Back Porch FanHouse http://backporch.fanhouse.com Back Porch FanHouse http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/media/feedlogo.gif Back Porch FanHouse http://backporch.fanhouse.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/A.J. Daulerio Interview: 'There Are Going to Be "Why Deadspin Sucks" Columns All Over'http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/27/a-j-daulerio-interview-there-are-going-to-be-why-deadspin-su/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/27/a-j-daulerio-interview-there-are-going-to-be-why-deadspin-su/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/27/a-j-daulerio-interview-there-are-going-to-be-why-deadspin-su/#commentsFiled under: ,


Although the popular sports blog Deadspin has grown into much more than a one-man show over the last three years, it has always been viewed, first and foremost, as Will Leitch's site.

Until today. Leitch is leaving to become a contributing editor at New York magazine, and Gawker Media has announced that A.J. Daulerio, who had served as the site's senior writer, is taking over the top spot.

It's a busy day for Daulerio, but he took a few minutes to talk to me about how he felt when he got the job, where Deadspin is going, and why he thinks Stuart Scott has every right to hate him.


Deadspin Editor is probably the most coveted job in the sports blogosphere. What was your initial reaction when you found out the job was yours?
I was elated, obviously. I really wanted this and coveted it but, at the same time, I knew there would be a lot of people who wanted the same thing, so I was mindful of that. I knew I wanted to be a part of the site in some capacity as I went through the process.

What was the process like?
After Will announced he was leaving, we had discussions, he was gauging my interest in it, and I let the Gawker people know my interest in it. I went through an interviewing process, said where I thought the site should go. It wasn't that different from any other job interview.

It was my sense that you were the favorite from the outset. Was that your sense as well?
Actually, no. If you look at Gawker's history, there's not usually an heir apparent automatically in line. They do a very, very deliberate and thorough search for who they think would best get the site to where they think it should be. I had interest in it from the get-go just because I was such a fan of the site and have worked in it in some capacity since its inception, so I was very interested. But I also realized it's a hot property right now and they have to do what's best for it.

Would it be fair to say that Gawker Media hiring you -- someone who already works on the site -- is a sign that the bosses like the way Deadspin is going now and don't want any big changes?
Yes and no. I think there's always room for growth in their eyes. That's definitely going to be taken into account. Deadspin is actually at this place right now where it's in the rarefied air of the sports blogosphere, it has momentum and visibility that they want to capitalize on. Hopefully I will be the guy to do that.

Do you expect to make any changes? Will you bring on any new writers or eliminate any current features?
That will probably all be a work in progress. When any site changes hands there are going to be changes, but I don't think they're going to be drastic. I think the template is pretty much there, it's just a matter of building up, not tearing down. There will be a new writer added, Clay Travis, and everyone is looking forward to working with him. He has a depth of knowledge that will help the site and he's willing to come on board and help us out, so that's great, and Rick Chandler will stay on as associate editor.

You were previously the editor of Oddjack, a Gawker Media site that was not successful. Did you worry that that would count against you? Will that experience help you with Deadspin?
That was a completely different set of circumstances. Oddjack, from all angles, was an unmitigated failure. It was the first time I had ever blogged. It was a crash course in doing that, a crash course in how to edit and operate and hold down a site. I had to learn as I went, and failing was probably one of the best lessons there, ultimately.

When people criticize Deadspin, they often bring up a post you wrote in which you looked over Stuart Scott's shoulder at a Super Bowl party to read a text message he was sending. Do you regret doing that, and is that criticism valid?
I think a lot of that criticism comes form people who are trying to compare this to the tenets of journalism and question whether or not it's ethical. I don't regret it because it was supposed to be my diary of being at the Super Bowl. I knew the ramifications of it. ... You have to realize, at the time that that happened, Deadspin and ESPN had this very, very silly rivalry where this is kind of like flinging a bag of dog crap on their front porch. I think I broke every single guy code that's out there by doing that, but my goal was basically to entertain Deadspin's audience and I think I did that.

And is that the ultimate goal, to entertain Deadspin's audience?
Yeah, of course. And one thing to make clear, Deadspin's audience isn't all the commenters -- the commenters are probably 10% of the entire readership. I think that the goal is to find what a wide-reaching Deadspin audience wants. That week at the Super Bowl, I knew what my job was. Every bad journalism practice I employed that week was because that was what I thought would give us the best material that week. But it wasn't like my goal was to hide in a trash bin and ruin this guy's life or something.

Have you ever heard from Stuart Scott?
No, I heard he was upset, and rightfully so. I'm sure if I was in that position I'd be upset too.

Where do you see Deadspin a year from now?
That's a tough one for me to answer. There are goals in place but we still have a lot of things to work out as far as what Deadspin is going to be a month from now, let alone a year form now. It's going to be a day-to-day process.

As the highest-profile sports blogger out there, is Will Leitch a particularly tough act to follow?
Yes. I'll be mindful of that every day. I'm absolutely 100% convinced that there are going to be "Why Deadspin sucks" columns all over the place.

Will's just got a great template in place. I'm a fan of the site, and so there are no wholesale changes that I'm going to put in place. I'm just building upon the site that's already here.

A.J. Daulerio Interview: 'There Are Going to Be "Why Deadspin Sucks" Columns All Over' originally appeared on Back Porch FanHouse on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:10:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>A.J. DaulerioA.j.DaulerioStuart ScottStuartScottWill LeitchWillLeitchMichael David SmithFri, 27 Jun 2008 15:10:00 EST FanHouse Interview: Jemele Hill on Her Hitler Comment, Don Imus Criticism and Morehttp://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/23/fanhouse-interview-jemele-hill-on-her-hitler-comment-don-imus/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/23/fanhouse-interview-jemele-hill-on-her-hitler-comment-don-imus/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/23/fanhouse-interview-jemele-hill-on-her-hitler-comment-don-imus/#commentsFiled under: , ,

In a column that was intended to explain why a Detroit Pistons fan couldn't root for the Boston Celtics in the NBA Finals, ESPN's Jemele Hill wrote that cheering "for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim."

Those words were quickly removed from her ESPN.com column, but the damage had been done: Hill was harshly criticized in the blogosphere and on Boston sports radio, and ESPN suspended her.

Now off suspension, Hill spoke to me by phone today. The interview is below.

The statement released by ESPN said you were relieved of your duties to reflect on the impact of your words. What have your reflections been like over the last week?
It's been a myriad of emotions. Obviously, I was embarrassed. I was frustrated, and at times a little angry. But I wanted to keep in mind the actual offense and not get caught up in the hoopla that surrounded what was done. That's the part that can send you into negative places and I tried very hard and I think I largely succeeded in staying away from that - I never read anything that was written about me or said about me by various blogs or whatever newspapers might have done it.

The e-mails I received were tough and the only point where I really got mad in terms of the reaction was when that radio station in Boston posted my telephone number and address. That, I thought, was completely out of line.

Were you scared by that?
Yes, I was. You never know - I realize it was a Boston radio station so I hope no one is going to come to where I live in [place deleted], but it's never a good thing when this information is available, and I thought that was pretty classless. It made for some interesting times in terms of answering the telephone. Got a lot of hang-ups, but nobody left any messages that were frightening.

Who read the column before it appeared on ESPN.com? Shouldn't whatever editor approved it have taken some heat as well?
I'm not sure who edited it. As far as whether or not they deserve any punishment, I don't know about that. I have no idea. Nothing has been said to me about that. I just deal with my situation individually. It still doesn't take away from the fact that I wrote it. I know what an editor's job is, and it doesn't let me off the hook or absolve me.

I believe this is the second time you've been reprimanded by an employer for a column you wrote - there was also the time your bosses at the Orlando Sentinel reprimanded you for your column about Willis McGahee, right?
Yes, that was the first time - I got reprimanded for something somebody else said. Yeah, it happened in Orlando, I was given a disciplinary note in my personnel file because of that. The editor didn't like the context of some things he said about the mothers of his children. I didn't see a problem with it just because it was his opinion, he answered the question.

So is that similar to this?
I was more upset about [being disciplined for] that one than this one. I'm fine with everything that happened in this case as far as the fallout for me personally because I felt I deserved it. In that case I didn't feel like I deserved it just because, again, I didn't say it. The attention that the Willis McGahee thing received was generally positive - not for him, but for the paper, hits on the web site, people talking about it.

You were critical of Don Imus. Do you see any similarities between what you wrote and what Imus said, and has this incident led you to reconsider anything you wrote about Imus?
No, I wouldn't reconsider anything that I wrote about Don Imus. I stand behind it. As for the similarities, I'll let people be their own judge. I know some people were putting me in that category and it's certainly their right to do so. I feel differently and I think pulling Imus into this is kind of a distraction. This shouldn't be about whether me and Imus should share the same fate, this should be about my particular insensitivity and not his. I hope this is about me being better as a columnist and as a person.

Will Leitch at Deadspin wrote, "Hill's a fine writer, but anytime you say 'Hitler,' whatever point you're trying to make is obliterated." Do you think that's true?
Yeah, he's probably right about that. I think where I failed as a writer is I'm not sure I had a full grasp of that before I wrote that column. I would never dream of joking about the Holocaust in a column. I would never do that. Hitler to me seemed in a different category, but obviously I was wrong with that. So yeah, I would probably agree with Will, it can only go bad places once you bring that name into the fold.

You posted something on your personal blog saying you got e-mails calling you the N-word. How many such e-mails did you get?
A lot. But I hesitate to get into that because I'm not a victim and I don't want it to come off like I'm saying, 'Oh, look what happened to me.' These are the consequences of my action. It doesn't give anybody the right to call me that, and this is the nastiest batch of mail I've received, ever, in my 11-year career. But I don't want that to be the focus. I don't want that to distract from the issues at hand. I don't feel sorry for myself and don't want others to feel sorry for me. But that is something that you have to deal with if you're a black columnist. But I certainly don't think that's representative of all Celtics fans or all people from Boston. People tend to get emotional and say things that they wouldn't say if you were there in person.

Overall, what was the response like? Any positive responses?
Yes, I received a number of e-mails from colleagues, other people in the business that I've known for years, that was very uplifting to know that they were in my corner because I didn't want people who knew me to think less of me.

I also received a number of e-mails from people who were Jewish and I was very encouraged by those e-mails, all very reasonable, rational, some thought it was no big deal, some did, it was across the board, but people wanted to know why I wrote it -- they just wanted to understand and those led to some good conversations.

Your First Take colleague Dana Jacobson also served a suspension. Have you had an opportunity to talk to her about this?
Yeah, I did. I did talk to Dana and she was very helpful, very supportive. She was somebody who, having been through this before, was a good person to commiserate with. We talked for like an hour on the telephone and it was very nice to talk to someone else who had been through this.

Who else at ESPN did you hear from?
Gene Wojciechowski, Skip Bayless sent me an e-mail - Skip and I have a good relationship, so that didn't surprise me. Bill Simmons sent me an e-mail. A lot of producers did. Some people at ESPN the Magazine. A wide variety of people. There were people I didn't think I had met yet who sent me e-mails and I was very surprised and pleased to have that kind of support within the company.

Putting this incident aside, do you think you've received more than your fair share of criticism throughout your career?
I've received a lot. But I'd like to think it's mostly because I've given a lot of criticism too. When you write about race you're going to make yourself a target, I don't care who you are. I think that has probably fueled a lot of that. A lot of the reactions last week were based on the fact that I have written about race previously. If I never had I'm not sure people would have cared as much ... I don't know if the reaction would have been the same if I didn't address those issues in my column. I know that I am a little bit different than other columnists out there. Clearly, my gender and race make me different, and also the subjects I choose to tackle, I feel passionate about and when you feel passionate about your subject people are going to throw some of that back right at you.

You mentioned gender and race, I would also add age. Does the fact that you're young, female, and black, whereas high-profile sports columnists tend to be old, male and white, contribute to some of the criticism you've received?
It's a different look. I would agree, age definitely is a factor. In a situation like this people think I'm in this situation because of experience or lack of experience -- even though I got an early start, so I've been in this business longer than people probably know. I'd say those things contribute, but I don't think it's the total reason. Subject matter is important. When you write about polarizing issues you become something of a polarizing figure yourself. Of course, people were furious because I think in some people's minds I'm someone who came out of nowhere.

I've never shied away or ducked criticism and I'm not going to start now. I'm also not going to internalize it because the people who didn't think I deserved to be in this position, I'm not going to win them over so it's no use to me fretting about it because it's not going to happen.

Do you think there's a certain amount of jealousy behind the criticism of you? Jealousy that you got a high-profile job at a young age? Jealously that, according to The Big Lead, you make $200,000 a year?
That's an incorrect salary, first of all. I don't know if "jealousy" is the right word. When you see someone you hadn't heard of come out of nowhere and get a high-profile job, and then there's a salary that's reported that people think is too much, there is some of that, but I would never say I get it worse than somebody else because of jealousy. When you come in the door and your salary is out there - even if it's incorrect - it puts it in people's minds that, "Every time I read this column, I better get my money's worth." It's no different for an athlete. You don't expect a lot out of a guy making league minimum, you expect a lot out of a guy making $28 million. Coming in with that notoriety certainly changed things a bit.

The Big Lead also reported in October of 2006 that you had signed a two-year contract. Does that mean you might only have a few months left at ESPN?
It was actually November of 2006. Yeah, you're right. It's closer than I thought it was. I'm sure there will be some talking. I usually leave that in the hands of my very capable manager. I try not to think about that. My relationship with ESPN has been very positive and I do not anticipate any contentiousness around that. I have no doubt that will continue.

FanHouse Interview: Jemele Hill on Her Hitler Comment, Don Imus Criticism and More originally appeared on Back Porch FanHouse on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:34:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Jemele HillJemeleHillMichael David SmithMon, 23 Jun 2008 15:34:00 EST Will Leitch Leaves for New York Magazine, but He'd Like to Be Deadspin's Tom Brokawhttp://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/06/will-leitch-leaves-for-new-york-magazine-but-hed-like-to-be-de/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/06/will-leitch-leaves-for-new-york-magazine-but-hed-like-to-be-de/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/06/will-leitch-leaves-for-new-york-magazine-but-hed-like-to-be-de/#commentsFiled under: ,


Will Leitch has spent the last three years as the web's most influential sports blogger, and now he's joining the dreaded mainstream media.

New York Magazine is about to become his home, but before he leaves sports blogs behind, he agreed to talk to me for an interview in which we didn't discuss Buzz Bissinger (other than him assuring me that he had been talking to New York before the Bissinger blowup -- "it's not like they thought, Oh, that guy was on a TV show, let's get him'") but did discuss Deadspin's past and its future.

What will Deadspin look like post-Leitch? He told me, "I guarantee you, Deadspin is going to be considerably larger in a year than it is now." A full Q&A is below.

Why leave Deadspin now, and why for New York Magazine?
I've written for New York for a while -- my first piece for them was actually in 2004. My editor there, Hugo Lindgren, I've known since back in the Black Table days, so I've actually been working with him for a long time, and I enjoy working with him.

I wasn't really looking to leave Deadspin, because it's really fun, but I did tell the New York Magazine people I'd like to keep working with them, and it sort of turned into an accidental negotiation where they put the offer out there. New York is one of my absolute favorite magazines, one of the two or three magazines I read cover to cover. It wins National Magazine Awards. To have them wanting me was a cool thing. Also, I'm going to be doing long, 8,000-word features for them, and I'm looking forward to that.

I'm also making sure I diversify a little bit. We were discussing trying to split the baby, almost having more of a figurehead role at Deadspin while doing this, but I thought if I were going to do it I had to do it right. Deadspin has evolved from the days when it was just me and Rick [Chandler] doing it, and it's in pretty good hands. I'll still be writing for the site, but I also don't want to be hanging over the new editor's head.

Do you feel burned out? Is this part of the trend the New York Times has reported on of bloggers working so hard they drop dead?
I'm on my fourth heart attack, but I'm not burned out. No, I've never felt burned out. Before Deadspin I was working at a trade publication pretending to care about Morgan Stanley, so for me to be able to write in my own voice about stuff I cared about was exciting. People said I would burn out, but that really never happened. It's actually still really fun to me. There are still things I do that aren't fun -- I do payroll, that's not fun -- but I still wake up in the morning and write and assign and edit things that I care about. Having not done that for a very long time, I've always appreciated that. If the New York Magazine thing hadn't come along I would have done Deadspin into the forseeable future.

When you look back at your time at Deadspin, what are you most proud of?
I'm most proud of how many other people started their own sites. There were sites out there before Deadspin -- Free Darko is older than Deadspin, Can't Stop the Bleeding, Mr. Irrelevant, all of those sites have been around, but I think Deadspin helped people think "Hey, it's really this easy." I think that's actually a really good thing. People get excited about the notion that they can just write the way they want to write, not write an AP inverted pyramid story.

I really think a watershed moment in the site was when Kissing Suzy Kolber launched. Whatever you think about the quality of their site -- I think they're great, not everyone agrees -- it was so awesome that Deadspin commenters approached each other and said, "Hey, that screen name is funny, so let's get together and do this." And it grew organically. Obviously, you and I know there are a lot of junk blogs out there, but there are a lot of good ones that launched that were inspired by Deadspin. There's so much more quality stuff than there used to be -- there's no sports fan who's under-served. And when I first started the site I thought there were a lot of fans who were under-served.

Do you regret anything you've written at Deadspin?
Yes, like anyone who's ever done anything for public consumption in the journalistic forum, whenever you get something wrong, you regret it. The best example is the Pujols HGH thing. You know, sometimes you get burned by a source. Any journalist out there in any medium or any form. But that didn't happen that often and when it did happen I felt like I had to fess up to it.

But whether you agree with my justification for the stuff I've written, I had my justifications. So I don't regret anything as far as my standards, but certainly I do regret if I got something wrong.

When FanHouse launched, you wrote that with so many different writers, "the collage of voices could potentially cause us a little whiplash." But now Deadspin has reached a point where there's a collage of voices and it's less dominated by your voice than ever before. Were you happy with that, and does that play a part in the fact that you're leaving?
It definitely is not playing a part in the fact that I'm leaving. Certainly, there is a little part of me that is wistful for the days when it was just me and Rick. That is not to say the site isn't improved -- when you look at what A.J. [Daulerio] is doing, he's doing really good stuff. I'm wistful for it not in a quality way, I'm wistful in the way that middle-aged sports writers are wistful for the days when Mickey Mantle was just a guy who hit home runs. I still think everything on the site is generally in the spirit of what I've tried to do.

I do think I'm a better writer than I am a copy editor -- and those hockey guys, I'm still not sure what they're doing -- but that was just a different time. Deadspin has a lot of writers, but looking at larger sites, we're bare. I'm not sure Deadspin would have been successful if it had launched the way it is now.

The one decision that was kind of forced on me that I didn't like was the decision with the redesign where you had to click on the posts to read them. But that's the way these things are going to work now. It makes absolute sense, and I learned to work with it and actually grew to enjoy it a little bit.

FanHouse, if it would have launched three and a half years ago the way that it is, people would have been so overwhelmed, but now I think people can sift through and handle it better.

Will you blog at New York Magazine?
I'll be writing a weekly column for their web site, but I will not be running a blog. One of the great things about New York is they have embraced the web to the point where when I do stories for New York or writing for the web site I'm filing generally to the same set of editors. There's not this idea that there's the "web people" and there's the "magazine people." It's a magazine that understands the web. John Heilemann is one of the best political writers in the country and he writes for the web site all the time.

I'm guessing New York won't let me write that much about Rick Ankiel.

Will we see your writing anywhere else?
Yeah, I'll still be able to write for other places. The Sporting News is re-launching in September and I'll be writing something for them. New York does not have a rule where you can't write for other publications, and I'm glad because that would have been a sticking point. They will be my full-time employer so they get my Grade-A stuff, but no, there will be tons of places, I'm working on the next book now and they're very encouraging of all that stuff.

New York recognizes that the way to make your magazine good is to make your writers happy. Too many publications go on the assumption "you should be happy that we let you write for us." Yahoo Sports is like that, not letting their writers write anywhere else. I think it's great that MJD and Skeets and Wyshynski are getting a large audience, but I don't think keeping them from writing for other places is a very smart long-term thing for Yahoo to do at all.

Will you keep doing New York Times op-ed pieces?
No, I won't. That's the one restriction New York has: You can't write for the New York Times or the New Yorker, and I think that's fine. It is a shame because I had been talking with the Times about doing a more regular online column and op-eds more often, but both the Times and New York didn't want me doing both -- the Times actually had a much larger issue with it than New York did. I think everybody understood.

What does a contributing editor at New York Magazine do?
Basically, everybody has a different deal. Jay Mcinerney has a contributing editor title for New York, and I think he does like one thing a year. But he's Jay Mcinerney. John Heilemann is also a contributing editor, he's in there every week, they have different deals for different people. I have a certain number of words per year that I write for the magazine. If I go past that number I get paid like a freelancer.

[Leitch declined to give the number of words but said he expected to average about a column a month for the magazine, three or four long features a year, and some online content: "I don't think they're going to be lacking for productivity from me," he said.]

Did Gawker Media try to keep you? Was there a bidding war for your services?
I would definitely not classify anything as a bidding war, but certainly when I went to them and told them about this they wanted to keep me and I think made a pretty good-faith effort to keep me -- to the point where it was touching.

Nick Denton would say so if he thought I was making a mistake by leaving, and he said, "I think this is a really good opportunity," which I thought was very nice. Whatever changes Gawker made, I've literally never had a substantial issue with anything they've ever done -- never personality problems. Nick is really smart, he finds good people to do good things and stays out of their way.

It's always funny, when I was on the book tour the most common question I got was, "What's it like to work for Nick Denton?" As if he had us down in a dungeon somewhere. He's actually a very friendly, very personable, very nice guy. Because he's secretive about his personality a little bit and because he tweaks members of the media he seems like this mysterious person. I can tell the world, Nick is a very nice guy who's been nothing but good for pretty much everyone I know who's worked for him.

You said you'll still be writing for Deadspin. What will you contribute?
I'm glad to be able to help them with the transition. A lot of it will depend on whoever the new editor is. If the new editor doesn't want me around anymore, that's his or her decision, but the way I would imagine it is almost like when Tom Brokaw shows up on MSNBC for election coverage. We know he's retired, but it's a big story and we figure we'll bring him around. Whoever takes over the site, it's their site.

How do you think you have changed the sports world over the last three years?
I don't think any influence Deadspin has had is because I'm brilliant, but if anything it's that there are more options now and more accountability in many ways. The quintessential example is when Michael Irvin made his comments about Tony Romo on Dan Patrick's radio show. Five years ago that would have been gone into the ether and no one would have known anything about it.

But now what happened is that it was seen enough by these citizen checks and balances that ESPN had to respond. That's something that five years ago would have been unfathomable. That's changed dramatically and I think that's great, not just for sports fans, but for ESPN -- there's accountability, there's a little more transparency than there used to be. I think Deadspin has probably had a role in that.

If there's one criticism I hear of Deadspin that frustrates me it's this idea that Deadspin has changed the sports world by doing nothing but posting dirty pictures. I think that's because the Roethlisberger photos or the Leinart photos were the first thing that introduced a lot of people to the site. We've actually run maybe 10 of those pictures, but that's what people remember.

Now you've got a site like TheDirty and they're doing their thing and they're getting their readership, and it's not the same as my thing, but they have legitimate news value. You can't tell me that the Matt Leinart photos are not newsworthy. Ask anyone who covered the Arizona Cardinals if those photos are newsworthy or not, if they contributed to an already developing story that was being written about Leinart.

I get tips every day with a photo of an athlete in a bar having a drink with an attractive woman, and that's not going to make the cut. They have to have news value or, more important, be really, really funny.

One thing a lot of people don't know about you is that, until you got the Deadspin job, you considered yourself more a "movie guy" than a "sports guy." Does a desire to cover the movies play a part in this decision?
I would say there's a desire to not just be shoehorned as a sports person. That's definitely true. I confess that there's some part of me -- my dream job is still being a film critic somewhere, but I kind of think the way things are going, in 25 years there aren't going to be any film critics.

People who don't understand Deadspin think, "They're just sports-obsessed." To me, one of the reasons I think I had a different perspective is that I'm not that sports-obsessed. Obviously, I love sports, but I'm not obsessed with it, frankly, the way that people who work in sports are obsessed with it. To them it's work -- and I never wanted sports to feel like work. That's why any time I get an offer to write something that's not sports I always take it and I'll be glad to do that a little more.

Deadspin editor is the dream job for dozens or maybe hundreds of people who have their own sports blog as a hobby. What do you think Gawker should be looking for in the next editor?
They need to have someone who understands the space. Not that it has to be someone who does it the way I do it -- they could take it in another direction -- but someone who understands where Deadspin's place should fall in all this. To me the goal has always been a site that is for fans. That sounds limply populist, but I mean that more in a way that it's not writing for other people who write about sports. You have to be true to the people who actually consume and actually care about this stuff. Otherwise you become Skip Bayless. Deadspin should always point out phonies.

I don't think Deadspin should be, "Who's the MVP?" That's a fine conversation for sports fans to have, but that's not what Deadspin's role is. But if they hire someone who disagrees with that, let them run with it. If that happens they won't need me to be the Brokaw.

Do you think A.J. Daulerio is the favorite to be the next editor?
I wouldn't know, but I think he'd be awesome. I think A.J. is really really good and would do a great job. He's respected by people who are really into this stuff.

I don't know who the favorite is. Whoever it is, it's their site. I'll never say, disapprovingly, "Look what Deadspin's become." It's going to be hard for whoever takes over. Readers have gotten used to a certain voice and now it will be different. The question Gawker will be asking is, Do we want to make the transition easy or are we ready to go off in a different direction?

What will you miss most?
There's going to be a moment that Monday after I leave -- I've got a week before I start at New York -- I'll wake up and no one's going to be waiting to hear what I have to say. That's going to be weird. It's intoxicating for any writer to write something and within minutes of it going up everyone's responding to what you've done. You can get hooked on that.

UPDATE: Who's Next? Odds on Deadspin's Next Editor

Will Leitch Leaves for New York Magazine, but He'd Like to Be Deadspin's Tom Brokaw originally appeared on Back Porch FanHouse on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:57:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Buzz BissingerBuzzBissingerWill LeitchWillLeitchMichael David SmithFri, 06 Jun 2008 19:57:00 EST EliteXC's Gary Shaw: 'An Early Stoppage Is Never Detrimental to a Fighter's Health'http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/03/elitexcs-gary-shaw-an-early-stoppage-is-never-detrimental-to/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/03/elitexcs-gary-shaw-an-early-stoppage-is-never-detrimental-to/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/06/03/elitexcs-gary-shaw-an-early-stoppage-is-never-detrimental-to/#commentsFiled under: ,


EliteXC brought mixed martial arts to the masses by televising five fights on CBS Saturday night. But while the show was a ratings success, many MMA fans have criticized it.

Some fans say the fights were stopped too early. Some fans say the main event between Kimbo Slice and James Thompson was more freak show than fight. Some fans say the quality of the action was inferior to the quality of fights that UFC puts out.

So was the EliteXC show good for the sport? I interviewed EliteXC Live Events President Gary Shaw on Monday, and that was my first question.

The question everyone is asking today is, "Was this good for MMA?" What's your answer?
I think it was terrific for MMA. It did ratings, it showed that there are truly MMA fans out there across the United States. It showed that there are people who might be interested and are inquisitive, and the demographic was through the roof. It proved to the sponsors that it pays to sponsor MMA events, and we saw some very good fights.

Have you spoken to people at CBS, and were they pleased with the ratings?
Yes. They were pleased with the ratings and thrilled with the demographic ratings.

When will you be back on CBS and what will the main event be?
First things first, on June 14 we have a Showtime show in Hawaii. After that I'm waiting on CBS to set the date for the next show and find a place where we want to be in the United States, and then we'll set the card.

Do you have a general idea for the timeframe of the CBS show? A couple of months?
I would think any time between August and October. I know we want to do the Robbie Lawler-Scott Smith fight, we want to finish that up once and for all. Certainly, we want to get Gina Carano back in another tough test.

And who do you think Kimbo Slice might fight next?
I don't know. We've got to talk. It's only two days after the fight. I'll sit down, and we'll talk to Kimbo and his camp.

Gus Johnson called the stoppage of the Kimbo fight "terrible" and "horrendous." Do you agree?
No, I really don't. I watched the match several times. James Thompson's eyes were glassy, his ear was bleeding profusely. I've had a fighter die in the ring in fights I've been associated with, and I care for the health and safety of the fighter. And I'd rather see a stoppage come one punch too soon than one punch too late. The referees did a spectacular job the entire night. Gus Johnson's entitled to his opinion and I respect his opinion, but the referee is right in front of the fighter, is looking in the fighter's eyes, and has a much better viewpoint of whether to stop the fight or let it go.

Do you have an opinion of whether Gus Johnson should continue calling EliteXC fights?
Yes, I think he's terrific. He's a consummate professional.

What did you think of Brett Rogers' post-fight comments?
Look, he's a fighter. He's entitled to say what he wants. That's what makes America great and that's what makes fighters special individuals.

So can we expect to see Kimbo fight Rogers down the road?
Maybe sooner than later. We'll see.

Was the Gina Carano-Kaitlin Young fight stopped prematurely?
No, I don't think anything was stopped prematurely. I thought I said it well before: I'd rather a fight be stopped one punch too fast rather than one punch too slow. Remember this: An early stoppage is never detrimental to a fighter's health, but a late stoppage can be career-ending.

In your assessment, how does the quality of the MMA you put on Saturday night compare to the quality of the UFC 84 show a week earlier?
Well, I didn't watch the 84 show so I can't comment on it. The only thing I can say is that UFC has some fine fighters and some fine fights, and EliteXC has some fine fighters and some fine fights.

Do you expect to offer a contract to Tito Ortiz?
If he wants it he's got it.

Do you have any idea who his opponent might be if he were to sign with EliteXC?
No. Tito's a superstar. We'd sit down with Tito and map out a plan for Tito.

The MMA fight everyone wants to see is Randy Couture vs. Fedor Emelianenko. Any chance we'll see that in EliteXC?
I don't have either fighter, so I doubt it. Randy is in a legal battle with UFC. That fight doesn't personally excite me because Fedor hasn't fought anybody of any quality in quite some time.

Aside from Tito, are there any particular fighters you're hoping to sign for future EliteXC shows?
A lot of them. Anybody that is not under contract -- if they're action fighters. I'm not interested in any fighters who want to sit on the mat and have a love fest. A fight for me has got to have action.

And you're satisfied with the level of action that fans got on Saturday night?
Oh yeah, very much so.

Where do you think Kimbo fits in among the top heavyweights in MMA?
I don't know. He's still in the learning process. He needs to work on his cardio a lot more. In his stand-up game, he is probably number one. I don't think on the ground he's in the top 10. As a striker, he's probably number one.

Is the future of MMA on free TV, on cable TV or on pay-per-view?
Free TV, without a doubt. For the best fighters, if they're on free TV for the masses, that's the ultimate.

So you wouldn't do a pay-per-view show? You're set with having all your fights on CBS and Showtime?
We're committed to CBS and Showtime, but the right fight I would do on pay-per-view. I just don't believe in sucking the fans' money out from under them to do pay-per-views that don't belong on pay-per-view.

Are you referring to UFC 85 when you say that?
I don't know who's on UFC's show.

Were you disappointed with the first hour of the broadcast, how it had only about two minutes of action with two quick knockouts?
If you have an electric outage, can you control it? If people want controlled environments, let them watch the WWE.

EliteXC's Gary Shaw: 'An Early Stoppage Is Never Detrimental to a Fighter's Health' originally appeared on Back Porch FanHouse on Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:05:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Fedor EmelianenkoFedorEmelianenkoGary ShawGaryShawGina CaranoGinaCaranoGus JohnsonGusJohnsonJames ThompsonJamesThompsonKaitlin YoungKaitlinYoungKimbo SliceKimboSliceRandy CoutureRandyCoutureRobbie LawlerRobbieLawlerScott SmithScottSmithTito OrtizTitoOrtizMichael David SmithTue, 03 Jun 2008 12:05:00 EST On the Record With Bob Costashttp://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/05/03/on-the-record-with-bob-costas/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/05/03/on-the-record-with-bob-costas/http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/05/03/on-the-record-with-bob-costas/#commentsFiled under: , ,


On Thursday I wrote that I thought Bob Costas booked Friday Night Lights author Buzz Bissinger on his HBO show alongside Deadspin blogger Will Leitch because he wanted precisely the explosive, Jerry Springer-style confrontation that their panel discussion turned out to be.

On Friday Costas called me to, in his words, "Correct your entirely incorrect assertion."

"Did I knowingly set up this kind of dynamic? Not only did I not do it but I would argue that it would not have been in my best interest to do it," Costas said. "I don't like Jerry Springer-type scenes. I prefer light over heat."

In fact, Costas said he expected Bissinger, a gifted writer and Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, to show the same kind of thoughtful approach in his comments on the panel that he shows in his writing.

"I feel bad for Buzz," Costas said. "When you have a body of work like he has, when you have the talent and intellect that he has -- you know, even the greats can have a bad day. He's a Hall of Famer who had a bad game."

So what did Costas want his panel discussion with Bissinger, Leitch and Cleveland Browns wide receiver Braylon Edwards to accomplish? Costas said he hoped for an exploration of blogs that included both an acknowledgment of the talents of the best bloggers and an examination of whether some blogs are so mean-spirited that they drag down the discourse.

Costas is troubled by what he sees as an over-reliance in the blogosphere on insults rather than arguments. But he says he recognizes the value of the best blogs and doesn't paint all blogs with the same brush, as some have suggested he does.

"I'm perfectly willing to defend the criticisms that I actually believe and to not only defend them but to re-emphasize them," Costas said. "But my observation never was that bloggers as a group or bloggers in general have no insight or have no talent or have nothing worthy to contribute. I emphatically don't think that."

Of Leitch in particular, Costas said, "Will is a talented guy who is funny and who makes a lot of interesting and in my view valid points." But Costas also decried the way Leitch at times takes "sub-sophomoric delight in schoolyard-level potshots and insults which ought to be beneath him."

Costas seems to be most repulsed not by bloggers but by blog commenters. During Tuesday's show I thought Costas conflated the two, and as Michael Schur of Fire Joe Morgan, who was also featured on Costas's HBO show, wrote after the show aired, "Picking a random blog comment and wielding it as a club to bash 'blogs is like picking a random romance novel off an airport bookstore shelf and saying, 'This book sucks. F--- you, Tolstoy -- your medium is worthless!'"

But in our conversation Friday I thought Costas grasped the distinction and made some fair points about lowbrow blog comments. There's no question that many blog comments are appalling. The question is whether bloggers should banish the appalling comments. As the political blogger Kevin Drum has noted, moderating comments is much, much harder than it sounds.

In Costas's view, professional writers allowing anyone to post anything in the comments section below their work "would be the equivalent of HBO just leaving the microphone open after the show and letting anyone who wants to rush the stage." That argument works for Costas's medium -- television -- but I'm not sure it does for the Internet. After all, doesn't "leaving the microphone open" and "letting anyone who wants to" basically describe YouTube?

In our conversation, I found Costas generally open to criticism. I found Edwards' presence on the panel baffling, and Costas said that although "Braylon is obviously a very bright young man, a very likable young man," he wishes he could have had an athlete who would offer a specific insight about how athletes are affected by blogs. He also said he would have preferred to have another online sports writer on the panel, someone who might have bridged the gap between Bissinger and Leitch.

If the panel discussion had been the other way around -- if it had been the blogger screaming obscenities at the Pulitzer Prize winner -- I think Costas would have taken a firmer hand as a moderator. However, I do not believe there's much point in viewing Costas as an enemy of the sports blogosphere. That would be as much an oversimplification as the opinions Bissinger stated on Costas' show. If Costas' problem is with the "airport romance novels" of the web, and not the "Tolstoys" then he actually seems to be in agreement with Schur and Bethlehem Shoals.

Leitch was treated poorly. But sports bloggers normally have a pretty high tolerance for rudeness, and bearing a grudge for more than a few days on this issue would eventually reek of crocodile tears.

As Leitch said on the show, people tend to choose their words more carefully when talking to each other directly rather than over the internet. The same goes for being on TV: Having talked to Costas, I do believe him when he says he wasn't looking for Jerry Springer-style confrontation, even though every talk show moderator will say the same thing after a night of particularly "good TV" crosses a few lines.

Whatever Costas' plans for the roundtable were, they aren't the point anymore. Costas has scheduled an hour-long interview with Leitch on his syndicated radio show, and he can show by asking Leitch pointed but fair questions -- and giving Leitch a chance to answer -- that he means it when he says he didn't want his show to be the ambush Bissinger made it.

Interestingly, although Costas was wrong to use the tired "blog from their mother's basement" cliche when he discussed blogs in March, he also has made good points on this issue. He's right when he says "a portion of Internet sports discourse ... consists of nothing more than potshots, ad hominem arguments, ignorance and invective." He's right when he says "There's a difference between being edgy and abusive." I think (and I'm sure Leitch agrees) that tough, pointed questions about Deadspin -- including some of the issues Jason Whitlock raised in his recent column -- are appropriate.

Which brings us back to Tuesday night's panel discussion, where few tough, pointed questions could be asked because Bissinger hogged all the time allotted to the segment with his profane tirade. I no longer believe Costas wanted to set up a Jerry Springer-style confrontation, and I think Costas is open to a continuing dialogue with bloggers about the changing face of the sports media landscape. Given that Costas is one of the most influential voices in sports, bloggers should embrace that dialogue.

On the Record With Bob Costas originally appeared on Back Porch FanHouse on Sat, 03 May 2008 19:45:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Bob CostasBobCostasBraylon EdwardsBraylonEdwardsBuzz BissingerBuzzBissingerWill LeitchWillLeitchMichael David SmithSat, 03 May 2008 19:45:00 EST