who reads blogs, is interested in journalism, or is interested in sports. If you happen to be interested in all three, it's amazing. (Warning: Some language, particularly in the first few minutes.)
The clip is from Bob Costas' show, and he is hosting on the show the editor of DeadSpin, which is one of the larger sports blogs that are out there, an older sportswriter, and [interestingly, and purely coincidentally] Cleveland Browns' WR Braylon Edwards. They all make very interesting, good points, though I actually found the most interesting ones to be from Edwards, making points from the athlete's point of view.
The discussion they are having is about blogs in general, particularly as measured against the old media, on a number of different levels - from presentation to tone to accuracy to portrayal to responsibility. It's a fascinating discussion, well presented [save a few interruptions], and Costas is unsurprisingly the voice of reason along with Edwards. There are a number of good lines and points throughout; feel free to share your thoughts on it.
Here's a question...
ReplyDeleteWho would be the Jewish Blog equivilent of this interview?
All the way around--moderator, blogger, anti-blogger and unwitting blog subjectee who get's caught in the crossfire and looks completely lost but still dresses dapper as hell.
I'd have to go with extremes for the middle two: Some random Kannoi and say, DovBear.
ReplyDeleteThe unwitting subject would be some community Rav who made a public statement of some sort.
Can a blogger moderate? That's where I'd be. Otherwise, it'd have to be someone who really doesn't get blogs but understands they are sticking and do something. Dunno who qualifies for that one.
Wow, you're really late on this. I have to disagree that it was well-presented and that Costas was the voice of reason. Bissinger was simply awful. He interrupted profusely, looked foolish by simply cursing his way out of arguments, and really didn't make any concrete points. Will Leitch came out looking much better, politely not succumbing to Bissinger's bait. It's hard to argue with someone who covers his ears and says "la la la" when you talk.
ReplyDeleteBissinger and Costas were both ill-informed. To the similarly ignorant, they looked good, but to anyone who has read a blog, they both proved inept in this debate. They generalized "blogs" as evil, going so far as to say that "this blog made such-and-such statement; therefore, all blogs are stupid." Bissinger attacked Leitch regarding a statement from a completely different blog! And Costas quoted comments-- not actual posts-- and tried to pass them off as if they were written by actual bloggers. Their argument was rife with holes, and they looked awfully stupid.
Anyway, this debate occurred over two months ago, and way back then, I posted on it on my lovely sports (with a splash of Judaism) blog. In my post, I mentioned that this sort of complaining has been prevalent in Jewish blogs for a while already, and that I'm surprised it took sports so long to catch up. Read it here:
http://tiny.cc/Mh5I2
Wow, you're really late on this.
ReplyDeleteSo I've been told a number of times in the last 24 hours...
I agree Bissinger was awful, but you're looking at it from the POV of a blogger rather than a third party who is new to the idea. Leitch comes out better only because of how awful Bissinger looks; Edwards (!) says a few things that simply tie Leitch in knots, and responding "and yeah, of course it's funny" is honest but does show just how unprofessional blogging can be.
Costas was presenting on both sides, and was careful to note even as he quoted certain things that they are obviously extremes - he was noting that their *existence* takes away a lot, which I think IS true.
Leitch did look good as a result of Bissinger's poor show, to be sure. But he also looked good on his own merit. He's articulate; read his blog and you'll find this out. In fact, he has since left Deadspin to write for New York magazine.
ReplyDeleteLeitch was told he'd be entering an argument about the credibility of blogs. Every point brought up by Costas and Bissinger surrounded this topic. Bissinger (ironically) called his work profane and quick. Is this truly problematic? Leitch's position is that it is not. He says his blog is a different medium-- not necessarily better, but different, and more appealing to a younger audience.
Bissinger's slant is "I am better than you because I have credentials." Yet despite these credentials, he had to stoop to idiocy, name calling, and cursing. The fact is that this debate-- despite what Leitch was told-- was about how mainstream writers fear blogs. Blogs are quicker, more entertaining, more easily accessible, more frequently updated, and always verifiable. Bissinger realizes (he mentioned this himself) that blogs are becoming more and more popular, while newspaper subscriptions are declining. He fears for his life's effort. With someone like Leitch (sans-credentials) writing whatever he feels, Bissinger can become obsolete. The problem here is that the only way such a system could work is if all blogs are as well-written as Deadspin-- and they are not. Deadspin is good, and so they get a high readership. And what is wrong with good writing being easily available?
Well, there are two problems. One is that bad writing is also easily available. While this is true, it's also worth noting that bad writing doesn't get read. Deadspin's high readership is the result of good, entertaining, informative writing. It doesn't matter if Buzz Bissinger is offended. Since when is Buzz Bissinger the standard for writing?
The second problem is that it may not only offend Bissinger, but the subjects of the blog posts. This is where Edwards stepped in. Unfortunately, his comments were pretty irrelevant. He said what he was expected to say: your blogs can hurt. Big deal. This is old news. But Leitch answered this clearly-- he was not at all tied up in knots. He said two simple answers. One, what's posted on blogs is typically easily available material, the kind of stuff you don't need to read a blog to find out. It's not like he goes through the trash to scoop up secret evidence. He simply points out the obvious. This is the kind of thing anyone in sports media does. Why is Matt Leinart's partying and less appropriate than Roger Clemens' affair with a singer? Secondly, it's not like Leitch and co are out to get anyone. They don't target a player and try to remove his fan base. They simply poke fun, similar to the Daily Show or South Park.
The double-standard exists because sports writers have "credentials." When they say something scandalous, it's breaking news. When a blogger says it, it's worthless gunk. True, bloggers may be more crude about it, but that's because they don't have to stand up to certain standards. The information remains just as credible (and if it isn't, no one reads it anyway), and it's more entertaining. So Edwards' claims really had no bearing on the argument at all.
Bissinger took two months to issue an apology, and it was tainted. He began to apologize, apparently sarcastically, and then began another rant. He's scared. He didn't bring any valid points, and any points he could have made were messed up because of his awful presentation.
What Bissinger really needs to worry about is the blog Fire Joe Morgan. Despite its title, it is not dedicated to firing Joe Morgan, but to showing how foolish baseball "experts" can be. Using simple, simple, simple research, they debunk countless articled written by so-called credentialed writers. The internet is actually MORE trustworthy than sports writers! All facts can be verified, and this site is dedicated to showing that many accomplished sportswriters have more fluff than substance. Bissinger should fear these guys, because they are excellent, and after the interview, they methodically shredded the facts of a well-written Bissinger piece.
ReplyDelete(And, for the record, the writers of this site are actually accomplished writers in their own right. The main editor is actually one of the writers for The Office.)
Firstly, I found the piece while catching up on FireJoeMorgan, which is a great site.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that bloggers - at least the ones on good sites like FJM et al - are often much better at utilizing data to support facts, whereas older journalists didn't grow up with data like that and relied on their "impressions". While this sometimes works, it's easy to pick apart when it does not.
But I think you're missing a lot of the point here, even as most of what you're saying is true. You're looking at it precisely how Leitch does, or how any person who blogs and spends a lot of time reading blogs does, and fail to see the point the other side is making.
Leitch's position is that it is not. He says his blog is a different medium-- not necessarily better, but different, and more appealing to a younger audience.
That's just it. Everyone agrees to this: Blogs are replacing media. The problem they're noting is that blogs, by taking the opposite extreme from media, are missing out on certain things and actually taking a very slanted, negative approach to discussion (as further evidenced by the comments that often come out, etc.). It becomes not a rational and worthwhile discussion, but a lot of mud-slinging and data splicing.
The reason Edwards' points were so important and extremely relevant is that they're showing the main problems with blogs. Blogs overexpose, misreport things, have no accountability, and really don't care if they get anything wrong. It's not just that blogs can hurt, it's that they do so in ways that are simply not right - they're unfair if not outright wrong. And it's not true - bloggers simply do NOT have the credibility of a journalist, simply because they don't have the access to do so. One doesn't need to like media to understand that they're simply in a better place to report many things - even if commentary and analysis later on can be done by anyone.
Why is Matt Leinart's partying and less appropriate than Roger Clemens' affair with a singer?
Because Matt Leinart's partying in his own home (as it sounds like from the interview) is his business, whereas what Clemens did is adulterous, possibly illegal (she was 15 when they met), and has a bearing on his integrity when it comes to investigations about steroids. That's a HUGE difference!
It's obvious that Bissinger looks like a fool in this whole piece, but at the same time, Leitch doesn't look particularly great, either. His answer to everything is "Well, that's not what we're going for" - which is fine, but it means blogs will always be taken less seriously and as a place to get snark more than substance. He's right when he says blogs and media can work alongside one another, because blogs that use his approach will never be able to supplant media because of their tone.
Because Matt Leinart's partying in his own home (as it sounds like from the interview) is his business...
ReplyDeleteActually, there were pictures plastered all over the internet from this party. That's how Deadspin found it. It was common knowledge, and the kind of thing that Leinart may have even publicized himself. Like Leitch said, he doesn't dig through the trash to rip anyone. What he posts is readily available. He just writes about it.
As for the Clemens issue: you're right, it's not an airtight analogy. But it is a private issue of Clemens' and was only brought into the spotlight because of his celebrity status and his steroid trial. There are many pedophiles/adulterers in this country, but I bet you can't name them all. Clemens is under scrutiny, so his legal issues get thrust into the limelight. Sure, his crime was more heinous, but why is it any more acceptable to public decry him? In fact, Leinart's exposing is more defensible. It was a party that got wild, and Leinart was seen. The end. He's a celebrity, so it became public knowledge, and made it onto a sports blog. But it wasn't a crime, and it's the sort of thing that happens all the time. It's not such a big deal if Deadspin publishes this, because they aren't doing any damage. Clemens' affair was even more private than Leinart's, as it didn't even surface until years after it occurred. I understand it's a bigger deal, but it's still a man's private life. He's a celebrity, though, so he's under a microscope. Why isn't Matt Leinart subject to the same scrutiny, especially when he didn't even do anything wrong? Honestly, it's not like it was such a big deal. I just don't get why they had to harp on this particular point, is all.
~~~
The problem I have with all of this is: what is so wrong? There's a lot of negativity. There's a lot of joking around. It's crude. But why does this matter? The results are credible and entertaining at the same time. If someone wants to write or read this, why is it Buzz Bissinger's (or anyone's) place to say it shouldn't be allowed?
Credibility is a non-issue here. I understand that there is no "real" accountability, but blogs that misreport are just not read. I can't speak for blogs of all topics, but in the sports blog world, only the well-informed, well-written blogs garner any sort of a significant audience. Too much information is widely available, so if a blog isn't worth reading, a reader can just move on to the next. So there is accountability-- not in the form of an editor, but in the form of motivation. If I want my blog to be read, I shouldn't just make things up.
Is the issue that bloggers aren't well-versed? That may be true, but why does it matter? They're effective. There may be some awful minor blogs out there, but hey, even the National Enquirer had a sustainable readership for a long time. No medium is without its dregs.
And even if you can fault blogging for its lack of talent: so what? Why is this an issue? We live in America, so why can't I publish what I want?
The answer is that Buzz is scared. He's aware that blogs are taking away from his professional medium. Blogs may never replace credentialed writing, but they certainly will take a chunk out of its readership. (And, again, only good blogs get more than a nominal amount of readers.) That's why I find Edwards' comments irrelevant. He tries to point out the flaws in blogs, but that's really not the point of the debate. That's what it was flagged as, but it's not what it was in reality. I'm sure Edwards and Leitch were told the same story beforehand, and Edwards did the best he could to stick to the topic he was told to prepare for. But all he did was point out the obvious flaws in blogs, the same flaws we knew existed all along. Leitch's answer was, understandably, "We're different." It's not just a fine answer-- it's the right answer. Blogs aren't meant to be politically correct. This we knew going into the debate. The real issue at hand was Bissinger's: your no-good writing is taking away from my readership. Bissinger did all he could to debase blogs in an attempt to steer away their popularity, but he failed miserably, because to any blog reader, he became less of a man.
Had the debate been Edwards vs. Leitch, I'm sure it would have been much better. I'm not saying Edwards had bad points. It was simple: Edwards says his opinion on blogs, Leitch says that's fine, and I know that, I just go in a different direction. But Bissinger took the argument way off track by trying to show Leitch up. It was obvious that Bissinger was new to the sports blog world, while Leitch was not new to the world of sports writing. He didn't present any real argument to point out the flaws in blogs. He just glanced at one or two before the show, developed a misinformed argument based on assumptions, and went on a rant. This was not what Leitch and Edwards expected. My point is that Edwards' ideas were irrelevant at that point. Once it became "You suck" vs. "I don't care," legitimate claims had no place.
Basically, Leitch was saying that he's well aware of the flaws in blogs, but he doesn't see why this makes a difference. And for all of Edwards' legitimate complaints, Leitch can continue his mantra of "so what." As a blogger and blog reader, I'm obviously biased toward Leitch, and I therefore think he's right. Who cares if I'm not a polished writer? I can write what I want, and if people like it, let them read it. Why is this even an issue? Freedom of speech!
The issue, of course, is Bissinger. He's afraid of blogs, so he tried to denounce them. And so, this debate was not what it was meant to be, and Edwards' statements proved to be irrelevant.
If you want to take Edwards' ideas out of this whole debacle, and discard the rest, I guess you have an interesting topic. It's not a matter of how evil blogs are, but a more interesting topic of "how blogs are viewed by their subject material." That's fine. But in the context of this argument, he proved to be a non-factor.
Sure, his crime was more heinous, but why is it any more acceptable to public decry him?
ReplyDeleteI do believe you've just answered your own question.
The problem I have with all of this is: what is so wrong? There's a lot of negativity. There's a lot of joking around. It's crude. But why does this matter? The results are credible and entertaining at the same time. If someone wants to write or read this, why is it Buzz Bissinger's (or anyone's) place to say it shouldn't be allowed?
Nobody is saying it's not allowed, even Bissinger. They're lamenting the transition and hoping that blogs - particularly larger, influential ones - will hold themselves to a somewhat higher standard. (Note that *some* more serious political blogs often do this, and therefore have started to carry more weight and credibility.)
Credibility is a non-issue here. I understand that there is no "real" accountability, but blogs that misreport are just not read. I can't speak for blogs of all topics, but in the sports blog world, only the well-informed, well-written blogs garner any sort of a significant audience. Too much information is widely available, so if a blog isn't worth reading, a reader can just move on to the next. So there is accountability-- not in the form of an editor, but in the form of motivation. If I want my blog to be read, I shouldn't just make things up.
Yes and no. I could point you to many blogs which have little to no credibility but large audiences; and larger blogs often feel pressure to have material and will put up questionable items.
You're asking a lot of false questions and missing the point. Blogs are a different medium. The people who are speaking out are noting the negative sides of this new medium and why it therefore is lacking when you compare it to traditional journalism - and they're right in many respects. Blogs have other things over journalists, but tone certainly, and what they really want - integrity - are still lacking.
It's why Edwards' comments were so relevant and actually quite impressive - he made the important points clearly, quietly, and far better than Bissinger ever could.
I could point you to many blogs which have little to no credibility but large audiences;
ReplyDelete::sigh::
if ONLY i knew who you could be referring to!!!
Nice words.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying Edwards' points were invalid. I'm saying they were irrelevant to this conversation. Leitch was told to defend blogs, and so he prepared for that. Edwards was told to prepare something, and he did that too. They tried to discuss these issues, but Bissinger blew it all up. It became an ambush and a rant. That's all. Bissinger had his ridiculous ideas about blogs-- not that there isn't some sort of truth to it, but he really over-exaggerated and revealed himself to be ignorant of the subject matter. But Edwards' valid points had NOTHING to do with the debate! This was an attack, plain and simple. It was obvious from watching the interview, and it was obvious from Bissinger's comments after the fact. He's scared of blogs and he tried to debase them. Edwards' attacks were not meant to demoralize blogs and point out their "stupidity;" hence they were irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteThat's *exactly* it. He wasn't there to point out their "stupidity", merely their negative aspects, particularly from the POV of an athlete. He did that. That's relevant.
ReplyDelete