Don't stop believing, Manti Te'o

Continuing our quest to be your number-one source of sports song parodies, here's the most appropriate (far more than some, at least) way to summarize the saga of Manti Te'o and his fake girlfriend. Is that...Journey? Why, yes, yes it is:

Just an internet girl, livin' in a made-up world
She took the midnight calls from anywhere
Just a ND boy, living in South Bend, not Detroit
He made the midnight calls goin' anywhere

A hoaxster in a online room
 A smell of pizza and pot fumes
On the phone, they can share the night
 It goes on and on and on and on

Media, waiting, up and down the boulevard
Writing profiles in the night
Te'o, deceived? Or lying just to find emotion?
Hiding, somewhere in the night.

Working hard to get his fill,
Looking for that online thrill
 Payin' anything to talk to her,
 Just one more time

Some will win, some will lose
Some were born to sing "I'm used!"
Oh, this story never ends
It goes on and on and on and on

Media, searching, up and down the online trail
Deadspin breaking bad news in the night
ESPN, playing catchup, sending in Jeremy Schaap
He'll summarize interviews in the night

Don't stop believin'
Hold on to your feelings
For fake girls

The Four Horsemen Of The ESPNocalypse

It's no secret that sports media as a whole are collectively losing their minds over Denver Broncos' quarterback Tim Tebow, who embraces all the clichés about "will to win" and somehow triumphs despite not usually being, you know, a good quarterback. It's even less surprising that the Worldwide Leader In Vaguely Sports-Related News is leading the charge. Still, as Adam Kramer remarked earlier, ESPN's piece asking LeBron James what he thinks of Tim Tebow is the most ESPN story of all time. Surely that means the ESPNocalypse is near, especially as certain newspapers have already ventured into hellfire and damnation (as you can see from the Boston Metro cover at right). In the spirit of that, we present two pieces. First, a dramatic reworking of the first three paragraphs of Grantland Rice's "Four Horsemen", timely considering how ESPN has appropriated the man's name:

Outlined against a blue screen in Bristol, Connecticut, the Four Horsemen of the ESPNocalypse rode again. In dramatic lore they are known as Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death. These are only aliases. Their real names are Brett Favre, LeBron James, Tim Tebow and Craig James. They formed the crest of the media cyclone before which all intelligent sports commentary was swept over the precipice of the Internet yesterday afternoon as billions of spectators peered at the bewildering panorama spread on the ESPN.com homepage.

A cyclone can't be snared. It may be surrounded, but somewhere it breaks through to keep on going. When the cyclone starts from Bristol, where the studio lights still gleam through the fortress windows of the ESPN campus, those in the way must take to storm cellars at top speed.

Yesterday the cyclone struck again as ESPN beat the intelligent commentators decisively, with a set of made-for-TV stars that ripped and crashed through sports fans' defences with more speed and power than the open-minded could meet.

ESPN won yet again through the driving power of one of the most SEO-friendly lineups that ever churned up the pageviews of any website in any Internet age. Brilliant backfields may come and go, but in Favre, LeBron, Tebow and James, covered by a fast and charging array of sycophants, ESPN can take its place in front of the field.

The rest of the web sent one of its finest teams into action, an aggressive organization that fought to the last play around the first rim of darkness, but when George Bodenheimer rushed his Four Horsemen to the track they rode down everything in sight. It was in vain that 1,400 sensible sports fans pleaded for the rational line to hold. The rational line was giving all it had, but when a tank tears in with the speed of a motorcycle, what chance had flesh and blood to hold? The rest of the web had its share of stars, but they were up against four whirlwind backs who picked up at top speed from the first step as they swept through scant openings to slip on through the algorithm defences. The web had great writers, but the web had no such distribution power and ongoing determinedness, which seemed to carry the mixed blood of Charlie Sheen's tiger and the antelope.

And now, a reading from the Book of Revelation (inspired by Scott Feschuk's great piece):

"And I saw when the Bodenheimer opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, the voice of the Berman saying, 'Come and see.'

And I saw, and behold a purple horse: and the Favre that sat on him had a cell phone; and a lawsuit was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to throw interceptions, and to bring a famine of real football news about players who aren't retired.

And when the Bodenheimer had opened the second seal, I heard the Simmons say, 'Come and see.'

And there went out another horse that was red and black. And power was given to the LeBron that sat thereon to make a Decision, and take peace from the earth, and to make owners write angry e-mails in Comic Sans. And there was taken from him a great sword, and given to him a flaming basketball, and the power to command the media, and the power to bring an omnipresent pestilence of his presence.

And when the Bodenheimer had opened the third seal, I heard the Paige say, 'Come and see.'

And I beheld, and lo! A white horse. And the Tebow that knelt on him had a football in his left hand.

And I heard Skip Bayless' voice in the midst of the four beasts say, 'A flawed measure of a quarterback shall be designed to promote Tebow, and three measures that dislike him shall be ignored; and see thou hurt not the television ratings.' And power was given unto Tebow to cause the reasonable to lose their minds, and to create great and widespread destruction.

And when the Bodenheimer had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the Schad say, 'Come and see.'

And I looked, and behold a pale horse! And his name that sat on him was James, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto him over the domain of college football, to kill coaching jobs with accusations and lawsuits, to silence colleagues, to ignore ethical conflicts, to reduce the audience's intelligence, to break the laws of amateurism and get away with sanctimoniously criticizing others who did the same, and to run for political office, and cause the death of objectivity (and perhaps some scarlet damsels as well).

...

And the kings of the Internet, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in their mothers' basements.

And they said to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Bodenheimer.

For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"

ESPN is missing the point

ESPN's decision to suspend columnist Bill Simmons from Twitter for two weeks [Mediaite] is the wrong move. The suspension wasn't highly publicized, but came out as the result of an investigation by Jason McIntyre of The Big Lead, which prompted ESPN.com editor-in-chief Rob King to write a blog post explaining the decision. Here's King's statement:

"We have internal guidelines designed to inform how we discuss the topic of sports media. These guidelines are important us, because they help maintain the credibility with which ESPN operates.

No one knows the guidelines better than Bill Simmons, and he customarily works within these standards. He also understands, as does everyone else at ESPN, that we regard these guidelines as being equally important when participating in social media.

While it's unfortunate -- and sometimes painful -- that not everyone outside of ESPN chooses to play by such rules, we choose to hold ourselves to higher standards. Regardless of the provocation, Bill’s communication regarding WEEI fell short of those standards. So we’ve taken appropriate measures."

The offending tweet? Mediaite figures it's this one from November 11, "Hey WEEI: You were wrong, I did a Boston interview today. With your competition. Rather give them ratings over deceitful scumbags like you." This is interesting, because WEEI and ESPN have a partnership. It's quite possible that the ESPN policy (described here) would kick in for trashing any media outlet, as that's what its language seems to indicate, but this is not the ideal test case for the subject; even if the partnership has nothing to do with the suspension whatsoever, the optics are not good.

The larger problem here, though, is ESPN's approach to their writers and personalities. It's not that ESPN is necessarily draconian; in fact, King went to great lengths to make that point at the final Blogs With Balls panel in Vegas.

"I’m not trying to run anyone off Twitter," he said. "A lot of the things we’re building up allow people to contribute in the same way they would on Twitter."

To me, that shows the core problem here. It's one that's far from unique to ESPN, as just about every major media outlet has run into this with the rise of the Internet (and even earlier). The problem is that many media organizations, especially those in print, regard their columnists and reporters as invariably associated with them, which is simply not the case these days. Most prominent people in sports media appear on a variety of platforms, from print to radio to television to Twitter. In my mind, it's wrong to think that just because you hire someone to write certain things for you, you're associated with everything they do and need to have control over them.

How can we tell that ESPN approaches their talent this way? As King says in the above interview about the policy, "The second sets out additional guidelines and responsibilities for public-facing employees — those who are easily and commonly associated with ESPN (talent, reporters, etc.). Unfortunately, their relative fame and public personas mean that the way they act and the things they do will be associated with ESPN and its editorial, entertainment and/or newsgathering organization. As such, there are additional responsibilities from a professional standpoint."

I can understand where King is coming from here. Slamming WEEI probably would not look good on ESPN. It should never happen in a news story on ESPN.com or on SportsCenter, and you can make an argument for editing those kinds of references out of the columns of a writer like Simmons; they diminish the reality and the impact of the column, making it a more watered-down version, but it's ESPN's site, so it's ultimately their choice what gets displayed there. The problem, though, is that Simmons criticizing WEEI doesn't mean ESPN is criticizing them. Media outlets all over the place employ columnists for the primary purpose of sharing their views; when such pieces are clearly marked as opinion, it's understood that those are the opinions of the columnist in question, not the larger organization.

The same logic should apply to Twitter even more so. Simmons' tweets (and the tweets of every other ESPN personality) are not published by ESPN. They're published by Twitter, which is a free service. Presumably, he is writing them on his own time, not company time. Thus, there really is no connection to the company.

Now, that doesn't give Simmons or any other employee carte blanche; if they start tweeting about committing crimes or blasting groups along racial or sexual lines, that is a problem. That reflects poorly on them as a person, and poorly on ESPN for hiring them. However, complaining about a radio station does not measure up to that standard; it's a legitimate opinion to have and to express, on his own time, away from company mediums.

The biggest problem with ESPN and other media organizations taking these kind of disciplinary steps is that they insult the intelligence of their audience. No one really thinks Bill Simmons' tweets represent the views of ESPN, just like no one thinks Jay Mariotti's drivel represents the thoughts of FanHouse or Jason Whitlock's views are shared by everyone at Fox Sports. We recognize that columnists and personalities have their own views, which are often poles apart from those of their organization. They should be allowed to express those views, not shut down in the interests of defending their organization from a non-existant wave of bad publicity.

This is rather counterintutive in terms of results, too; I doubt many people cared when Simmons took a shot at WEEI (which he's done before in his books), and I highly doubt that people at WEEI thought ESPN was blasting them. It was a non-story. The heavy-handed approach taken to shut Simmons down is a much bigger story, and it's created a mountain out of a molehill. If I was ESPN, I'd let Simmons back on Twitter ASAP, maybe add a disclaimer that his views don't represent those of ESPN in case there's anyone out there who doesn't get it, and let him get to work. His engagement with fans on Twitter and snappy lines about sports is only further building his brand and helping to promote his column, which coincidentally happens to run on ESPN's website. Take the muzzle off and reap the pageviews.

Defending Daulerio and Deadspin

When I first heard about the Deadspin-ESPN war, I wasn't particularly impressed. Deadspin editor A.J. Daulerio (who I previously interviewed here way back when) is one of the top bloggers out there these days in terms of influence, and he's done a lot of great things with Deadspin, but I didn't think this would be one of them. From his initial post on Steve Phillips and subsequent ESPN horndoggery posts, it sounded like he was only slightly deceived by an ESPN PR guy and decided to go ballistic with unverified rumours as a result. I read the posts on the matter by Chris Littmann and Brian Cook and thought they made good points, particularly on how this might affect the credibility of the blogosphere.

However, time does change some things. For one thing, there's been no all-out war against the blogosphere by the mainstream media. The organizations that have discussed the story (ESPN itself, Time and The New York Times, to name a few) have mentioned Deadspin specifically, not going with the too-frequently-used "a blog" or "a sports website". It's hard to go after Daulerio for ruining the credibility of the sports blogosphere when there's no corpus delicti and no apparent intention of doing so.

Second, but perhaps more importantly, Daulerio's been willing to explain his actions, and he's come off much better by doing so. That's one thing that's always impressed me about him in everything from the commenter debacle to the current situation; he isn't afraid to face criticism and talk about what he's trying to do. He's granted interviews to tons of media outlets and given his side of the story in this one; in addition to the above Time and New York Times pieces, I recommend checking out his interview with Jerod Morris on the Midwest Sports Fans and his interview (and subsequent responses to commenters) with my colleague First Derivative over at The Phoenix Pub. Here's four key points I picked up from those interviews:

1. These weren't unsourced, anonymous rumours:

Say what you like about Deadspin, but they generally do a very solid job of reporting. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, I'd argue they do more tough reporting than most blogs and many mainstream newspapers' sports sections. The Josh Hamilton story is a good example, as are the recent ESPN revelations. Now, Daulerio hurt his cause with his initial comments about just printing whatever was sent in, but that doesn't seem to be what he actually did; his conversation with Morris suggested that he got pretty substantial confirmation for everything that ran. This would be supported by the fact that ESPN has been highly critical of Deadspin's decision to run the stories, but doesn't seem to have disputed the facts they published too much (an important distinction if there ever was one), and Katie Lacey has confirmed the story about her. You can still argue about if these stories should have been published or not, but publishing the truth (or what at least seems to have a solid chance of being the truth) is always, always better than publishing weak, unsubstantiated rumours, regardless of what the subject under investigation is.

2. At least part of this was for show:

Why mention publishing any and all rumours if that's not actually what's happening? I think Daulerio illuminated this in his response to Sculptor in the TPP discussion when she asked about why he didn't preface his posts with a clearer explanation of his motivation and reporting process.

"I think the tone and lack and perceived groundless-ness(probably not a word, but we’re all friends here) is what caught people off-guard the most," he said. "I wanted to add a sense of panic to the equation. It confused a lot of readers and turned off a lot of readers, but at the end of the day, it was fun to watch. (IMO, obviously.) Part of how I do things is theatrical. I like it that way. There’s an element of professional wrestling to how I approach blogging (as I’m sure many of you have noticed, for better or for worse). And in sticking to that WWE metaphor, we all know that even though some of the show is staged, people can still get hurt. Not saying it’s the right way or wrong way, but that’s how I handle things. It’s a risky approach, but so far it’s paid off for the site in terms of increased visibility. You have to weigh long-term v. short-term in most of these situations and I think this one will definitely pay off."

The theatrical is a huge part of this in my mind. By making such a broad proclamation, Daulerio installs himself as a villain on the grand scale in ESPN's eyes, not a pesky annoyance. He talked about the panic he caused, and I think that's a great description for this; everyone in Bristol was probably wondering if they were next. If the standard of proof was as low as he claimed it was, they needn't even have done anything to wind up with potentially career-destroying information out there on the Internet. That's a pretty good Damoclean sword. Moreover, the revelations themselves may not have lived up to the hype, as they were mostly about little-known ESPN types no one really cares about, but they sure drove plenty of traffic to Deadspin and spawned plenty of frantic refreshing, which is good for the site. The WWE analogy is a good one, as they tend to create thoroughly despicable villains, not ones who barely step over the line. If Daulerio's goal was to pull a heel turn, he might as well do so on the grand scale.

3. ESPN does seem to have a double standard:

Something that seems to have been lost in all this is the debate over the Steve Phillips situation, his eventual firing and the existence or non-existence of clear ESPN policies on workplace relationships. Keep in mind that Phillips doesn't appear to have committed a crime (in fact, the affair came to light when he went to the police over threats and stalking committed against him). He certainly made an ill-advised decision to cheat on his wife with a production assistant, but are affairs really cause to lose your job? If so, many professional athletes would be out of work. Phillips wasn't exactly loved as a baseball analyst, which probably led to the lack of tears for him, and you can make a good argument that viewers wouldn't be able to take him seriously any more (if they ever could).

The question, though, is if there is an ESPN policy around workplace relationships, and if so, how is it enforced? If Harold Reynolds was apparently let go for a hug and Phillips was canned for having sex with a coworker, why are there no issues with the romance between senior marketing vice-president Lacey and vice-president for programming David Berson? Moreover, ESPN hasn't exactly shied away from taking a holier-than-thou stance on athletes' affairs (see their coverage of Roger Clemens - Mindy McCready and Steve McNair). Personally, I don't think athletes' affairs are really huge issues, and I'm not particularly concerned with which ESPN employees are in workplace relationships. However, if ESPN wants to moralize about the personal lives of those athletes they cover, they should make sure the same kind of coverage can't come back to haunt them. In the words of the old proverb, "Man who live in glass house should not throw stones."

4. It's just Deadspin being Deadspin:

In my earlier piece on the future of blogs, I wrote that I foresee plenty of room in the blogosphere for just about every kind of sports-based analysis you can think of, as long as there's at least a minor audience for it. The pageview numbers suggest there's a very large audience for stories about the private lives of those at ESPN and other sports media personalities. That doesn't mean I'll be writing those stories any time soon, and it doesn't mean every blogger should follow in Deadspin's tracks, but there is a substantial audience for coverage of the sports media, and I think that is a good thing. I obviously have a bit of an outsider's perspective on ESPN (thanks to their network not being carried in Canada), but they certainly do seem to dominate the American sports media scene. That dominance isn't always a bad thing, and I don't think ESPN is necessarily the evil empire they're often portrayed at; they've done a lot to reach out to blogs, including sending ESPN.com editor-in-chief Rob King and baseball writer extraordinaire Amy K. Nelson to Blogs With Balls, offering a special discount to allow more smaller bloggers like myself to attend the event and even hosting a stellar party for attendees (complete with a partial screening and DVD copies of the excellent 30 For 30 documentary "Small Potatoes: Who Killed The USFL", which I'm planning to review here this week). Still, as I discussed in the earlier post about the future of sports blogs, large sports blogs hold a tremendous amount of power; multiply that by about a million and you'll come up with ESPN's influence. It isn't necessarily bad that they have all that influence, as they've done a lot of great things to promote sports in North America over the years, but it brings up the eternal question posed by Juvenal, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (loosely, "Who watches the watchers?"). Deadspin's made a name for itself partly thanks to its coverage of ESPN, and potential ESPN hypocrisy is right up the site's alley. It's far too simplistic to paint ESPN as a villain (especially considering that many of these "horndoggery" cases really don't amount to much; office relationships happen everywhere) and Deadspin as the hero keeping tabs on them, but there's room for both of their perspectives on the Internet, and I think we're better for having both of them.

I don't agree with everything posted on Deadspin. There are many stories there I wouldn't touch, and both writers and commenters sometimes go too far for my liking. On the whole, though, it's an excellent site, and one of my daily reads. I think this situation shows that Deadspin is its own unique entity, however. Under Will Leitch, during a time when the sports blogosphere was still relatively young, Deadspin somewhat epitomized sports blogs. It was a generalist place with strong writing and some unique features. Many of those positive elements are still there, but the site has evolved into something more unique. It's become more about sports media, unique situations and off-the-field stuff, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing; many pine for the Leitch era, but both approaches have their merits.

The interesting thing, though, is that the Daulerio approach actually bears a lot of similarities to ESPN. It involves much more reporting than anything on a standard analysis-based blog, and both ESPN and Deadspin have always been interested in athletes behaving badly. In fact, for these kinds of pieces, Deadspin isn't generally competing against other blogs (as few bloggers have the time and connections to pull off these kind of investigations), but rather against mainstream news organizations; remember, this all started because the New York Post scooped Deadspin on the Phillips story (but wouldn't have if Daulerio's PR contact hadn't denied the whole thing). Now, Deadspin's still much farther out on the fringe than ESPN will ever be, but there are similarities between the two organizations (especially if you look back at ESPN's younger days when they were the upstart underdogs).

This doesn't have to be a bad thing, though, and it might just be the natural evolution of the blogosphere. It's promising to see this kind of original content and investigative research on sports blogs, even if the subject might not be what many of us prefer. By contrast, I was thrilled by Deadspin's decision to publish incriminating excerpts from Tim Donaghy's book after it got mysteriously nixed; in my mind, this is a great thing to do on a blog, especially if you have access to the powerful legal resources of an organization like Gawker Media.

Regardless of which kind of content we'd rather see, as sportswriters, bloggers and readers, I don't think any of us outside of Deadspin really have the right to tell Daulerio and his coworkers how to run their site. The blogosphere is not one giant cookie-cutter mould; it would be very boring if it was. There's room out there for the kind of approach Leitch took, and there's room for the current approach at Deadspin. In some ways, the growth of the sports blogosphere has made this aggressive mode of reporting more viable than it ever was, as there's now so much analysis out there that you need some actual news to remain important.

It's also advantageous that Deadspin doesn't really represent all sports blogs the way it used to in the eyes of the traditional media. If this ESPN war had happened back in 2006, I think it might have had the kind of implications for the sports blogosphere that Littmann and Cook discussed, as at that time, Deadspin pretty much was the sports blogosphere to many mainstream writers. Now, it's one prominent site among many, and others are less affected by the decisions made there.

In the end, I don't entirely endorse Daulerio's actions with regard to ESPN. The situation could have been handled better, and initial clarity on his motives and process would have helped a lot. I don't think he really deserves the beating he's taken from the blogosphere, though. Daulerio's the editor of one site, albeit a large and influential one; as long as he isn't claiming to speak for all blogs and mainstream organizations aren't treating him as the de facto blog spokesman, what he decides to publish is up to him and his bosses. Moreover, his posts on ESPN have revealed some real issues, including a potential discrepancy in how they address workplace relationships; they're not entirely rumour, and they may well have accomplished something. He may not be the blog Messiah, but I'm not convinced he's a very naughty boy.

Fun with the BCS!

So, your team got hosed by the arcane process of the BCS? Fear not. Here are some links to make you feel better about it. First, we have Patrick Hruby and Mike Philbrick's tournament to figure out what sci-fi computers would be better qualified to determine a national champion than the current system. My money's on Skynet. Next, Matthew J. Darnell of Shutdown Corner has a great piece on why the BCS is the ultimate solution and we should replace the NFL's silly "playoff system" with it. Enjoy.

Sonics: Signs seen at the protest

"Signs, signs, everywhere a sign/Blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind/Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?" - "Signs," The Five-Man Electrical Band [Andrew Bucholtz photo]

Signs seen at the aforementioned Sonics' rally...

"The NBA: Where deception happens."

"Hey Clay, I'm a fan possessed!"

"Burn In Hell, Bennett!"

"Hey Aubrey, white-out doesn't work on e-mails!"

"Not aBout fAns."

"Clay: Owners come and go, but e-mail is forever."

"NOklahoma."

"Hey David: Donaghy called: He can't fix this one!"

"E-mail, lieS, decePtion, collusioN"

"The NBA: Where team-stealing happens."

"Hey Clay, I'm a man about to be repossessed."

"soNics Belong in seAttle"

"Don't steal our 41 years."

"No Bennetts Allowed."

"Stuck Fern"

"The NBA: Where douchebags run the league."

"We're fans possessed: keep the team in Seattle!"

"Boo hoo, Clay, no team for you."

"Once in a lease, you're on a leash: no buyout!"

"The NBA: Where fixing the 2002 Western Conference Finals happens."

"God, Save our SuperSonics."

To close, an excerpt from Gary Payton's speech:
"This team should not move, I don't think they are going to move, and I want to see them turn it around here in Seattle."

Give Jemele Hill some credit....

Photo: Jemele Hill [Photo from Michael David Smith's excellent interview with her at FanHouse]

Jemele Hill deserves a fair bit of credit for her lengthy public mea culpa [Page 2] after comparing cheering for the Boston Celtics to "saying Hitler was a victim". It's always difficult to own up to mistakes, especially when you're someone who's in the public eye as frequently as she is. Unlike many other internet, print, radio or TV personalities who have erred (see Pratt, David; Imus, Don [Minneapolis Star-Tribune and Hartford Courant], and many others), Hill offered a detailed and seemingly-sincere apology short on rationalizations and excuses and long on promises to improve. Here's an excerpt:

"The beginning is easy: I'm sorry.
I'm sorry for being thoughtless and insensitive.
I'm sorry for making a casual reference to something that should never be construed as casual.
Real apologies don't mix with rationalizations, so I won't insult your intelligence by offering you any.
This isn't about my editors because even if the word "Hitler" never appeared in the posted column last Saturday, that doesn't change the fact that I wrote it and, at the time, found humor in making a moronic comparison between a man who was responsible for killing millions to Detroiters who root for the Boston Celtics.
This is about my living up to a standard I expect of everyone else -- respect, awareness, honesty and accountability.
Rob King, the editor-in-chief of ESPN.com, once said something I've never forgotten. I'm paraphrasing, but if we truly want to see racial progress, you have to be willing to be the dumbest person in the room, a person who can admit to being in need of education.
I wish I'd raised my hand before writing that column last week."

In this apology, Hill seems to acknowledge the hurt her words caused or may have caused. There are still many people for whom the events of World War II and the Holocaust are deeply personal, and there's many more who are affected by those actions and comparisons to them despite not being around at the time. Believe me, as someone proudly of German descent, I've heard most of the insults you can think of: everything from outright Nazi references to subtler uses of goosestepping and salutes. Plenty of those still hurt me, and that's despite my grandfather fighting in the Canadian army against the Germans in World War Two: I can't imagine what it must be like for those whose relatives were on the wrong side. I don't have any quibble with most humour based around the war (see Rat Race and Fawlty Towers for excellent examples], but comparing rooting for a sports team to claiming Hitler was a victim goes way over the line. Fortunately, Hill recognizes this and admits she made a serious mistake.

Also to Hill's credit, she didn't try to place the blame at the feet of her editor for letting that through, however momentarily. Her editors certainly had a role to play in this situation and made their own mistakes, but ultimately writers have to take responsibility for the content they produce.

Hill isn't the only one to make a mess of this situation. In an interview with FanHouse's Michael David Smith, she said a Boston radio station gave out her home address and phone number over the air, which she described as "completely out of line" and said she was scared by it. I agree: that's downright low to give out that kind of information over the air, and I bet that station would be in serious legal trouble right now if some crazed Celtics fan had done something stupid with it. Can't journalists realize that we're all on the same side in the end? There's certainly room for disagreement and criticism, but effectively promoting crank calls and possibly worse against another member of the media because she wrote something offensive about your team is so far below the belt as to give any boxer a dramatically decreased chance of producing progeny.

In any case, it will certainly be harder for Hill to maintain her critical, often edgy take on the issues of the day after this, as many are likely to paint her future columns with the brush of intolerance she briefly displayed here. Here's hoping she doesn't let that bother her, though, and continues to provide her unique and provocative takes on the world of sport.

Reductio ad Hitlerum: Taking Fandom Too Far

Photo: ESPN columnist Jemele Hill (Photo from Women's E-news).

Let me start by saying that I generally admire ESPN's Jemele Hill as a writer. I usually enjoy her style and her willingness to discuss tough issues and take controversial stands (these columns on LeBron James' Vogue cover and Karl Malone's lack of support for his kids are excellent examples). It's also nice to see a prominent national columnist talking about Detroit sports teams, which certainly don't get too much attention from many of those based in Boston, L.A. or New York. She has more than just strong opinions: she has the talent to effectively and convincly communicate those opinions, and to do so in a way to keep me interested and reading even when I absolutely disagree, which is a rare gift. She also had a great take on the Stern-Donaghy scandal this week.

With all that said, she went too far this time. As Deadspin's Matt Sussman reports, her recent column initially compared cheering for the Celtics to justifying Hitler's actions or rooting for the Soviets in the Cold War.

Here's the offending quote:

"Rooting for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. It's like hoping Gorbachev would get to the blinking red button before Reagan."

Unbelievable. Look, rivalries are great and all that, but there is absolutely no way that cheering for any sports team comes close to defending Hitler (except perhaps if the team was called the Aryan Supermen, and that would even be only part of the way there). This isn't even a true reductio ad hitlerum, as she doesn't even offer any evidence comparing the two or suggesting the Celtics have Nazi connotations (questionable, as they weren't even formed until 1946). I don't think she was trying to be serious here, but if that's a joke, it's in incredibly poor taste, and if that's hyperbole, it goes well beyond the pale. Maybe she was suggesting the Larry Bird/Magic Johnson duels was equivalent to Luz Long/Jesse Owens, but that's a considerable stretch, and in any case, it doesn't have much to do with the current teams.

(By the way, if you're ever interested in finding out more about Long and Owens, there's an excellent piece written by Owens in the collection "The Hard Way: Writing By The Rebels Who Changed Sports." It turns out the two of them got along fabulously, and the political overtones (especially on the German side) were all manufactured. In fact, Owens said he wouldn't have even qualified for the finals of the long jump without a tip Long gave him. That part of the story's related in Long's Wikipedia entry.)

What's especially disturbing is that Hill is not the only one to throw out those kind of comparisons. While researching a column on racism for the Journal last year, I came across another disturbing incident from the world of soccer. In Germany before the 2006 World Cup, some supporters from Chemnitzer FC (Chemnitz, Saxony) displayed some Nazi tendencies [Der Spiegel]. They attacked Turkish-owned shops in Hamburg before an away match against FC St. Pauli, waving Nazi flags and chanting "Sieg Heil". Some of the "fans" shouted, "We’re going to build a subway from St Pauli to Auschwitz." More recently, police detained 157 people, mostly German fans, after the Germany-Poland clash at Euro 2008 on charges of chanting Nazi slogans in the city centre[Shanghai Daily].

It's not just Germans, either. There's a long history of English supporters involved in Nazi incidents as well: two painted their bodies with Nazi insignia before the 2006 World Cup game against Paraguay [BBC News], plenty of English fans went around goose-stepping and throwing Nazi salutes during the 2006 World Cup [The Guardian], and a large group of Chelsea supporters chanted "Sieg Heil" and threw Nazi salutes in Moscow before this year's Champions League final (which has to be one of the most offensive places imaginable to make Nazi references) [Times Online]. Even Prince Harry thought it was somehow acceptable to wear a Nazi uniform (swastikas and all!) to a party [CBC.ca]!

The English and the Germans are not the only groups of fans to take things too far: consider the Polish tabloids demanding severed heads [World Cup Blog], the Polish Prime Minister saying he wanted to kill referee Howard Webb [ESPN Soccernet] or the Polish fans phoning the wrong Howard Webb with death threats [FanIQ] for just one example of another country that takes things too far. Sadly, that seems to be more the exception than the rule these days, and that leads people like Leah McLaren to worry about the rise of soccer hooliganism in Toronto [Out of Left Field], something that's highly unlikely, but perhaps a less bizzare assumption than you'd think (presuming she doesn't know much about the differences between European and North American soccer, it's not that farfetched to conclude that soccer can cause violence, given the epidemic of violent incidents and hooliganism around the world).

I can understand hating a team: that's what rivalries are all about, after all. Is it really necessary to hate on their fans, though? To this point, that's what's made North American sports less hooligan-dominated on the whole than many European or South American soccer leagues: most people here have the ability to differentiate between a team and its fans, or even the ability to insult other fans in ways that are funny and acceptable, not with violent attacks or inappropriate comments. It's a sad day for sports in this part of the world if we're going to sink to that level. I don't want to see the day where we have to put caged-off sections for visiting fans into the Auburn Hills Palace, the Staples Center or the TD BankNorth Garden.

Anyway, back to Hill. What's amazing is not only that she made that mistake, but that her editor didn't find it objectionable before posting it on the site. They quickly scrubbed it later though, and hoped no one would notice. As Sussman writes:

"Oh, don't bother Command+F looking for it in her article, the editors have, you could say, taken it out of commission like Archduke Ferdinand. Even the Google cache of Hill's article has already been Norby'd, so there's no chance of seeing where in the story it was mentioned, or what other dark moments in history are like cheering for the Celtics."

That's also unacceptable, and evokes memories of the New York Daily News's Sean Avery scrub [Sporting Madness: see Regret The Error or James Mirtle for more on that one]. It's not good journalism to just erase an error and hope that no one notices, even though the Web gives you that capability. ESPN's a reputable source for news and commentary, and to retain that reputation, they need to adhere to journalistic standards: recognize the mistake, apologize for it and take action to ensure it won't be repeated.

I'm not calling for Hill's head here: as previously mentioned, I enjoy her work and I hope she keeps writing for ESPN. I would like to see her apologize, however. Comparing cheering for a team to supporting the Nazis just isn't acceptable, and this kind of callous reference is tremendously painful for a lot of people, including Jews, Russians and those of German descent like myself. As Godwin's Law states, these kind of dumb comparisons are almost inevitable in massive Internet discussions, but I feel we have a right to expect better from a talented columnist working at a major media outlet. Hopefully Hill can learn from this mistake, apologize and move on, but sadly, my respect for her will probably still be less than it was.