When The Press Became The Media

F that!! I want my ten thoughts from the weekend!! now, that’s some insightful journalism

When I arrived in SF from Austin in the late ‘70s, I got right into the ’9ers and A’s (though both were abysmal at the time). Only the sportswriters, led by Glenn Dickey of the Chron, were even worse. It was all provoke, provoke, provoke, as if a daily pile of indignant letters from sports fans was what managing editors really wanted to see as proof of quality.

I soured on reading sports. I ain’t lying when I say this site is a godsend. Keep it up.

Soapbox time. The press only became the press in the 1930s (though I have found that usage dating to pre-WWI). So, please, all of you, when you run into politicians and others confusing “freedom of the press” as special privileges for the journalistic class, there was no such idea at the time. The press meant only the contraption in the printer’s office and freedom of it meant that we are all citizen journalists, able to print up handbills and pamphlets and generally rant and rave. Thank you.

I enjoyed Jessica Lange in a cheerleader outfit, although it was more so in a “hey, look at that milf in the cheerleader outfit” kind of way.

Frank Deford will be speaking at UT on April 1st, by the way.

Wow. Scip – Great stuff by you and the main link you mention by Deford (Sometimes The Bear Eats You – Confessions of a Sportswriter) is a truly great read.

I found this interesting:

Institutionally there was real camaraderie among sportswriters, because more than other journalists we traveled together and then wrote en masse, in the press box. I was hardly surprised that last July, when Mets general manager Omar Minaya attacked New York Daily News beat writer Adam Rubin, all Rubin’s competitors came passionately to his defense. Sportswriters are rivals, but close ones, like chefs who eat in each other’s restaurants.

In light of today’s Twitter in a teapot:

Jeremy Fowler: Why Urban Meyer says I’m a "bad guy"

The typical sports medium is devoid of expertise about any aspect of those things that are done on the gridiron, court, diamond. It will echo, rather, news about misconduct and salaries, predictions and banal opinions about playoffs and betting.

- Frank Deford strikes me as kind of insufferable in the way that so many 60s-era journalists do
- I love the way the Internet has opened up commentary to the often educated and occasionally washed masses

With those bullet points stated as context, it’s an epic societal failure that Deford and his ilk are being phased out by things like TMZ Sports and the Bleacher Report.

I remember Deford, fondly, with LeRoy Neiman paintings, Dandy Don, Playboy, and The Wide World of Sports. That he has outlasted this era and is still going strong is amazing.

Plimpton, Jenkins, Deford…Lupica?

SI was such an outstanding influence for an impressionable boy in late 70s/early 80s. “The Toughest Coach There Ever Was” followed by “The Sugar Land Express”(guessing title) are hallmarks of Journalistic excellence.
What happened to this magazine?

I realize Lupica does not write for Sports Illustrated.

Here is the money quote in the piece:

“Frankie, it doesn’t matter what you write about. All that matters is how well you write.”

With those bullet points stated as context, it’s an epic societal failure that Deford and his ilk are being phased out by things like TMZ Sports and the Bleacher Report.

Deford actually writes about this too, when his editor complained that he hadn’t written about the things the TV analyst had said. People want to watch the games. They now, by and large, can see for themselves. And, they think they deserve to see them.

It wasn’t that long ago, metaphorically speaking, when all fans had was radio (and the writers to interpret). TV was limited, for whatever reason, by the team (for fear of affecting the gate — this has proved to be somewhat true I suppose), the NCAA at the college level, or the cost of technology at the time. Where I grew up, it was a big deal for a local team to be telecast from the West Coast. I remember watching a late-season hockey game from LA one very late Saturday night for a couple of reasons. One, it was important to the team, and two, it was on. I had never seen what the Forum looked like as a hockey arena (like all of them, I suppose it turned out) and I wanted to see it.

So, now, what we have is just about every pro game in a major sport being shown somewhere, and most high D-I college sports being shown. The reason we get reporting on scandals and drugs and all the stuff off the field is because that’s the stuff you can’t see.

There’s also been a sea change in how teams are covered, and this is what is going on when Urban Meyer calls out the writer for reporting what a player said. Not for making it up, or interpreting it incorrectly. When you make the seven figures that high D-I coaches make, you want to control everything. UT was just a little ahead of the curve on this, but not that far. There always has been a tension between local writers and the coach of a team like UT, or a pro team. It’s hard to work without access, but you can do it. You’d prefer not to, though. So coaches get mushball questions, and come to expect not to have to answer hard ones.

Message boards are collections of people with the same topic in mind. It’s rare that people talk about writers or broadcasters that they like, and everyday fodder to slam just about everyone holding down a paying job, because they didn’t know this or that about the team that everyone on the board knew. Those people don’t understand that they know more about the team they follow than the national broadcasters and the writers (such few as there are now). Through television, and video, they have just about the same access to the games and the coaches that the media once held to itself. I guess that it’s possible that writers from a couple of generations ago were that much better. I think it’s more likely that people now get to see what the reporters write about, and how they get it, and realize that it’s not as big a deal as they once thought.

First of all this a topic that strikes a clear chord with me, so much so that I find it difficult to really express my thoughts, simply because it is too important to me and I can’t adequately put it into words on this blog.

Thanks, Scip for being able to articulate your perspective, and thanks for bringing Deford into it.

I guess that it’s possible that writers from a couple of generations ago were that much better. I think it’s more likely that people now get to see what the reporters write about, and how they get it, and realize that it’s not as big a deal as they once thought.

There is another aspect to this — money. So much money (thanks to TV) that every relationship has changed — between participants and reporters and fans.

I can remember when what the athlete made wasn’t that much more than what the reporters covering them were pulling down. I know that it was easier to establish a connection a real relationship, which in turn led to a trust that allowed reporters to gain greater insight into what was going on (and off) the playing fields.

You could still write or report something that would piss off a player or coach — and they would go “Urban Meyer” on you. But they wouldn’t be so cynical or calculated as to do it in front of other media to prove that they “had their players backs” or humiliate the reporter. And it would be forgotten quickly.

I know of several instances where players or coaches thought I did them wrong, but they always came to me with the beef, and they listened to what I had to say.

Money raises the stakes, and raises the paranoia and distrust all the way and it raises a wall between the fans and athletes as well.

The competition level has been raised among different factions of the media. I can’t imagine anything today matching what being involved in the old SWC press tour. Writers, radio and TV reporters traveling together over a 10-day period, hitting every school during the day, filing reports and then trading stores through the night.

Staying up listening to Dave Campbell, Blackie Sherrod, Dan Cook, Jack Ghallager, Sam Blair, et al exlplain how they did their jobs was the best education a young reporter could have ever wished for.

Today everybody is too busy playing “gotcha” and trying to find out the latest misstep by some millionaire athlete. Too many outlets on way too long always looking for something controversial or something negative — anything to get them noticed in the crowded marketplace of today.

We still need the press, but the media is a bear that must be fed 24 hours a day.

Teardrop and Parlin, Don’t forget the amazing photographs of Walter Ioos, Jr. from those great SI years. When I was a kid I literally read SI cover to cover and subscriber for years. I can’t remember when I last bought a copy. Deford was always one of my favorites along with Plimpton.

srr with excellent points as well, as I am in the boat with him.

NBH: I am with you regarding SI. My aunt, for several years, gave me a subscription for Christmas, beginning when I was in single digits. Between SI and The Sporting News, Friday and Saturday were big mail days as far as I was concerned.

Great stuff, Scipio and excellent follow-up, srr. The climbing money inversion between media and athlete is indeed a huge part of the decline in quality content and respect for the craft.

I grew up around some of these guys hanging out at Belmont when my Dad worked there as head of marketing in the Triple Crown era of the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. I still remember encounters with Red Smith, Deford, Leonard Koppett, Gay Talese, etc.

These were revered men, bordering on celebrities.

In 1979, Deford and a group of VIPs that were invited guests to the Belmont Stakes got stuck on a Long Island Railroad train from Manhattan under the East River for about 3 hours. It was close to 120 degrees in the tunnel and all electric was off so it was pitch black. A reporter pulled a bottle of vodka out of his briefcase and it was passed around in the dark while Deford held court reminiscing about Belmont Stakes past and how the current era with three triple crown champs in one decade (Secretariat in ’73, Seattle Slew in ’77, and Affirmed in ’78) was pretty heady stuff for racing fans and very well many never be repeated. Nobody seemed worried about missing the race and they eventually rolled in during Call to the Post.

This passage from Deford was particularly resonant:

I remember being at the Preakness Ball in 1972, standing at a urinal next to Ron Turcotte, who was riding the favorite—the Kentucky Derby winner, Riva Ridge—the next day. He looked up at me and said, “Hey, how ’bout giving me a couple inches off your top, eh?” (Ron was Canadian.)

“If I did,” I said, “you wouldn’t be riding Riva Ridge tomorrow.”

He laughed and nodded ruefully. He didn’t win that Preakness, but he won the Triple Crown the next year on Secretariat. Then, only five years later, he went down in a spill and has been paralyzed, in pain, ever since. I always wondered whether he would’ve liked making that deal with the devil: taking some of my height, never having the glory—never having Secretariat—but always having his legs, having peace.

I always thought Koppett was close to a genius.

Journalism in general, in my opinion, shifted into becoming a quote service back in the 70s. On the sports side, I remember a number of sports writers taking up the whine that every year players gave the same answers to the same questions. They longed for someone different, so they embraced characters like Brian Bosworth or anyone else out of the norm and balleyhooed them.

Even back then, and I was just entering UT, I remember thinking, “maybe it’s not the answers that are the problems. Maybe it’s the habit of asking the same tired questions instead of finding a story.”

Deford spoke at a local school here last year.

A great speech, with a memorably succinct Q&A moment.

Our very conscientious female athletic director asked “When will women’s pro sports receive the same attention as men’s pro sports?”

Deford: “When you and other females buy as many tickets to women’s sports as men purchase for men’s sports.”

OldTime –
 
I’ve been trying to get old timey pamphleteering going again, but Sailor Ripley tells me the internet is more efficient. Whatever. Anyway, you might be interested to know that the SF Chron actually has a good sports guy named Ray Ratto. By good, I mean he actually appears to have read books and can write interesting things, putting him in the top 5% of his profession.
 
nordberg -
 
She actually did a great job given the 90210 Luke Perry-style age gap. The movie was made in ‘88, and thinking back, I can’t recall any great young actresses that could have played the role properly.
 
CJD -
 
I don’t disagree. In fact, I have found some of Deford’s individiual opinions fairly absurd with respect to sport, but the key here is that he can write. And that stands in stark contrast to a profession that, at present day, can’t.
 
parlin -
 
I also enjoyed Battle of The Network Stars.

Great stuff from the rest of you…let me finish up…
 
BIH -
 
Great stuff as always. The demystification and democratization of sports is a great point.
 
Along that line, one of the most interesting developments of the last five to ten years is that school SID departments are creating web content such that the middle man is cut out entirely. I used to think columnists were such keen observers of UT Football that they knew we’d won 14 of our last 16 opening days on the road only to realize later that they’re copying talking points straight off of the SID release. We can all have a measure of fluency now.
 
I part ways with you in only a couple of areas.
 
I don’t criticize a national writer for knowing less about my team than I do, but shouldn’t I be able to criticize a local writer for knowing less? This is, after all, their full-time job. But that’s minor.
 
My real beef – locally and nationally – is with the incredibly low quality of writing overall. That’s why I’ll miss writers like Deford. It goes much deeper than his fluency with my particular team or whether I “agree with his take.” The idea is to be able to write. And sport happens to be your vehicle.
 
So the gaping hole isn’t raw information – we have it seeping out of our ears – it’s color, story-telling, analysis, creativity, context, and flavor. That’s where traditional sportswriting is doing an awful job, IMO.
 
srr50 -
 
You’re on the money regarding the money.
 
Roma -
 
Bingo. In my experience, you know who asks interesting questions? Interesting, well-read, insatiably curious people. Now think about your local sports editorialist in the hometown rag. Right.
 
Kos -
 
Well, that cuts right through the bullshit, doesn’t it?
 
Vasherized -
 
Your Dad sounds like an interesting dude.

Indeed. And he posts here regularly. IP Tracer can’t even keep up with mercurial handles.

He’s currently in the top 10 in our bracket tourney and has reminded me of such at every opportunity. Thankfully he picked Kansas. Unfortunately I did too.

Bob in Houston said:
March 25th, 2010 at 6:34 am

Here is the money quote in the piece:

"Frankie, it doesn’t matter what you write about. All that matters is how well you write."

You’re DAMN STRAIGHT, Bob. And not just in professional writing but in business too. I genuinely consider the quality (or lack of) of a person’s writing in my professional opinion of them. If you can think, you can write and vice-versa. I had a scotch soaked argument with a very good friend of mine over whether or not writing, spelling and “math in your head” mattered anymore. I insisted that they all mattered immensely and made an individual stand out more than ever before while he, clearly more technologically savvy than me, maintained that computers made math, spelling and sentence structure obsolete. I’m convinced I’m right. He’s convinced he’s right.

It’s funny to see the link back to the string from the Cartwright article. It was a Friday night, my wife was asleep on the couch and I was finishing my third Belvedere martini when I wrote what I wrote that night. The next morning when I got up, in a tiny bit of a fog, the red light was blinking on my blackberry. There was an email from something called “Sailor Ripley,” asking for my number and whether or not I’d be willing to write for an OU blog he was registering as part of a large expansion of his universe. Apparently I said yes, and Nate Heupel and I were soon launched on boomerandsooner.

Serendipity is a curious thing…..

You bring up some interesting history, Scipio. I was a main advertiser in the Peninsula Times Tribune in Palo Alto when Ratto broke in (around 1980, give or take). I met him a coupla times. He broke in under one of the all-time greats, Leonard Koppett, a man born in Moscow who’d worked for all the NY papers before moving west in the twilight of his career.

But the TT was bought out and soon was el foldo, later in the 80s. Ratto moved up the Peninsula and began annoying the A’s, and Koppett moved on to The Sporting News, if I remember correctly. My first two years reading Koppett were inspiring, but then he got stiffer and more wooden month by month. But I always credited him for giving Ratto a great start. When Ratto got to the Chron, I felt it ruined him. I quit reading him—he got mouthy and surface-level like the rest of Dickey’s crew.

Old Time -
 
Thanks for the reply. I may be biased in my sampling in that I only see Ratto’s articles occasionally – typically when they’re good and someone shares them with me. I haven’t had a subscription to a newspaper in years so I don’t get a very consistent sense of what he’s up to. However, I have read enough of his stuff to know that he’s better than whoever Houston or Austin trots out.

Well, reading upwards I see that Koppett has come in for mention a few times. When I was at Runner’s World, I hired an editor, a friend—Jewish guy from Brooklyn who moved out. He worshipped the ground Koppett walked on, said he moved in part because it was where Koppett was. This was my introduction to Koppett’s pedigree and impact on NYC sportsfans.

I was probably biased by his landing at the dismal Chronicle. There’s no question when he was at the PTT, Ratto was a very worthwhile read.

In my experience, you know who asks interesting questions? Interesting, well-read, insatiably curious people. Now think about your local sports editorialist in the hometown rag. Right.

That’s why the best (TV) journalism going right now is found on comedy outlets like the Daily Show and Colbert Report. Comedy writers are smart. And they’re always looking for an angle to churn humor out of facially dull political bullshit. As a result, they ask penetrating questions and expose the honest (and often terrifying) truth behind national politics. You don’t get that from Big Media, because their correspondents are too addicted to the stream of “information” (see also pabulum, bullshit, lies) from official sources to ask risky, uncomfortable questions and thereby jeopardize their privileged spot at the fountain of vapid horsecrap.

Stewart’s writers don’t have inside sources and they don’t operate under the suffocating assumption of legitimacy, so they have nothing to lose. The result is genuinely thought-provoking – and, often, enraging – journalism.

“You don’t get that from Big Media, because their correspondents are too addicted to the stream of "information" (see also pabulum, bullshit, lies) from official sources to ask risky, uncomfortable questions and thereby jeopardize their privileged spot at the fountain of vapid horsecrap.”

Fucking beautiful, and said without picking a side. A tear is rolling down my cheek. Well done Brick.

Sadly, this is part of trend that is tearing at almost all aspects of society. I spent the weekend at a scientific convention helping explain policy to scientists. I got a lot of backhanded commentary about my political science degree the whole weekend, vis-a-vis how hard it is to get a “real” science degree.

Finally, with a couple of craft pilsner’s under my belt, I fired back at a possible future noble laurete, well, you try coming up with a fresh take on Leviathan as an 18 year old freshman your third week in Political Theory and let me know how easy it is.

“Never read it.”

“Well, that’s why you write like shit and politicians don’t care what your data says”

Brickhorn – Beautifully scribed. Bravo.

For some reason, I now feel the need to share with the class how I came to know Barking Carnival and why this site is my first and last visit on the web everyday (my wife fucking hates you guys).

I still remember the first piece I read on this site. It was summer, 2008 and somehow, someway I clicked on a link, which lead me to a recap of TripsRight’s recent fight against morality in Las Vegas. I remember laughing out loud, while being genuinely engaged in the content as a whole in a way not often experienced by me. I thought to myself, what am I reading, is this a Longhorn blog, and I want more.

As a late 20-somethings engineer who is now trying to move towards a generic business role (which way to Mecca?), I forgot that reading is engaging and entertaining when the content is solid. School and ‘apprenticeship’ beat that idea out of me a long time ago. But this site, this Longhorn blog, this, whatever, has brought joy back to visiting the interwebs. I’ve been turned on to a variety of writers and genres that I now enjoy immensely. Thank you.
Also, somehow my love for sports, and most notably, the Longhorns, has grown immensely over the last few years. A home such as this, and to a lesser extent, BON, enables to me get my sports fix coupled with quality writing. Back when I read the paper and thought Bohls was edgy (stop laughing), I could skim through the quotes and get the general idea of the piece. Here, it’s more than that. I read every piece on here, including all comments. I can predict that parlin will applaud scipio, that CTJ will cut with a razors edge, and that henryjames will take the brunt of all homo jokes in a thread. The community is amazing and the writing ability of most is phenomenal (even ipowers and Tim have a place), if not intimidating.

So where was I going? Oh yeah. Thanks for letting me be a part of this place, even though you have no other choice (please don’t ban me). I just hope I can better contribute throughout the ensuing years.

Hook ‘Em,
Josh, Class 2003

Nice post, Josh. Your voice is a welcome addition to our little choir of jackassery.

Jackass Choir would be a great name for an alternative band.

Most of the points here come down to competitive advantage. The blogosphere provides a legitimate writing outlet for those who have no intention of making a living writing. Why don’t guys with the chops that Scipio so obviously has ever intend to make a living writing? Because it’s damn near impossible. There are engineers on this blog who have no intention of making a living teaching middle school chemistry….because it is damn near impossible.

God bless those who choose to write for a living or teach public school purely out of passion and commitment. They are taking a huge financial risk when they raise and support a family knowing that their upside income potential is in the $60K range.

The number of truly high-paying, pure writing jobs to be had are few and far between. Among our generation, John Spong at Texas Monthly arguably holds one of them. He scrapped his way to the top (good on him) and there are thousands who would love to take his place. You probably have a better chance of playing professional sports.

Are the writers at BC better than most of the mainstream media? Of course they are—and by a wide margin. But their competitive advantage in the economy is not writing, even if it is their passion and talent (NOTE: I get paid to write, but I still do not choose to make a living at it, nor will I likely ever). Are most people with a BS in mathematics better at math than most high school math teachers? Yes, and they are better compensated doing something else (that something else may or may not be as personally fulfilling, but that is another matter…).

Frank Deford, as talented as he is—and he is very talented—is a member of the lucky sperm club, which, to his credit, he notes in the article. There is a whole passel of Frank Defords writing about sports right now all across the country; they are not sportswriters. They are lawyers and marketers and software engineers and consultants and all manner of other things. But now they have a free and unfettered audience who will respond to them (if they are any good) just for the price of a DSL line.

Nicely stated Brick & jones.
 
jones – question – don’t the local writers at a decent paper make more than 60K? I always thought a featured op-ed columnist like Bohls or Justice made low six figs. What say you?
 
SportsJesus -
 
Pleasure to have you here. Thanks for the kind words. It’s always fun to read how people stumbled across this place and why they stick around. Encouraging words are how we get paid.
 
Bates –
 
I’ve had similar exchanges.

NorthDallasSooner -
 
Always glad to have you around. I’ve actually taken up both sides of that debate at different junctures. I know some very bright people that are functionally retarded as writers, but I’ve also seen a high correlation between people that can express themselves well and clearly, can do quick math in their heads, can engage in witty repartee, with professional success. More crucially, the ability to adapt to new environments or roles quickly. A lot of people are hedgehogs, and that’s fine, but too many will drive a company right into the ditch.
 
There are always a handful of people in every company that just sort of get it and they all seem to share some of those basic traits.

Newspaper journalists probably have a slightly bigger upside than public school teachers (assuming they don’t move into management as editors/principals, resp.).

My reasonably educated guess is that some of the most senior writers (particularly columnists) at a good paper (the Statesman, the DMN, the Chron) get into the 70s and 80s, but very few crack six figs. Bohls may actually be a six-figure guy, given his tenure.

North Dallas Sooner and Scipio, as a multi-year editorial page editor for the Daily Texan I got to where I could cover the signature info on a letter to the editor and still tell you pretty reliably the major and year of the writer (architecture followed by law were the best).

Then, as an acquisitions editor at UT Press, I could read a page in a ms and tell you assistant, associate or full professor. The worst mss by far, with zero attention to spelling or grammar or even to coherence, were invariably the work of the heavy hitters, the department chairs. But the substance would be there, somewhere.

My sister wrote for the Daily Texan. If only I could right like her.

OldTimeHorn, you seem like a cool dude.

Richie Justice has got to be making 150, no? Certainly being on tv gives you some bargaining power.

I read the SF Chronicle on-line often but haven’t checked out Ratto. Scip, are you familiar with Mark Morford? What’s your take, on just his writing, not his content?

I’ve read Mark Morford. Deeply unimpressed.
 
I also think the top guys at the local make low six.
 
Old Time – law ain’t major. Tis a vocational school.

I learned long ago, Scipio, not to split hairs, a tendency I do not regret giving up.

I just stumbled upon Morford the other day and read a few of his musings. Not impressed either. I linked an article to my sister, who is good enough to be called a writer, although like many here hasn’t made it a profession, and she was laughing at his skill level. I guess we can’t all be Steinbeck.

Old Time- That’s true as well of scentists. The young ones are open to discussions of improving their writing style. The old bulls? Not so much. They usually have a “you fix it, the work is still brilliant” attitude.

I can put paint and rims on a 82 Chavette all day, the trim isn’t the problem.

Old Time- That’s true as well of scentists. The young ones are open to discussions of improving their writing style. The old bulls? Not so much. They usually have a “you fix it, the work is still brilliant” attitude.

I can put paint and rims on a 82 Chevette all day, the trim isn’t the problem.

It’s why they were successful, Bateshorn. They maximized time and effort. In the case of their lousy manuscripts, they turned us on our dime into their typists, editors and ghost writiers, then they got the credit. Smart move.

Thanks for the tout on the DeFord piece, Scip. Took me back to the SI of Tex Maule and Dan Jenkins that I grew up with. My favorite parts were the “bonus” articles at the back in which one of their better writers would really dig deep into the story of a player, team or particularly compelling game/match. Those articles got me interested in athletes and sports that I had not previously followed and thereby enriched the experience of being a fan. I can also honestly say that reading those well-written articles improved my SAT verbal score.

Many of the reasons for the current rarity of that kind of writing have been mentioned here: saturation exposure of sports on TV and ‘net, big money making athletes, coaches, and teams into PR-conscious political entities, shortening of cultural attention span, etc. I would rather seek out stimulating writing than pine for the good ol’ days that aren’t coming back. I’m grateful for BC and other on-line outlets for continuing to come through.

Sorry I am so late to such a well-attended party, but I thought I would toss in a little more. I hope it doesn’t seem repetitive.

Back in the mid-80’s, I took Journaism History at UT from the one and only Marvin Olasky, the man who later gave us “compassionate conservative.” Though he regularly spouted his extreme views in class, I liked the guy because he encouraged a wide-open debate about journalism issues past and present. He was a damned good, thought-provoking professor.

He made two points about journalism history that have turned about to be extremely relevant.

1. An explosion in media outlets almost necessarily leads to yellow, tabloid-oriented jouralism. As someone above mentioned, they all struggle to get attention. The tabloidation of straight news on cable and online, as well as the wacked-out blogs all over the place, bear him out, I think.
 
I would also point out that the speed of the news has undermined the work. The news cycle used be 24 hours; now it’s about 24 minutes. Soon it’ll be 24 seconds. Obviously, that kind of speed does not encourage thoughtful, literary writing. We already have journalist tweets that quote athlete tweets. Oh boy.

2. Objectivity and, more to the point, fairness are bullshit, which led to some semi-serious debates/arguments between us in class.

At the time, I prayed at the Altar of the Fourth Estate, and therefore believed that fair (and balanced!) news was a lofty but achievable goal. It took a couple of decades for me to admit he was right (Damnit!). Removing bias is impossible, and it’s a pompous self-deceiption and a lie to the readers to act as if it isn’t there. Yet, straight news operations still cling to this notion, arrogantly assigning themselves arbiters of “truth” instead of instigators of thought, debate and understanding.

When Jenkins and DeFord started out, sports reporters — as well as the hard news writers - had a lot of room to analyze, to make you laugh, to make you think. Because everybody on both ends of any debate think the media is “biased,” objective journalism is met with contempt. And that contempt is unleashed through Beck’s and Oberman’s anger - even John Stuart’s cynicism.

On the sports page, we get “balanced” stories that are merely a parade of stats and he-said-he-said quotes. Meanwhile, the demogoguing columnists — that’s you, Justice and Bohls — talk real loud but say very little.

Of course, it’s ironic that the same guy who argued that “objective journalism” is an oxymoron also gave us compassionate conservative. I’ll leave that to somebody else to write about. I don’t have the time or attention span.

whiskey -
 
Meanwhile, the demogoguing columnists — that’s you, Justice and Bohls — talk real loud but say very little.
 
You know how to hurt a man.

I think it’s unfair to say that there isn’t much good journalism today, especially in sports journalism. I think it’s safe to say that there are a lot more options in the digital age, but it’s our job as readers to decipher between craft and crap.

What everyone has said about Deford and journalists of old involves their skill and literary prowess, and I think that still exists today. I’ve read some pieces that move me, it’s just that the overall product is diluted now with the mass of uninspired deadline writing, plethora of awful sources (blogging), and the cynical air towards the field in general.
 
Don’t give up on journalism. Newspapers will close, times will change, but good storytelling is something that has been a part of society as long as there has been a society. The best will eventually rise to the top, and the unfit won’t survive.

Holy crap. A mention of Battle of the Network Stars.

Dan Hagerty (Grizzly Adams) anchoring the tug-of-war.

Heather Thomas (from the Fall Guy) having an erect nipple problem (well, she thought it was a problem…my only problem was when I banged my 12-year old head trying to get closer to the TV) after being dunked in the dunk tank.

Deford fans in Austin, go see this talk:
 
http://communication.utexas.edu/news/PROD75_031497.html

Here, it’s more than that. I read every piece on here, including all comments. I can predict that parlin will applaud scipio, that CTJ will cut with a razors edge, and that henryjames will take the brunt of all homo jokes in a thread.

Scipio Tex is a poseur. My next ten posts will compare him to Kirk Bohls and Jane Austen. As for CTJ, he cuts with a chain saw. The henryjames observation is accurate and well phrased.

The Daily Bunch linked some great shots of the old guard @acontinuouslean.

Classy.

Way late in seeing this obviously — but it’s highly unlikely that the top guys at even the bigger dailies are in six figures. NYT and a couple others, maybe….but almost certainly not the Statesman, particularly in this era of print decline.

I write the shit out out of words.

And y’all are just pimping Deford because of his swass pencil mustache.

Scattertweet that here and yon.

Keep up the great writing.

Excellent contribution(s) to this website!

It’s fairly stressful to find threads like these since there is absolutely not much explanation currently offered on the the web about this. I would like to thank you for the time you spent to write this blog post. I’ll stop by from time to time in hopes to read your new articles. Bye, bye, Jessica from nyc.