Fear, Loathing and Blogs in Las Vegas, Part I: Direct connections, athletes and hidden Gatorade bottles

(Full credit to the illustrious Hunter S. Thompson, whose Gonzo Papers I am currently reading, for title inspiration...)

I'm down in Las Vegas for the Blogs With Balls 2.0 sports blogging convention, and am thoroughly enjoying it thus far. Things kicked off this morning with a superb introductory video featuring Will Leitch,Matt Ufford and A.J. Daulerio. The video is presented below (from the Blogs With Balls site via HH Reynolds):


Blogs With Balls 2.0 Intro from HHR on Vimeo.


After the introduction, it was time for the first panel, which discussed athletes' abilities to directly connect to their fans through blogs, Twitter and other mediums. The panel featured former Bengals defensive tackle John Thornton (now running JockBiz and All Pro Blogger], Yardbarker CEO Pete Vlastelica, ESPN VP of series production and development Ron Wechsler and Carrot Creative president Mike Germano, and was moderated by Matt Sebek of Joe Sports Fan.

(Shaky cellphone pictures for the win!)

Vlastelica, whose company features blogs by the likes of Donovan McNabb and Nick Collision, argued for the importance of authenticity from athletes.
"These guys have personal brands they’re building through this incredibly authentic medium," he said. "In order to use that to its full potential, all their stuff needs to be authentic."

As an example, Vlastelica brought up Kevin Durant's recent TwitPic of his new Nike shoes.

"That had more marketing value than all of the commercials," he said.

He mentioned that many athletes take up blogging and Tweeting to try and increase their marketability, so they'll have lucrative careers as spokesmen once their playing days are done.

"They want to build up this personal brand so afterwards, they can then push product," he said.

Vlastelica also discussed the ability of blogs to give athletes a place to get their full thoughts out on an issue the way McNabb did a while ago after he walked into a media firestorm with a few short quotes about black quarterbacks.

"He went to his blog and he published a really smart, accurate, well-considered piece, and the situation went away," Vlastelica said.

Vlastelica said not all athletes are cut out for blogging, though.

"Not every athlete’s a blogger, just like not every person’s a blogger," he said.

Germano offered an interesting perspective on that, agreeing that all athletes aren't great writers but arguing that you don't have to be a nationally well-known athlete to blog given the amount of local fans out there looking for more information on their teams. He cited Chris Jent, who only played two NBA seasons but was one of his heroes growing up. (See also Joe Posnanski's Duane Kuiper obsession).

"No one knows who Chris Jent is even in this room, but to me he was the greatest basketball player," Germano said.

He also cited the growing numbers of lacrosse players on Twitter as proof of this, as these guys are using tools like Twitter and blogs to promote themselves and their sport (and have been very successful so far). Germano said the key is that they're promoting fan interactivity.

"Now they feel like they have a relationship with these players, and it’s helping the sport tremendously," he said. "Tweets are like the new personal signature. If an athlete tweets me, oh my god, I feel like I have a relationship with that person."

Thornton said athletes have to keep in mind that their actions affect how they're perceived just as much as their Tweets and blog posts, though. Rejecting autograph seekers or acting like a jerk at a restaurant can be much more damaging in the era of Twitter, Facebook and Deadspin than it was back in the days of Babe Ruth.

"Your brand is more than what you say," he said.

Thornton said several athletes have already used social media tools to promote their charity efforts. He thinks other high-profile guys like Chad Ocho Cinco should do the same thing.

"It’s Chad’s job to use his 200,000 followers or however many he has and really make that important," Thornton said. "Don’t just be a face on Twitter."

Thornton said athletes need to be careful about what they tweet, though, especially if they're discussing their teams.

"You really have to think about what you're saying, especially when it comes to the game, because a lot of that is private," he said. "You can't put everything out there."

Wechsler chimed in on that theme, adding that Twitter's allowed journalists to get a deeper insight into the players they cover.

"Twitter is an open mike where everything is picked up," he said. "From a journalistic perspective, it just helps advance the narrative."

He added that players who clearly have something to say and are personable make better subjects for ESPN shows.

"The athletes we find the most interesting and the most compelling are the ones who are advancing a narrative," he said.

Wechsler and Vlastelica both agreed that athletes' tweets and blogs (and independent blogs) aren't going to replace the big players in the sports media world any time soon, but they are valuable because they add other angles to the coverage.

"Social media is adding great spice to the sports media pie, but ESPN is still the pie," Vlastelica said. "For now, we’re more spicing the whole equation than anything else."

It was an interesting discussion all around, but that focus on different media coverage being parts of a whole particularly struck me. There are too many people in the blog world who focus on trying to replace the mainstream media, and too many mainstream journalists who are worried about being replaced by blogs and Tweets. I have a foot in both camps, so that does make me biased, but I believe there is plenty of room for everyone on the Internet. Mainstream media don't have to crush their competitors, and bloggers don't have to continually slag the mainstream in hopes of taking them down. Both have their place and can play important roles, and I think more people on both sides of the divide are starting to realize that. That makes me optimistic for the future.

(More to follow later on the day's other panels)

On sports in the Twitter era, and the role of bloggers and tweeters

If anyone wasn’t already convinced that Twitter has altered the way we cover sports, they would do well to consider the events of the past week. First, we had Kevin Love breaking the news [Andy Hutchins, The Rookies] of Minnesota Timberwolves head coach Kevin McHale’s dismissal on his own Twitter feed, followed in close succession by a supposed Twitter feud [Andrew Stoeten, TheScore.com Blog] between Chad Ochocinco and Shawne Merriman, Shaquille O’Neal learning of his trade to the Cleveland Cavaliers on Twitter [King James Gospel] and several notable reactions across the sports world to the death of Michael Jackson (including some that were over-the-top [Jonathan Sacks, Sports Rubbish). Even before this week, many prominent news organizations have been running stories based on information from the Twitter feeds of athletes, agents and coaches, and that doesn’t appear likely to change any time soon.

The big question is what these developments mean for sports coverage. Quoting athletes from Twitter, Twitter feuds and stories based on Twitter information have their own sets of unique issues that I’ll look at later, but for just breaking news, it’s hard to imagine a better platform, especially in the sports world. When any sort of big story (a trade, an injury, a free-agent signing) happens, the sports segment of the Twitter universe tends to explode. Sometimes, that results in stories like the Love incident, where an insider such as an athlete or coach breaks news directly to their followers before the media gets to it.

More frequently, as with the Shaq trade, one reporter or blogger will pick up on the story, write a piece and then promote it on their Twitter feed. Another growing segment of news comes from media live-tweeting from certain events, such as the Phoenix Coyotes’ bankruptcy proceedings or Steve Nash’s charity soccer event. If the news is important enough, it will fly around the sports world thanks to the ease of retweeting and linking.

Twitter isn't not just for breaking news, either; if a mainstream columnist or a blogger has a unique or valuable take on a situation, either in a longer piece or in just a witty tweet, that will be rebroadcast as well, helping to publicize their work. Moreover, as Will Leitch wrote in a great column this week, Twitter is a fantastic way to collect sports information even if you’re not putting much of your own information out there. It allows you to see what the hot stories are in the national media and on small team blogs all at once, and pick out those that you find interesting for further reading.

Personally, I haven’t found that the advent of Twitter necessarily means I read less long-form pieces. What I have found is that the location of where I read those places has changed. The advantage of big sports sites like ESPN and Yahoo! is their depth of information and their ability to put breaking stories up quickly. I used to check those sites regularly just to see if anything big was going on, and would often find myself reading other pieces they added to pass the time. With smaller blogs, I often found myself not checking in as frequently, as they usually put up a new piece every couple days or so and it wasn’t worth continually looking at the site to see if there was something new. Now, with Twitter, I don’t have to spend time just surfing the general sports sites, as anything interesting that they break will be flying across Twitter instantly (and sometimes even before one of the big sites has it, like ESPN with the Shaq trade).

Moreover, I see plenty of interesting blog pieces cleverly promoted in 140 characters or less, so I check those out instead of reading the general sports stories. When the bloggers I follow regularly put a new post up, they generally alert the world on Twitter, and I generally know just from their 140-character summary if it’s something I’m interested in reading or promoting. In many ways, it’s a lot like a RSS feed but more useful thanks to the Twitter-exclusive original analysis and witty remarks many writers offer in addition to promoting their own stuff. The recommendation aspect of Twitter is also useful; I’m much more likely to check out a piece at a site I don’t regularly read or a Twitter feed I don’t normally follow if it’s mentioned by a writer I follow and respect.

Now, that doesn’t mean that Twitter and Twitter users break stories in the majority of circumstances. However, that doesn’t make their function of promoting and redistributing the news any less important, and it doesn’t make it different from many major news outlets (something which I had an interesting Twitter conversation about with Dave Leeder of the Globe and Mail yesterday in the wake of the Jackson coverage, where the accurate details were spread across Twitter long before mainstream organizations such as CNN and NBC clued in). Much of what you see in a newspaper or on a sports website is not original content produced specifically for that organization; a lot of it is wire-service material picked up from agencies such as The Associated Press, Reuters and Bloomberg. Moreover, a great deal of that wire-service material is not news broken by the wire service, especially when looking at trades or free-agent signings; those are more frequently broken by local beat reporters or well-connected national writers such as Yahoo!’s Adrian Wojnarowski or Fox’s Jay Glazer and then re-reported or rewritten by wire-service staff for transmission to their client papers.

Thus, many Twitter users and bloggers are fulfilling a similar function to wire services by taking information that one group of people sees and transmitting it to different groups of people. In fact, I’d argue that the Twitter users and bloggers are providing a more valuable function, as they generally add their own commentary to the straight news and they generally link to the original piece, two things which wire services rarely, if ever, bother with. Occasionally, a wire-service piece will include a vague line like “the trade was first reported by FoxSports.com”, but they’ll rarely mention the name of the reporter or provide a link, making it difficult for interested readers to find the original piece. More frequently, they’ll forego attribution altogether if their reporters are able to re-report the story by getting a coach, general manager or agent to confirm to them what’s already taken place.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as these services still have their role to play. Newspapers and websites need a great deal of content, and it isn’t possible to have their own staff generate certain kinds of content efficiently. For example, consider the Shaq trade. This is the kind of big news that transcends the individual franchises involved (the Suns and Cavaliers); any paper that covers the NBA at all will likely want to have a story on it. However, it isn’t at all cost-efficient for a paper like the Sacramento Bee (to pick one at random) to have a reporter based in either Cleveland or Phoenix on the off-chance that some news big enough to make the papers in Sacramento will arise in either city. It’s far more effective for one AP writer to pull a story together and send it out to all the interested papers across the country that don’t have their own personnel covering the trade.

It is ironic that these wire services are some of the biggest critics of the blogging and tweeting segments of the sports world, though. When AP chairman Dean Singleton rails at Google and bloggers [Joseph Jaffe, Jaffe Juice] and apparently agrees with Wall Street Journal managing editor Robert Thomson’s characterization of them as “parasites”, perhaps he should look in the mirror. If the definition of a news parasite is one who disseminates without adding original content, the wire services are perhaps more guilty of said offence than bloggers. At least bloggers who comment on these stories on their own sites or on Twitter are providing credit to whoever broke the story, a link to the original piece and their own take on the news, all of which are rather valuable. With the wire services, the credit often goes missing or is unnecessarily vague, the link to the original is generally non-existent, and extra analysis generallyis not included (which is fine, as that’s the way that straight news tends to be done).

Perhaps the problem is with the connotation of the word “parasites”. Of course, it evokes rather unfortunate mental images of bugs or worms living off of larger hosts. “Symbiotes” might be a better term; many organisms provide useful functions for their hosts, such as the gut flora that live in the human digestive tract and help to process food. In that manner, wire services, bloggers and tweeters all provide useful benefits to the original reporters to some degree, as all help get the information to the masses. Bloggers and tweeters help even more by providing credit and links to their sources. There’s enough room out there on the sports segment of the interwebs for each group to carve out its niche. In the end, we all have the same goal of getting the information out there; we would be better served working as parts of a symbiotic whole than feuding with each other.

NFL free agency interviews: Michael Bean of Behind the Steel Curtain

I've been working on an extensive piece for The Good Point on NFL free agency for most of the last month, and finally finished it off the other day; check it out if you're interested in a look at how different NFL teams view free agency and the strengths and weaknesses of certain approaches. Tremendous thanks are due to Will Leitch of Deadspin and New York Magazine, Michael Bean (Blitzburgh) of Behind The Steel Curtain, Sean Yuille of Pride of Detroit and Kevin Ewoldt of Hogs Haven for taking the time to answer my questions. They all have a great understanding of the NFL and how their teams approach free agency.

Of course, space restrictions and the thematic approach I took meant that I couldn't fit all the information I received from these guys into my article, so I figured I'd run some of the interviews here as companion pieces. First up, Michael Bean. Michael runs Behind The Steel Curtain, one of the best and most popular Pittsburgh Steelers blogs on the planet. My questions and his responses are below (with minimal edits for grammar and clarity):

Andrew Bucholtz: How would you describe the Steelers' philosophy with regards to signing other teams' free agents? Why has it been successful?

Michael Bean: The Steelers' philosophy with regards to signing other teams' free agents is one of caution and prudence. You'll rarely see the Steelers compete in high-priced bidding wars for high profile free agents like Albert Haynesworth, particularly if the FAs are over 30 years of age or past their peak window physically. What you will see the Steelers do is go after undervalued guys coming off their first contract; guys like Mewelde Moore, Keyaron Fox, etc. In many instances, the Steelers' scouting department simply sees something in other guys that other teams do not, and in others, there's simply situations with other teams' rosters that account for why they're available in the first place. Mewelde Moore is a great example - where's there room for him with superstar Adrian Peterson and highly paid Chester Taylor in front of him on the depth chart [ed note: with the Vikings]?

A.B.: Obviously, the Steelers have let some of their own expensive free agents walk over the years, particularly Alan Faneca and Plaxico Burress. What did you think of those moves at the time, and have your thoughts changed since then?

M.B.: No, the Steelers' front office has a nearly impeccable track record of deciding when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. In the case of Alan Faneca, there's just no way to match an offer that made him the highest paid G in the league. Doesn't make sense any way you carve it up. Same with a guy like Joey Porter, who certainly has proven he has a thing or two left in the tank. But there were James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley ready to step in his place, and at a very, very small fraction of the cost.

A.B.: Does the recent large contract extension given to James Harrison indicate a change in organizational philosophy, or is it just a different situation than with Faneca and Burress? Is he less replaceable?

M.B.: I don't think it represents a change in philosophy, though it's certainly a legitimate question considering Harrison's age. People forget that James Farrior also got a big extension in his 30s, so I don't think their philosophy can be compartmentalized one way or another. In Harrison's case, he's just been the best value in the league the past two years...period. I think that part of this contract represents some 're-payment' of sorts for being so amazing at such a small cost and I think that his unparalleled work ethic makes him a safer bet to stay healthy and productive in the coming years than are most guys his age. Harrison, who's referred to as 'Deebo' by his teammates in homage to the character in the movie Friday, was apparently back in the weight room two days after the Super Bowl, and he was ticked off that none of his teammates were joining him there. Translation? This guy eats, drinks and sleeps football - and as has been relayed on to me from sources closer to the team than me - that's the number-one thing the front office looks for in their determination of who to draft and invest in long-term.

A.B.: Why do the Steelers tend to offer players contract extensions a year before they become free agents? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this system?

M.B.: I think the short answer is that they have typically made up their mind a year before players hit the market whether or not to resign them. If they feel good about investing in the player long term, why wait until their value potentially increases and/or another team has an opportunity to nudge their way into the mix and maybe outbid the Steelers. I'd imagine players are more likely to accept extensions before they hit the open market, particularly younger players playing on rookie contracts where they're eager to sign that usually much larger second deal. On occassion, the disadvantage to that may be that a good young player who hasn't had the chance yet to really prove his worth is ruled out as a viable long-term investment but there's not too many examples to point to like that.

A.B.: What do you think of the team's overall approach to free agents? Would you change anything if you were running the front office?

M.B.: I'd sum up the team's overall approach to free agents in one sentence - if you feel you have the best scouting department in the National Football League and are capable of finding talent year in and year out with more consistency than the rest of the league - why dabble too aggressively in a system that's designed for the players' financial benefit rather than trusting in one's ability to fill personnel needs with younger, cheaper guys whenever possible?

Thanks again to Michael for taking the time to answer my questions. You can check out his blog here.

Joining the Twitterati...

Everyone and their sister seems to have joined the Twitterati recently, including Steve Nash, Shaq, Will Leitch and Jeff Blair. Normally, I try to resist jumping on the bandwagon, but I saw quite a bit of potential in what Neate has been doing with his feed, especially the links. I'm a long-established fan of throwing out links, but haven't had a lot of time to write those kind of detailed posts recently, so this seems like a good way to get those out along with a few quick observations here and there that I don't have time for an entire post on. Thus, I'll be adding the Twitter feed to the right-hand bar for the time being. We'll see how it develops; feel free to e-mail (andrew_bucholtz at hotmail dot com) or tweet me suggestions on what to do with the feed!

Satire? On the Internet?

This story from Alana G (via TrueHoop) is hilarious, but frightening. As most probably know, the NBA is holding its All-Star weekend in Phoenix over the next few days. Reporter Niki D'Andrea of the Phoenix New-Times wrote a cover story about a "tattoo cap" on NBA players that commissioner David Stern was supposedly thinking of implementing, which turned out to be based off a satirical story by author/blogger Con Chapman which was republished on his community blog page at Fox Sports. D'Andrea explains her rationale in a blog post here:

"Though our knee-jerk reaction to the tattoo cap story was that it might be a joke, what it touted seemed possible. Commish Stern had already instituted a business-casual dress code for NBA players going to and from games -- in an attempt to thwart a trend toward hop-hop attire among some players. Also, Suns players we interviewed thought the tat cap story was true and complained about the alleged plan in our article. Calls to NBA headquarters for comment weren't returned before "In the Flesh" went to press. In fact, they haven't been returned to date."

It would be easy to mock D'Andrea, but this could have happened to other people. There are a few specific lessons writers and editors should take from this story, in my mind, in addition to following something along the lines of the Regret the Error accuracy checklist;

1. Double-check your sources and know what exactly they are: D'Andrea writes that they picked up the story from FoxSports.com. However, that site, like many Internet sports sites, combines factual stories and analysis pieces from its paid staff with comments and blogs from community members. Differentiating the two is extremely important, but not everyone does it well. (It can be particularly tough for those who haven't grown up in the Internet age; one of the biggest problems with Buzz Bissinger's Costas Now rant against Will Leitch was how he went after Leitch for stuff posted by Deadspin commenters, rather than what Leitch actually wrote.)


2. Put it in context: The best way to avoid these kind of sourcing problems is to look at whatever material you find in context. Just looking at the URL of the FoxSports post, you can tell it's a community blog post. That should set off alarm bells about the material's accuracy and at least require some fact-checking with other sources. Moreover, if you just look at Chapman's other GerbilSportsNetwork blog posts, it's pretty obvious he isn't being completely serious. In a different story, he features this "quote" from Bill Laimbeer on flopping;


"'Johnny Most used to call me ‘Stanisflopski’,” Laimbeer recalls bitterly, referring to the Celtics’ broadcaster who covered the team’s fierce Eastern Conference rivalry with the “Bad Boy” Pistons of the ’80’s and 90’s. 'I took my art seriously, and today I’m going to lead you through a dramatic interpretation that will help you get in touch with your inner rage–the scene from ‘Gone With the Wind’ in which Scarlett O’Hara curses the Yankees in the garden of Tara.'"

3. Check if it's reasonable: D'Andrea explains in her blog post that the story seemed plausible, given Stern's previous move to institute a dress code. That's true, but regulating tattoos goes well beyond regulating clothing. Moreover, examine Stern's entire "quote":

“We feel it is important that our players not scare the bejesus out of affluent demographic groups with gangsta-style tattoos,” David Stern said at a press conference here today. “Otherwise we might as well name the next two expansion franchises the ‘Crips’ and the ‘Bloods’,” he added, showing off his “street cred” to the admiration of NBA beat reporters.

There is no way in hell that David Stern, one of the most careful people in the world with his words (listen to any interview with him!) is throwing out "bejesus" and "gangsta" in a real interview, much less making references to naming teams after the Crips and the Bloods. Stern has spent much of his recent tenure trying to get the NBA away from the perceptions of gang life; I doubt you'd ever hear him say anything somewhat similar to this. Plus, no serious news story would incorporate the phrase "showing off his 'street cred'". In fairness, D'Andrea may not have been overly familiar with Stern, as she seems to mostly do arts and music pieces (the top six search results for "D'Andrea" on the paper's website are all on music). That will be discussed further later (see point #5 below), but it's a good idea to do a little background research if you're writing in an unfamiliar area, and a quick Google of Stern's interview transcripts would make it clear that this is a way he would never talk.

4. Does anyone else have it? Very little news is actually exclusive to one site these days, especially when it's on something big and national like the NBA. With a story like this, you can bet that at the least, ESPN, Yahoo! and the Associated Press would have something within an hour or two if there was anything to it. It's worth checking back after you've started your story, too; if other news sites still don't seem to be reporting on it, there's probably a good reason why. In this day and age, this isn't the kind of story that would stay quiet for long if there was any truth to it.

5. Write what you know, or check with people who know:
It's almost unavoidable to have to write outside your subject of expertise these days, which often leads to increased errors. As mentioned above, anyone who regularly covers the NBA would likely have smelled something rotten with this one, especially with Stern's quotes. The New-Times doesn't seem to be a sports-intensive paper, but they do have several guys who write sports posts on one of their blogs, including Steve Jansen, Rick Barrs and Paul Rubin. I don't know if D'Andrea checked with any of them while she was working on this story, but it certainly would have been worthwhile; if she did check in and they didn't see anything weird with it, shame on them. Compartmentalization is a problem with newspapers and magazines in general these days, though; tight deadlines and individual beats mean that there often isn't as much interaction across newsrooms and sections as there should be. In almost any newsroom, you can usually find someone who knows a bit about your topic; it's usually worth it to get whatever background you can from them. It's an efficient use of resources to take advantage of the pool of knowledge in your workplace, and it also helps prevent mistakes.

This certainly isn't the first or the last time that people will pick up on a satirical story as bonafide news; a similar case happened this fall when my Out of Left Field colleague Duane Rollins wrote a tongue-in-cheek press release about dropping the "Thigh" from the "Oil Thigh", Queen's traditional fight song. That one was also pretty clearly satirical, coming shortly after the decision to drop "Golden" from the school's "Golden Gaels" moniker, and it was marked with a "satire" tag, but it still spawned a bunch of angry calls and e-mails to Queen's Athletics and Recreation. Other examples are myriad. The moral of the story; don't believe everything you read. Just because it's on the intertubes doesn't mean that it's accurate; as James Watt famously said(and Terry Prachett repeated in The Truth), "A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots on."

(Funnily enough, it's in dispute whether that quote came from Watt, Mark Twain or both) [Graeme Philipson, The Age].

(Also, that story is still the lead item on the New-Times website (with an attached correction), even though there's really no reason for it to exist now that the premise has been discounted).

Psychoanalyzing the blogosphere

The great Tom Benjamin found this site a little while ago, and I was intrigued. Basically, you type in a blog URL and it gives you a readout of the personality of the blog's author. I figured I'd try it with my site and some of the sites I read regularly. Results are below.

For myself, Sporting Madness:

"The analysis indicates that the author of http://sportingmadness.blogspot.com is of the type: INTP - The Thinkers."



"The logical and analytical type. They are espescially attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.
They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about."

And the brain-analysis photo (click to expand):



Comments: Pretty dead-on. I'm definitely into the logical analysis and speculation about the future.

Neate Sager and co., Out of Left Field:

"The analysis indicates that the author of http://neatesager.blogspot.com is of the type: ESTP - The Doers."



"The active and playful type. They are especially attuned to people and things around them and often full of energy, talking, joking and engaging in physical out-door activities.

The Doers are happiest with action-filled work which craves their full attention and focus. They might be very impulsive and more keen on starting something new than following it through. They might have a problem with sitting still or remaining inactive for any period of time."

And the brain-scan:



Comments: Maybe it was the Snark Breaks that got the "joking" part played up?

A.J. Daulerio, Rick Chandler, Dashiell Bennett and co., Deadspin:

"The analysis indicates that the author of http://deadspin.com is of the type:
ISTP - The Mechanics."



"The independent and problem-solving type. They are especially attuned to the demands of the moment and are masters of responding to challenges that arise spontaneously. They generally prefer to think things out for themselves and often avoid inter-personal conflicts.

The Mechanics enjoy working together with other independent and highly skilled people and often like seek fun and action both in their work and personal life. They enjoy adventure and risk such as in driving race cars or working as policemen and firefighters."

And the brain pic:



Comments: "Masters of responding to challenges that arise spontaneously." Sounds reasonable; they've managed to survive a lot of design changes and Nick Denton's messages of doom so far.

Joe Posnanski, Joe's Blog:

"The analysis indicates that the author of http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/ is of the type: ESFP - The Performers"



"The entertaining and friendly type. They are especially attuned to pleasure and beauty and like to fill their surroundings with soft fabrics, bright colors and sweet smells. They live in the present moment and don´t like to plan ahead - they are always in risk of exhausting themselves.

They enjoy work that makes them able to help other people in a concrete and visible way. They tend to avoid conflicts and rarely initiate confrontation - qualities that can make it hard for them in management positions."

And the brain pic:



Comments: Entertaining and friendly definitely describes Joe's blog.

James Mirtle, From The Rink:

"The analysis indicates that the author of http://fromtherink.com is of the type:
ESTJ - The Guardians."



"The organizing and efficient type. They are especially attuned to setting goals and managing available resources to get the job done. Once they´ve made up their mind on something, it can be quite difficult to convince otherwise. They listen to hard facts and can have a hard time accepting new or innovative ways of doing things.

The Guardians are often happy working in highly structured work environments where everyone knows the rules of the job. They respect authority and are loyal team players."

And the brain scan:



Comments: Organized and efficient sounds like a good description for James' work, which I highly recommend.

Eyebleaf, Sports And The City:

"The analysis indicates that the author of http://www.sportsandthecity.com/ is of the type: ISFP - The Artists."



"The gentle and compassionate type. They are especially attuned their inner values and what other people need. They are not friends of many words and tend to take the worries of the world on their shoulders. They tend to follow the path of least resistance and have to look out not to be taken advantage of.

They often prefer working quietly, behind the scene as a part of a team. They tend to value their friends and family above what they do for a living."

And the brain pic:



Comments: Hmm, not sure how this one applies.

Others of the aforementioned types:
- Henry Abbott, TrueHoop: Mechanic.
- Jason Brough and Mike Halford, Orland Kurtenblog: Doers.
- J.E. Skeets and Kelly Dwyer, Ball Don't Lie: Mechanics.
- Will Leitch, WEEI: Doer.
- Amrit Ahluwalia and co., There Is No Original Name For This Sports Blog: Doers.
- Tom Benjamin himself, Canucks Corner: Doer.
- David Berri, The Wages of Wins Journal: Mechanic.
- Dan Shanoff, Dan Shanoff: Doer.
- PPP and Chemmy, Pension Plan Puppets: Guardians.
- Darren Rovell, Sports Biz: Doer.

Interesting; out of the sports blogs I checked, I'm apparently the only one who falls into the "Thinkers" category. Most people seem to be doers or mechanics. Not sure how much credence I give this, but it was worth a look, and some of the descriptions seem to fit pretty well; I'm happy with mine.

The shades of grey

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars: Episode III

My biggest problem with the state of sports analysis today is that we seem to be moving away from the middle of the spectrum. Nothing exemplifies this more in my mind than Around the Horn, the ESPN talk show which basically features prominent journalists arguing with each other about sports. Moderator Tony Reali hands out points for different arguments, but the scoring seems to be based more on how vigorously you make your case rather than anything you actually say. The amount of people involved and the short time given to each segment also encourages participants to move away from subtlety in favour of absolutes. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad; there's obviously a market for this kind of thing, and there are often interesting points raised. The problem is that the format encourages sensationalism and bold stands over critical analysis; why else would Jay Mariotti be a recurring participant?

This isn't all Around the Horn's fault, though. Much of the media is going along the same lines, particularly talk radio. There are some great programs out there, but they're often drowned out by those who make their living from just being controversial. It's not limited to sports, either: consider the popularity of types like Howard Stern and Don Imus. Newspapers and the blogosphere are following right along. It's become less about analysis and more about how loudly you can yell or how dramatically you can make your arguement.

The Sean Avery incident is an excellent case in point; everyone's trying to take the strongest stance out there either for or against him. That's why you get some like Bruce Garrioch calling for lifetime bans, while others like Colby Cosh are trying to make Avery into a free-speech martyr. He's not the worst villain in hockey history by far, but he's also not some innocent victim who should be allowed to skate off into the sunset with a slap on the wrist; check out Eric McErlain's FanHouse post on an alleged horrifying verbal attack Avery carried out on a Nashville fan, Richard Lawson's Gawker post on what Avery told a fashion writer and Greg Wyshynski's post about the actual act suggested by Avery's comments for just a few examples of what he's done over the years. That's not to say everyone's going to extremes; for an excellent example of a well-reasoned, considered position that examines both sides, check out James Mirtle's writing on the subject at From the Rink. He's in the minority, though, as this issue has further polarized an already-polarized sports media.

The broader point is that there are, surprisingly, a lot of similarities between sports and quantum physics. Not only does your perception of an event depend on where you're coming from (or your frame of reference, in classical physics terms), but your observing an event can also alter the event itself. Think Avery's suspended for six games if this incident doesn't spread as far? If the media in that locker room didn't broadcast this, there likely would be no suspension whatsoever. That's not to blame them; Avery basically called his own press conference and made his statement unprompted, so he needs to take responsibility, and I'd consider it worth reporting. The point is that the media's observance of and decision to report that event altered the event itself. The event was then further altered by the spread of the news. If it's shown on TSN once and maybe mentioned in one or two game-day stories, we might have a suspension on our hands, but I doubt it would be six games. This turned into one of the biggest hockey stories in recent memory, though, and was picked up by everyone from entertainment TV shows and websites to American newspapers that never cover the NHL. You have to think that that expansion of the coverage affected the league's response.

There are plenty of other examples of this failure to see the shades of grey. One of the classics is Buzz Bissinger's rant against Will Leitch and blogs in general. Bissinger had some good points, including some of the same ones that I've made above about the sensationalist tendencies of some blogs. However, he shot his own argument in the leg Plaxico Burress-style by sensationalizing it. If he keeps that as a rational discussion, differentiates between posts and comments and talks about a few particular blogs or posts he has issues with, he might be taken somewhat seriously. Ironically, he used the same sensationalism he was complaining about, and that destroyed his credibility.

Like everything else, though, Bissinger-Leitch (or traditional media vs. blogs) doesn't have to be an absolute argument. Our current media world wants it to be, though. Are you a blogger? Well, you'd better move back to your mother's basement and pound out uninformed diatribes against the prejudices of the media. Are you in the media? Get to work on those anti-blog columns. Fortunately, there are many of those on both sides who do see the shades of grey; the problem is that they don't draw the attention. Our tendency is to pay attention to the one-sided rants, like this piece from Christie Blatchford; never mind that at the very same paper they have reporters like Michael Grange and James Mirtle who can navigate both worlds with aplomb. There's the same problem with the bloggers who rant about traditional media outlets being useless and biased; yes, parts of their coverage may be, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's folly to respond to overgeneralized arguments against blogs with overgeneralized arguments against mainstream media.

It extends to everything in sport. Steroids and the Mitchell Report? It seems that either you hate what drugs have done to the game and think every user should be banned for life, or you have no problem with them at all. Spygate? Either Bill Belichick and the Patriots are the worst criminals in the game's history or cunning figures who should be rewarded for outsmarting everyone else. Statistics? Either they tell us everything and we shouldn't bother playing the games any more, or we should erase them all and go back to analyzing sports without numbers. Take any sports issue of recent memory and look for points of view on it; my guess is that most of them will cluster towards the two extremes. This polarization just leads to more yelling than constructive debate. We need people who can see both sides, and there are some; they should be praised for this, not ignored because they haven't taken the strongest stand of anyone on the issue.

It's not just sports, either. As a history student, I've seen this more and more in my research on a wide variety of topics. Many historians have realized that the way to get cited and become prominent is to take a strong, provocative stand on an issue. That gets people talking about you and gets your name out there. No one wants to hear the "on the one hand, but on the other hand", even if it may be closer to the truth. The subtlety is lost in favour of notoriety.

The problem isn't opinions. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and the more opinions, the better, in my view at least. The problem is that the opinions are moving to the extremes, and the natural conclusion to this is that the opinion-holders become less and less willing to consider alternative points of view. The problem is the people who think that their opinion is the only one worthy of note. It's very rare that these individuals take the middle ground on anything, as it's tough to be an absolutist about a moderate position. If they represent the ultimate goal, though, as many in the media and the blogosphere seem to think, why do we even bother discussing sports any more? There's no point in an argument between two unflinching individuals (or, to return to physics, an unstoppable force and an immovable object).

Enough negativity for now. There are plenty of writers, bloggers, radio hosts and the like who do see the shades of grey. Some of them are listed in my links, but there are many others. I thought I'd point out three of the best shades-of-grey pieces I've read recently to try and give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

First, there's Joe Posnanski's great essay on George Steinbrenner. Posnanski epitomizes what I'm talking about here; he's a columnist and a blogger, and he sees subtlety in situations where others would fly to the extremes. The Steinbrenner piece is a fantastic case in point. Most people in sports have very strong feelings about Steinbrenner; either they love the way he's changed the game and the success he's brought to the Yankees, or they hate his meddling, his arrogance and his purchase of dominance. Posnanski shows us all sides of the man and lets his readers draw their own conclusion, which is a laudable tactic and goal. Here's the key paragraph of his work:

"The story of King George is fascinating to me because, at the end of the day, the story goes wherever the narrator wants it to go. Do you want a hero? Do you want a scoundrel? Do you want a tyrant? Do you want a heart of gold? Steinbrenner is what you make him. He is the convicted felon who quietly gave millions to charity, the ruthless boss who made sure his childhood heroes and friends stayed on the payroll, the twice-suspended owner who drove the game into a new era, the sore loser who won a lot, the sore winner who lost plenty, the haunted son who longed for the respect of his father, the attention hound who could not tolerate losing the spotlight, the money-throwing blowhard who saved the New York Yankees and sent them into despair and saved them again (in part by staying out the way), the bully who demanded that his employees answer his every demand and the soft touch who would quietly pick up the phone and help some stranger he read about in the morning paper."

Second, we have the great Gary Smith of Sports Illustrated, who's one of my favourite writers. Smith has an unbelievable talent for portraying athletes in all their dimensions. He writes about tragedy and perseverance without ever trivializing or deifying the struggles of those involved, and his palette has an unbelievable amount of different shades of grey. Fortunately, those unfamiliar with his work can now read his many great pieces for free at the SI Vault. If you haven't yet read "Remember His Name", his tribute to former NFL player Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan, you owe it to yourself to check it out.

Thirdly, we have Stephen Brunt of The Globe and Mail, who needs little introduction to Canadian readers. His most recent column on the Buffalo Bills-to-Toronto situation is a perfect example of what I'm trying to argue. Yes, he'd get much more attention if he started yelling about how this would doom the CFL irrevocably, or how Toronto desperately needs an NFL team, or how Buffalo doesn't deserve one, or any absolutist side you prefer. Instead, he considers all the sides and all of the potential effects, and even puts himself in the shoes of the fans in Buffalo, which is surely a rare perspective north of the border these days. This column provides the solid, reasoned analysis he's known for, and I'd love to see more in the Canadian media emulate him.

Anyway, the point of all this is to establish a central manifesto for my work and my blog. With apologies to Rod Serling, my goal is to offer a "middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition". Everything I write here is what I actually believe; it has not been altered or inflated into a more provocative case to draw attention. I vow to look at both sides of an argument and weigh all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion, and my goal is to be fair and open to discussion. I'm willing to look at my own views critically, and alter them if someone makes a persuasive arguement. This is a rallying call to the shades of grey excluded from the conversation from the shift to the black and white extremes; you'll always have a home here.

Update: 3:45 P.M.: Bloody hell: Jason Whitlock just made pretty much the same arguement as me on the Avery case. Here's his comment: My real problem is with my peers in the media. I think we're too quick to go for the death penalty when it comes to verbal screw-ups. We can never see the gray areas and just want hard and fast rules. Hadn't seen this one before; thanks to Neate for the link.

Is Deadspin next on the Gawker chopping block?

To many sports fans in this Internet era, Deadspin is the great example of what blogs can do. Their staff of talented writers and editors, including Will Leitch, A.J. Daulerio and Drew Magary consistently churn out interesting takes on the sports news of the day while providing far more wit than you'll find in any newspaper sports section. Granted, the style isn't for the easily-offended (Buzz Bissinger, that means you), but there are plenty of us out there who enjoy reading Deadspin daily. Sadly, our days of enjoyment may be numbered.

When I first read Gawker Media (parent company of Deadspin> overlord Nick Denton's November 12 post on the upcoming apocalypse facing Internet media outlets, I thought it was an interesting take on how the current economic recession might affect Internet advertising. He figures that Internet companies should prepare for a 40 per cent decline in advertising revenue. From my contacts in the print world, I know that plenty of newspapers are getting killed by the current economic climate, as it's much easier to cut advertising expenditures than start cutting jobs. It's only logical to think that the same trend would hit Internet media to some extent; it may not be as severe as Denton predicts, but there certainly is a downturn coming.

Denton's solution is quick, massive expensive reductions along a six-point plan, which includes getting out of problematic categories, consolidating titles and renegotiating vendor contracts. The consolidation paragraph is particularly interesting. Here's what he writes:

"Time-pressed media buyers are drawn to scale. Most websites are still way too small to register with the audience-tracking services that agencies rely upon. Of 18 titles launched at Gawker Media, we've already spun off or shuttered six. Even now, 91% of advertising revenues come from the top six remaining titles. Every media group has a similarly lopsided distribution. It's time to choose which properties make it aboard the lifeboat. The era of the sprawling network—established franchises mixed in with experimental sites—is over."

On the same day, Denton backed up his words, closing down [Caroline McCarthy, Cnet.com] tech industry gossip site Valleywag and rolling editor Owen Thomas into a job writing columns for the main Gawker site. Thus, Gawker Media is now down to 11 titles, and Denton says six provide 91 per cent of the revenue. The Globe and Mail's Mathew Ingram concludes that means the other titles are at risk.

Now, as to how this relates to Deadspin. At first, I was sure it would be one of the top six titles. It's sports, right, and surely there must be a massive audience for sports? Moreover, Deadspin is clearly one of the leaders in the field (along with Sports By Brooks, The Big Lead, FanHouse and Yahoo! Sports Blogs). However, if you go from an audience standpoint, Deadspin is surprisingly far down the chain, according to the title-by-title numbers Gawker provides. Here's the list. All descriptions are summaries of Gawker's information about each site: I don't read most of these regularly, so they might not be exactly true to what each site is like.

Gizmodo (gadgets, gizmos, electronics): 6.1 million unique visitors monthly.
Lifehacker (gadgets applied to life): 4.3 million unique visitors monthly.
Kotaku (video gaming): 3.1 million unique visitors monthly.
Jalopnik (cars): 2.4 million unique visitors monthly.
Gawker (media and culture gossip): 2.2 million unique visitors monthly.
The Consumerist (modern consumerism): 2 million unique visitors monthly.
Defamer (celebrity news): 1.3 million unique visitors monthly
io9 (sci-fi): 1.2 million unique visitors monthly.
Jezebel (feminist takes on celebrity/fashion): 1.3 million unique visitors monthly.
io9 (sci-fi): 1.2 million unique visitors monthly.
Deadspin (sports): 765,000 unique visitors monthly.
Valleywag (tech industry, now no more): 621,000 unique visitors monthly.
Fleshbot (porn news): stats aren't listed on this page.

By those numbers, Deadspin is near the bottom of the pile, not the top. This seems somewhat unusual, especially considering the new hires they've made recently (although Dashiell Bennett came in from Fleshbot). However, it might explain Daulerio's negativity in this post.

Deadspin does have some points in its favour, though. For one, it's easy to explain to advertisers what it's about (sports) and what demographic it's hitting (sports fans); some of the other sites have a more mixed readership. It's also picked up ads from several major companies and publications, including The New York Times Magazine and any number of beer and alcohol companies, which probably won't be advertising on other Gawker titles. Sports fans are a conventional demographic target, and one that should be reasonably easy to sell to. According to the Gawker stats for Deadspin, 81 per cent of readers are 18-34 and 91 per cent of those are male. I'm sure there are companies that will want to reach the 765,000 or so sports fans who read Deadspin a month. The question is the cost/profit ratio.

I'm a pure outsider, so I don't have any information on if Deadspin is profitable or not, but the page views would seem to indicate that it's not in that top-six title list (unless the demographic concerns raised earlier mean that it gets a disproportionate share of advertising). Thus, if we assume that it's not in that list, it's in the group of other titles that makes nine per cent of Gawker Media's profit, and thus is probably seen as expendable (or certainly more expendable than the core titles).

Now, this may not lead to Deadspin getting shut down. More likely, what we'll see is more and bigger ads and a smaller roster of writers. The possibility of the site being sold to someone else is not out of the question, though, especially if you take Denton's comments about cost-cutting and spinning off sites at face valley. Valleywag, which was drawing similar numbers to Deadspin, is already gone. However, part of its demise may have been attributable to the overlap it had with Gawker's other tech and gossip sites. Deadspin is much more isolated, so it wouldn't be easy to roll it in to anything else.

On the selling question: there likely would be interested suitors, especially from larger and more traditional sports media outlets like CBS, Fox or ESPN. The question for them would be if there would be a way to retain Deadspin's audience under a traditional media umbrella, as much of the site relies on humour that wouldn't fly at most media outlets (see Magary's weekly "Thursday Afternoon NFL Dick Joke Jamboroo" for an example). If the site goes to a different corporate overlord, it might just lose what made it special.

Will Deadspin survive the current round of cuts? My guess is it will endure in some form. Whether that's in the present state, at a reduced level under the Gawker umbrella or with another company is yet to be determined.

Comments, questions or responses? Leave them here or send them to me at andrew_bucholtz [at] hotmail.com