Meta Bloggy Thoughts: Media Criticism
by Peter Bean on Aug 12, 2007 10:30 PM CDT
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintThis is one of those Blogger talking to Bloggers posts. If you're a reader who enjoys this particular brand of conversation, wonderful. Join the fun. If you're not interested, consider this your Fair Warning note.
Not long ago, Orson and I published a series of promises regarding how we intend to write about the upcoming football season. From proposals to use the BlogPoll rankings to vows to avoid getting too caught up in the conference superiority wars, we intended our little manifesto to be a statement on elevated discourse.
In retrospect, we would've been wise to mesh out in greater detail why we even bothered to come up with our semi-ad hoc list of how we intended to cover the '07 season. While each of the points on the list were explained, we didn't spend much time talking about the underlying point.
As it was, we didn't so much intend to make a statement about style; I can assure you that Orson will continue to cover college football with the same zany irreverance as before. And I'll continue to blog about the Longhorns from a fan's perspective. We like fun and we are, as the last rule states, fans of the game above all else.
But I was reminded of those rules today when I read this outstanding post from LD at Gunslingers, in which he breaks down Stewart Mandel's controversial column about the elite programs of college football.
In our proposal, Orson and I made a promise to avoid breaking down a Stewart Mandel mailbag. We didn't offer much explanation, other than to note that Michael received a free pass since he does it so well. However, a more robust explanation of our intentions would have noted that the crime we were singling out isn't breaking down a national columnist's mailbag. It's that too many bloggers have come to use national columnist criticism as a crutch of sorts. It's ubiquitous and, unfortunately, a bit tired. More importantly, mostly it's just noting that so-and-so is an idiot. A factual refutation of opinions is one thing - just noting that a writer is an idiot is another.
Orson and I also noted that we wouldn't mention Bill Simmons on our sites unless we were discussing the NBA. The point was the same - bashing Simmons' columns has become a bit of a tired trick. Rare is the Simmons-bashing column which adds something new to the discussion. I think almost everyone understands by now that unless he's talking about the NBA, Simmons is just a blogger with a really big soapbox. He writes columns from the perspective of a rabid sports fan - it's no surprise that he has biased opinions that don't come even close to passing the objective analysis test.
To the larger point, then. I brought this up in SBN's recent interview with BallHype.com, and I'll make note of it here, too:
Mainstream media criticism is an important part of what a lot of sports blogs do these days, but I really do wonder whether it does anyone any good to write that ESPN "licks monkey balls" or something like that. Unfortunately, that’s more the norm than the exception.
I think the next big step for sports bloggers will be to maintain their edge and personalities but to get over the little guy complex that seems to motivate so many to lash out angrily at the big kids in the park.
Tying this all back to our manifesto, I've arrived at a point where I think the entire conversation about bloggers' role in the new media landscape seems off the tracks. There was a time - not long ago (this stuff evolves so fast) - when the Sports Bloggers Taking On Mainstream Media was a useful part of blogging. Sports blogs were fighting for credibility, and one of the most compelling talking points we had was: "Look! Many of the guys we've all been forced to read for our sports conversation fix are doing a lousy job."
Many of those same writers are still doing a lousy job, and I rely on my favorite bloggers for cogent analysis far more than I do the mainstream journalists with big stages. I also think it important that writers with big stages be called to task when they spit out unsound columns. Those columnists do reach a lot of eyeballs, and I like that there exists a contingency of critics who take them to task when they deserve it.
With that in mind, I think it critical that the sports blogosphere as a whole evolve a bit. There can, will, and should remain a place for thoughtful mainstream media criticism, but the more infantile version of this criticism has outlived its usefulness. Generic posts about how stoopid a given columnist may be no longer adds anything useful to the conversation.
More damagingly, it adds fuel to the Blogger vs Mainstream Media fire which, at least to me, also seems outdated and counter-productive. My problem here is twofold:
First, most of us sports bloggers rely entirely on hardworking journalists to gather the information we need to run our blogs. National columnists may be something a blogger can live without, but beat reporters and fact-producing analysts remain critical support structures to much of the sports blogosphere. By creating an antagonistic relationship between journalists and bloggers, we're unfairly biting a hand which feeds us.
Second, the entire idea that there must be a clash between these two entities seems misguided. Not only misguided, but counter-productive. There are so many bloggers doing such amazing work that it's time the lot of us shed the Little Guy Complex altogether. It reeks of petty insecurity. On the flipside, there are dozens of truly superb members of the mainstream media who produce engaging, thoughtful, and unique content. As an example, there exists nowhere in the blogosphere an equal - let alone better - Big 12 column than that of the San Antonio Express-News' Tim Griffin.
It's part of that second criticism, in particular, that I've been thinking about a lot lately. Sports bloggers have busted their collective asses to earn credibility in the new online landscape, and they've succeeded. I simply marvel at the work being done at MGoBlog these days. I'd take a half portion of SMQ over three gravy-smothered heaps of any national writer I can think of. The work done at Blue-Gray Sky is more impressive than just about anything I can find anywhere else on a single team.
Bloggers have worked incredibly hard to produce the best content available for sports fans, and it's been a rousing success. With more and more talented writers and thinkers joining in, the standards and quality of work continue to rise.
In other words: we've arrived. The work speaks for itself and doesn't require any oppositional characteristic to be noticed or worthwhile. It is good because of What It Is.
To conclude (finally), the sports blogosphere has matured. The work produced therein is tremendous and, often times, wholly different than that which we get from many mainstream media outlets. Calling to task the latter group remains a useful, important topic, but only insofar as it is a thoughtful critique. Moreover, it has become counter-productive to add fuel to the blog vs. mainstream media fire. There's no reason for us to have an antagonistic relationship, and we're past the point of needing to differentiate ourselves for the purpose of validation.
--PB--
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
media
Great post, PB. Personally, I grow weary of the various blogs out there that make a point to attack every national writer's column.
For instance, I found nothing useful out of LD's post on Mandel that you linked to. And it's posts like these within the blogosphere that do the most damage to bloggers' credibility.
There is room for both avenues of coverage (there has to be, really). And rather than attacking the "people in power," each blog should focus on its own niche to provide the best coverage. Trying to tear down people is never instructive.
It is one thing to disagree with a columnist's opinion (that's what they are there for), it's quite another to use that disagreement as the basis for proving someone wrong or stupid, which is what a lot of these critical bloggers do. It's tired and it gets old.
Disagree on LD
I thought he went beyond the "Mandel is an idiot" argument to explore why a reader should be skeptical of what Mandel's writing. To me, that's useful criticism, and a step above just lobbing grenades.
On the other hand...
Blogs are not JV journalism. They are a whole different thing and whether you like it or not, personal attacks and ridicule are part of the scene. When speech is free, people get to sound off however they want. They might be rude or profane or just plain stupid, but the door is open for them. Or else you need a doorman that decides who gets in.
It's like walking down the street wearing a top hat. Some people are going to make fun of you, while others will be polite. If you insist on wearing the hat, you need to get used to the jeers.
Certainly
And I don't intend to censor anyone. And if a blog merely intends to write caustically - that's fine.
On the other hand, there exists a sizable segment of the sports blogosphere which intends to be taken seriously. For those in that position, vitriolic attacks on mainstream media are counter-productive and, I'd argue, myopic.
There's room at the buffet for writers and bloggers of every stripe. But for those blogs which claim some sort of superiority over mainstream media, there needs to be an evolution in media criticism. Hysterical ranting about suckage is old hat.
it's hard
to avoid that type of blogging, especially when you go over to Ballhype and yardbarker, and see that the posts that are getting the most attention are the angry, bitter ones (caustic is way too big a word for blogging) that have intentionally incendiary headlines.
That Stewart Mandel, though. He is an idiot as far enough as he knows how to push people's buttons. He knows when to be wrong about stuff, and for those of you who don't write, do you really think that everything someone writes in op-ed pieces are going to be correct? You don't think they throw stuff out they know is wrong because someone out there is more than willing to get up on a soapbox and start bitching about how wrong the writer is?
Ha, fools!
Corn Nation - Graduating more of our players than you are!
by cornnation @ Burnt Orange Nation on Aug 13, 2007 12:32 PM CDT reply actions
Word
My 2nd favorite part of this post was the use of the word "stoopid". You made my day.
Best part being your eloquent and reasoned commentary.
You're my burnt orange hero, PB.
Interesting appoligy on ESPN page 2
Three interesting things here:
- He acknowledges the fact that sport writers usually get a pass on all of the crap opinions they write:
Too often we in the media are allowed to skate through life without suffering real consequences and/or admitting the errors of our ways. We label someone a bust based on a poor initial impression, and 14 years later Howard Johnson retires with 228 home runs and two All-Star Game appearances.
We say a player has faced too many setbacks to ever reach his goal, then we're amazed by Josh Hamilton's determination to overcome drug addiction. A New York City columnist writes a scathing piece beneath the headline "THE COWBOYS SHOULD BAN IRVIN NOW," then never acknowledges that Michael Irvin was found innocent of the 1996 rape allegations that evoked the story. A know-it-all bozo on ESPN.com's Page 2 opines that the Yankees should save their season by firing Joe Torre, then watches in amazement as New York's manager guides a severely flawed team back into the pennant race.
- He acknowledges the blog that called him out on it at the time:
The harshest (and, in hindsight, most righteous) criticism came from a blog operated by Larry Bailey, a Denver native who devotes his (oft-hilarious) site to keeping the media in check. Wrote Bailey: "What Jeff Pearlman is trying to say is that it's Joe Torre's fault that George Steinbrenner is a raving lunatic and Brian Cashman is a blubbering bowl of wuss that won't stand up to him. Yes, that's right, Pearlman has the solution to the Yankees' early season struggles: fire Torre. The article is constructed entirely on anecdotal bull---- and contains no real analysis whatsoever."
- Most interesting, he acknowledges that writing positive articles does not get the attention, and therefore money and job security, that writing opinions in a tone that intentionally angers readers:
In the spirit of full disclosure, this columnist thing is trickier than I'd ever imagined. Initially, you write on topics near and dear to your soul -- a washed-up ballplayer's search for help; a WNBA veteran seeking redemption; the 20-year anniversary of a sporting event that stirred something within yourself. Then, unfortunately, you start to notice that readers almost never react to the pristinely positive. They want you to rile emotions and inspire dialogue and bring the heat. So you take an opinion you truly believe (and I did believe Torre deserved to go), toss in a few snarky lines and throw it out there.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
