OT: The Mavening of Sports Writing
A lot has been made about the recent exodus from Deadspin, which follows other shake-ups at places like Sports Illustrated, and how online sports journalism is turning into the content farm/low-paid semi-writers model. Your opinion on the quality of Deadspin aside, it's not a good sign to see the rush toward the bottom line.
Bryan Curtis had an interesting article on the topic. Again, if you are happy to see Deadspin gone that's fine, and maybe this article isn't for you. But we're spoiled as UM fans that MGoBlog exists and provides high-quality coverage of a program we all care about. That quality is becoming more endangered every day.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:37 PM ^
Most journalism writing is dreck today.
Sports writing even more so with the groupthink political and social commentary blending with run-of-the-mill sports commentary.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:40 PM ^
Ok boomer
October 31st, 2019 at 4:44 PM ^
That would be my dad.
October 31st, 2019 at 7:45 PM ^
Classic. Anyone who isn't "woke" must be a "boomer"
October 31st, 2019 at 4:50 PM ^
And here we have an A+ example of "groupthink political and social commentary" being used as a stand-in for "political and social commentary that I don't agree with".
May we all be so enlightened as to reach your level of thinking, which I'm sure is unadulterated, pure, and independent.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:56 PM ^
Actually, that wasn't an example of groupthink at all. It was an accurate description that chapped your ass because it hit too close to home.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:55 PM ^
Why are you abusing a phrase that references the massacre of Irish people?
Anyways, when everybody writes the same thing over and over again it gets a little tiresome.
Zero intellectual diversity. Zero semblance of critical thinking faculties.
October 31st, 2019 at 10:12 PM ^
I'm just going to flat out disagree on the "zero semblance of critical thinking faculties" comment.
But where do you need your intellectual diversity to come from anyway? There are many, many websites that provide different viewpoints on culture, lifestyle, politics, sports, etc.. For example, if you wanted or needed a different perspective on national anthem kneeling a few years ago, it was extremely easy to find that on 800 different corners of the internet. Your opinion on that topic might've been informed by reading a particular piece from a particular place (making you guilt of groupthink!), or maybe it was formed as some sort of fusion of different viewpoints. With the diversity of websites that very much exist, if you can't identify someone talented writing from a certain angle, it definitely says something about something.
Which comes back to, why is it up to Deadspin to somehow provide some sort of "full range" of intellectual diversity in a single website? Deadspin may have started as a sports site, but more recently, it combined a few different major topics (lifestyle, politics, sports, dudes getting hit in the nuts; you know, all the important things) in different and interesting ways, with strong voices and talented writers and editors. And people read it and liked it and it made money until some ghouls decided to trash the party. And that's a bummer!
October 31st, 2019 at 10:31 PM ^
You confuse number of sites with diversity. Most sites fall into two ideological categories with certain variations drawing creating different focuses.
That isn’t intellectual diversity. That is painting the same picture in different colors.
The reality of the news media is that partisans are the main consumers of it which means most websites that succeed will fall into the Left-Right paradigm.
A sizable portion of Americans simply do not care enough to spend time reading news sites or to demand sites that cater to their interests.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:56 PM ^
If someone can provide me with a golden age (other than a self-anointed one) of journalism have at it, but otherwise this argument is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater because there is some dreck along with th good stuff, and could be applied to any era.
Add the fact that a lot of this dreck is being pushed because someone wants to pump and dump and it's a vicious circle.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:49 PM ^
With the initial burst of enthusiasm ten-plus years ago, we all got spoiled by a profusion of good--and enthusiastic--sports writing. Unfortunately writers in pretty much every field work for peanuts. I'm told the NY Times pays 100 bucks for op-ed pieces these days. Most people write for nothing, as I'm sure you're aware.
And then getting read is a whole 'nother even tougher ballgame. I'm continually amazed to read great writing of all kinds on the internet, across a range of subjects, that not a single person has commented on, to look at the number of people who have visited a page and see that it may be a tiny handful. Sometimes that's with quite reputable online or carryover publications.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:59 PM ^
I would say that in terms of pure writing ability there are much better periods of time than ours.
In terms of bias in journalism that is a timeless issue. I just think we need more ideological diversity and more thoughtful writers who aren’t afraid to upset the control freaks on both sides who wish to dictate how issues are discussed.
October 31st, 2019 at 8:44 PM ^
See, I disagree about the idea there aren't more than enough voices out there. The gatekeepers of traditional media are mostly gone; if you can't find someone who can semi-competently outline beliefs similar to your own it's more likely than not your beliefs have little widespread support and might just be, well, bad. Or at least hard enough to pin down that they are pretty unique to you.
Again, if there's some amazing era where people of diverse backgrounds could freely share their thoughts in a way that a critical mass of people would have access to it, I'd like to know. Doesn't seem like there was one since you couldn't really name one (or provide examples) beyond generalizations.
October 31st, 2019 at 10:14 PM ^
“have little widespread support and might just be, well, bad“
Equating the quality of a belief with popularity is...uh, problematic. All sorts of horrendous beliefs were and to this day have a lot of appeal.
I never claimed that there was such an era. What I did do was express a hope that in time there is such a place.
October 31st, 2019 at 7:01 PM ^
The early days of indie blogs were incredible. Hell, it's what spawned mgoblog and countless others that have died off.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:56 PM ^
Says the flyweight commentarist who continually obtrudes his inanely run-of-the-mill political opinions in places where they don't fit.
October 31st, 2019 at 6:05 PM ^
Thank you for sharing with us your thoughts. As ever they are unimpressive in every way.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:44 PM ^
So a college football message board is where you come for good journalism?
October 31st, 2019 at 4:47 PM ^
Sports journalism? Sure. You apparently come to provide irrelevant comments to articles.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:44 PM ^
We have seen a serious decline in the quality of Sports Journalism over the past several years perhaps as we gave seen the growth of social media, ESPN, and the decline of newspapers. Perhaps they are not all connected but each has contributed to the quality of what we read.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:00 PM ^
while we may not consider the internet to be "new" these days, humanity is still very much adapting to this revolutionary change and we need to really explore the dredges before we can bounce back as a society and use it more responsibly. journalism is just one of the many areas that's still looking for its footing in the new reality and has yet too find it.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:00 PM ^
First of all, you can get pretty good sports writing at The Athletic. But that costs money. The comment that sports "journalism" is in a race to the bottom line is a blinding glimpse of the obvious. And why not? Brian Cook has ads because he has to make a living and pay reasonable wages to the people who work for him. It works because he has enough hits to convince advertisers to buy ads at a high enough price. Evidently that equation no longer works for Deadspin. They had a choice months or years ago, go behind a paywall or write articles more people read. They did neither. Now they be dead. As for The Athletic, they have to get enough subscribers to make it work or they will be dead, too.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:26 PM ^
Without a bottom line nothing exists.
October 31st, 2019 at 7:00 PM ^
Not what happened! They were profitable. Go back to barstool.
October 31st, 2019 at 8:55 PM ^
Deadspin was profitable; the greater G/O Media group was not, and they were bundled in that larger media entity when purchased. They hit a record number of visits earlier this year before the purchase by Great Hill.
The problem with saying "they have to write good articles or they die" is that they did all of that, but people who bought them looking to flip the property in 18 months or 2 years didn't think it was enough money. That's not a problem of journalism that bros who dream of making more money don't understand that journalism isn't Uber or WeWork. As for The Athletic failing, the problem is that they bought up a lot of the "good" writers at local (and even national) newspapers and media outlets. Some of those outlets have since disappeared, done in by a lack of compelling writers because, again, the Athletic scooped them all up. But in the event the Athletic goes under (and right now they seemingly aren't all that close to profitability), then all those writers will disperse and find a landscape even more barren of opportunities. Because...you guessed it...the institutions that chugged along and could survive but weren't unicorn money makers are gone, replaced with shitty content mills.
Again, I'm fine with people disliking Deadspin; I certainly didn't love everything they wrote and found the tenor at times to be oppressively snarky. But if the only "sports" sites that can exist anymore are a cash-losing Athletic, Barstool Sports, and your random SB Nation/Bleacher Report low-content mills, that's not a good reality.
October 31st, 2019 at 11:22 PM ^
This is one of the better posts on the subject. I wasn’t going to renew by Athletic subscription but they offered me a year for $10 so I took it. I don’t know what the financials of The Athletic are, but my $10 isn’t going very far for their writers. I’ve often wondered if it was a sustainable business model.
I don’t have a very high opinion of most journalists in general, and I think sports journalists are worse than the general pool. But some do have real talent and I enjoy reading them. The problem will be if the Athletic fails, where will all those journalists end up? Will they go back to local papers or will they free lance? Will another website pop up? I hope the good ones are able to find an outlet, but I don’t think losing the bad or mediocre ones is a great loss.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:47 PM ^
I'd really like to see a few new Zach Smith stories come out.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:51 PM ^
It's so interesting that people have dug their trenches around what constitutes "sports journalism", when it splays across so many different forms.
Do you want standard sports coverage, highlighting the action, boxscores, and prognostications? Great, there's a copy of the Boston Globe.
Do you want more longform stuff with a bit more of an eye toward the humanity of the athletes playing the game? Awesome, The Athletic is here for you.
Do you want to read up on how culture, politics, and sports intersect with one another and the messiness when it does? Deadspin used to be there for you, and others are still carrying the torch.
I ain't gonna bug you if your publication of choice is the Globe and mine's Deadspin. I'd kindly ask you to return the favor. I don't need every sports fan I interact with to be culturally entwined.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:00 PM ^
Sure, but if your only choice for box score info is a Gannett-owned publication, the only long form is The Athletic, and the only cultural site is The Ringer or Vice, that's not good for the discourse. SI, one of the vanguards for quality sports journalism, is a zombie. Some of those writers will find other homes that let them produce quality product but many won't. And we'll all be worse off as a result.
I don't begrudge your preference, but you have a choice to only read the Globe if you want to keep politics out of sports (though it definitely is intertwined in the coverage by columnists). But don't be surprised if at some point in the future your access to high quality writing is behind a pretty significant paywall and is informed by who's sponsoring the mothership that month.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:37 PM ^
But who are we supposed to be upset at about this? If the economics of the business supported more high-quality journalism, there would be more high-quality journalism. I guess bemoan the ignorant consumer clicking on clickbait, but not sure who is to blame here.
October 31st, 2019 at 6:06 PM ^
The thing is Deadspin was consistently profitable. It survived just fine after Gawker went under. It wasn't profitable enough for it's various owners, but that's not a failure of the site as much as the owners wanting more than it said it was for some short term gain.
The economics have changed but I'm not sure it's because the old model was failing as much as people want a quick buck.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:52 PM ^
This site provides quality content? Really? 'Cause I think this site is a bunch of people posting links to articles written by other people who work for other sites. There is nothing on this site, other than some really sketchy opinions, that isn't readily available via direct link to the original site.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:59 PM ^
How are you people so bad at writing message board comments on the internet?
UFR posts are almost completely and totally original content and like 3,000-5,000 words apiece. Ace just wrote a two part Big Ten basketball preview with 3-5 paragraphs on each Big Ten team. Only Unverified Voracity is really a package of content from elsewhere, and there are like 1,000 added value words in each one.
Your comment is demonstrably false! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:03 PM ^
And yet you joined this site 2 months ago and seem really annoyed by literally everything posted here. So you don't actually have to read it. Like, I'm sure there are other places on the internet where you can wax poetically about how hard you worked out during football practice in HS and compare it to the fitness level of women playing college sports.
October 31st, 2019 at 8:13 PM ^
You claim the blog is trash, yet you dedicate so much of your life to trolling on it. You clearly hold it in esteem, otherwise you wouldn't put so much time and effort into making a total fool of yourself on here.
October 31st, 2019 at 8:24 PM ^
The opinions here ARE truly the sketchiest of the sketchy, you got that right!
lulz someone doesn't like Brian's political outlooks me thinks
Cool picture BlueBallin'
October 31st, 2019 at 4:55 PM ^
Good column but unfortunately the problem is a bigger one. Private equity has been ruining media properties well beyond sports blogs for some time now.
October 31st, 2019 at 4:56 PM ^
You should be frustrated by this trend. But the Deadspin editors share the blame. The site went from great sports reporting and commentary with a political slant to Splinter with sports highlights. It was a failing model from the start, but, to them, it was better to burn the whole thing down than recognize and accept that most people interested in sports don't care to be bombarded with dirtbag-left screeds.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:01 PM ^
The problem with your argument: Deadspin is and was reliably profitable.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:54 PM ^
The problem with your argument: It's got bad facts. https://nypost.com/2019/09/24/owner-of-deadspin-the-onion-says-media-group-is-now-profitable/
October 31st, 2019 at 6:13 PM ^
That's referring to the entire G/O media collection, which includes sites that absolutely were losing money. Nobody argues that. But Deadspin was self sustaining, and that allowed them (along with other sites) to partially support other sites that lost money. Like a lot of companies.
Also, if cutting 25 jobs at an online media company was the difference between profitability and not, the margin was pretty slim.
October 31st, 2019 at 9:44 PM ^
It's clear you really want this to be true. I guess you've seen the financials. It's strange that greedy private equity guys would want to ruin such a profitable enterprise while keeping the weak links. In any event, you can rest easy knowing that the Deadspin refugees will be able to start a new very profitable site with all those eye balls looking for EPL highlights next to why-can't-we-be-more-like-venezuela manifestos.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:07 PM ^
Considering they had record traffic earlier this month, there were a lot of people who wanted their dirtbag left screeds.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:54 PM ^
To watch the house fire. I guess that's a nice parting gift.
October 31st, 2019 at 6:01 PM ^
You should not confuse your personal preferences in editorial with business sense. The site was immensely profitable, and along with Gizmodo, generated the profits that made the rest of the network profitable. Other sites in the portfolio sometimes struggle to break even and sometimes run in the red, Deadspin and Gizmodo made avalanches of cash that kept the lights on for a site like, say, Lifehacker.
October 31st, 2019 at 10:05 PM ^
They can all go bring enormous profit to alternet, then. The people desperate for their content--there are literally dozens of them--will follow.
October 31st, 2019 at 8:43 PM ^
So your argument is they were purposely losing money so they could push a leftish agenda and then at a certain point decided they were losing too much and gave up? Put down your pompoms and think about that for a second.
October 31st, 2019 at 9:48 PM ^
It'd be nice for employers if employees concerned themselves with profitability. That's not the way the world works, however. Hence, the occasional conflict between management and labor.
And they didn't give up; they lost.
October 31st, 2019 at 10:55 PM ^
I guess I didn't understand your original post or you didn't understand my reply. Either way it's not worth arguing over. Have a nice night.
October 31st, 2019 at 5:17 PM ^
Deadspin didn't produce high quality content. That is the reason why they're going out of business. If they had Seth writing for them, they probably wouldn't be in this mess.