Media Thread - Nehm with new podcast - page 11

[chonestown]

I think there's a distinguishing point on it. Is "stick to sports" supposed to be, "basically no political stuff" or is it none of the articles about dogs, candy bars, etc?

I don't know what the corporate overlords were forcing there, but that's the distinguishing point. And I know the point was brought up that everything technically does come back to politics, but I know I was kinda on an island of, "I agree with them 95% politically but I don't really care to read it on their site" but to me I'd hope Deadspin or some site can write stupid articles about favorite candy bars or stuff like that along with sports. I personally don't care to read about climate change from Deadspin.

And I will add that yes any **** corporate overlord takeover sucks. ESPN writers/voices have been given this "stick to sports" ultimatum and I'm just wondering if that means you can write about other stupid stuff that doesn't overtly start to get into a discussion about income inequality or socialized healthcare.

Where Deadspin excelled was upending the narratives those in power wanted to disseminate and control. It doesn't have to revert to politics necessarily, but there's an intersection of regulatory power (athletic leagues, judicial and executive arms) and economic power (team owners, broadcast partners, merchandisers, etc) in which politics and sports are wedded. Sticking to sports is good business for those in power and those in power tend to hue [fk it, pun intended] along very clear racial, economic, gender, political and age lines. Not every story has to be explicitly political, but that subtext is always there and cannot be ignored.

[DavidDunn21]

What's the deal with Le Batard? When is he back from his honeymoon?

I stuck with the show (and HQ) for about two weeks and just gave up on it until he gets back. It's not as good without him there. There's no straight man to Stu or Billy's shenanigans.

There are some troubling rumors out there...

Sent from my moto g(7) power using RealGM mobile app

[humanrefutation]

I mean we're all segmented here because some like to read the political takes but I think that HR's description of "people that write about sports but don't care about it that much" was pretty good.

To be clear, that's not what I said. I said they love sports but don't take THEMSELVES too seriously. I think they take sports plenty seriously - especially in the manner in which chones discusses above. But they aren't worshipping at the altar of these power structures that run the leagues we follow in the same way you'll see on ESPN, for example.

I also think it's important to distinguish between those political takes posted by folks who work for Deadspin and those shared from other blogs under the Gawker/GMG/GO umbrella. I think it's pretty rare that you'll ever see anything exclusively political coming from Deadspin's staff.

[humanrefutation]

What's the deal with Le Batard? When is he back from his honeymoon?

I stuck with the show (and HQ) for about two weeks and just gave up on it until he gets back. It's not as good without him there. There's no straight man to Stu or Billy's shenanigans.

There are some troubling rumors out there...

Sent from my moto g(7) power using RealGM mobile app

I saw rumors that it's a medical issue with Dan or Papi. I hope that's not true.

[Kerb Hohl]

I think there's a distinguishing point on it. Is "stick to sports" supposed to be, "basically no political stuff" or is it none of the articles about dogs, candy bars, etc?

I don't know what the corporate overlords were forcing there, but that's the distinguishing point. And I know the point was brought up that everything technically does come back to politics, but I know I was kinda on an island of, "I agree with them 95% politically but I don't really care to read it on their site" but to me I'd hope Deadspin or some site can write stupid articles about favorite candy bars or stuff like that along with sports. I personally don't care to read about climate change from Deadspin.

And I will add that yes any **** corporate overlord takeover sucks. ESPN writers/voices have been given this "stick to sports" ultimatum and I'm just wondering if that means you can write about other stupid stuff that doesn't overtly start to get into a discussion about income inequality or socialized healthcare.

Where Deadspin excelled was upending the narratives those in power wanted to disseminate and control. It doesn't have to revert to politics necessarily, but there's an intersection of regulatory power (athletic leagues, judicial and executive arms) and economic power (team owners, broadcast partners, merchandisers, etc) in which politics and sports are wedded. Sticking to sports is good business for those in power and those in power tend to hue [fk it, pun intended] along very clear racial, economic, gender, political and age lines. Not every story has to be explicitly political, but that subtext is always there and cannot be ignored.

I get it and I'm with you. That is the reality of sports and of course it's good when people write about that.

It intertwines a lot even with secondary/tertiary things as you note.

I guess at a certain point I enjoyed reading articles about that. I just becomes overkill at a point. As we discussed on other pages, I am doing the sports mostly to escape from these issues in my life. I'm fully aware of climate change and things going on in the White House. My brain would like to unplug from that **** when it is plugged into social media, etc.

In my opinion, the people sitting on pins and needles waiting for the next Laura Wagner slam piece on Trump or misogyny in whichever corporate or sports entity are the equivalent of our grandparents/parents plopping down for 8 hours of Fox News or MSNBC per day. It's too much for your brain as much as being woke about things is good.

That's not to say that Deadspin shouldn't exist or be allowed to write about whatever the hell they want to, but I guess I can understand a company trying to cater to people that want to just escape from other problems in the world with sports and entertainment not being subjected to that no matter how hard they try to avoid it.

[humanrefutation]

****, I didn't see this:

Read on Twitter

[chonestown]

I wonder what is driving this change. The memo honestly didn't seem that bad. Surprised they didn't just launch a different site that you could post off topic blogs on. I kind of agree with the direction where I don't want to see deadspin pollute my facebook with candy bars ranked. But there is still a desire for that content as well.

To anybody who regularly read Deadspin, the memo was a clear warning shot. The Concourse already existed for off-topic blogs. The sacking of the G-owned political blog Splinter in the midst of the most contentious presidential election in history is the most dramatic evidence that this was not a bottom-line business decision. Once Splinter was shuttered, it was a given Deadspin was next. I look forward to Jezebel's pivot to McCalls (note: I do not look forward to this).

[humanrefutation]

I wonder what is driving this change. The memo honestly didn't seem that bad. Surprised they didn't just launch a different site that you could post off topic blogs on. I kind of agree with the direction where I don't want to see deadspin pollute my facebook with candy bars ranked. But there is still a desire for that content as well.

To anybody who regularly read Deadspin, the memo was a clear warning shot. The Concourse already existed for off-topic blogs. The sacking of the G-owned political blog Splinter in the midst of the most contentious presidential election in history is the most dramatic evidence that this was not a bottom-line business decision. Once Splinter was shuttered, it was a given Deadspin was next. I look forward to Jezebel's pivot to McCalls (note: I do not look forward to this).

They're making a bad mistake with these pivots, too, IMO. There are so many sites out there for people who want stick-to-sports. The distinguishing factor for Deadspin was their way of addressing those intersections of sports/power in a way you don't find on The Athletic or ESPN. The moment they eliminate that distinguishing factor, Deadspin just becomes any other site, and they will fade into obscurity.

[Kerb Hohl]

I think it's pretty rare that you'll ever see anything exclusively political coming from Deadspin's staff.

Eh, they do in my opinion. And even if this is just "a [site formerly known as] Gawker article being shared by the Deadspin writer," a lot of the writers will get into some sort of "politics" pretty often.

Also, I do think the majority of the Deadspin staff takes themselves very seriously other than, ironically, the only two that the masses really pay attention to (Roth/Magary).

[Kerb Hohl]

I wonder what is driving this change. The memo honestly didn't seem that bad. Surprised they didn't just launch a different site that you could post off topic blogs on. I kind of agree with the direction where I don't want to see deadspin pollute my facebook with candy bars ranked. But there is still a desire for that content as well.

To anybody who regularly read Deadspin, the memo was a clear warning shot. The Concourse already existed for off-topic blogs. The sacking of the G-owned political blog Splinter in the midst of the most contentious presidential election in history is the most dramatic evidence that this was not a bottom-line business decision. Once Splinter was shuttered, it was a given Deadspin was next. I look forward to Jezebel's pivot to McCalls (note: I do not look forward to this).

They're making a bad mistake with these pivots, too, IMO. There are so many sites out there for people who want stick-to-sports. The distinguishing factor for Deadspin was their way of addressing those intersections of sports/power in a way you don't find on The Athletic or ESPN. The moment they eliminate that distinguishing factor, Deadspin just becomes any other site, and they will fade into obscurity.

Again, I'll preface this with "Barstool in general sucks" because Portnoy et al suck...but that site gets into all sorts of other topics and they do not bootlick the leagues...but they do not do a, "by the way, here's a 5000 word piece on climate change that will be presented right next to the 49ers preview."

There is an actual middle ground of allowing almost anything and everything and even a foray here or there into "the league vs. the players" type of stuff and what Deadspin became. If Deadspin cleaned up their frat boy humor in the 2009ish range (they did), that's what you go for. But they got into the moral high ground + a lot of political writing stuff over the past few years. Whether it was a corporate entity's power reasoning or their profitability that wanted that gone, I don't know.

[Licensed to Il]

The current lead story on Deadspin, is video of a woman pooping in a store and throwing it at the clerk.

I think some of you are a bit over the top about the site’s journalistic importance.

[humanrefutation]

The current lead story on Deadspin, is video of a woman pooping in a store and throwing it at the clerk.

I think some of you are a bit over the top about the site’s journalistic importance.

That's not their lead story. That's an old "highlight" link they're posting to a non-sports story as a way of sticking it to management's "stick-to-sports" edict. Yes, they have done a lot of silly stories in the past, but they've also done some outstanding work with high journalistic integrity on a variety of sports and sports-adjacent topics over the years. If you don't peruse the site on a regular basis - which you obviously don't - I can see why you wouldn't know that.

[chonestown]

The current lead story on Deadspin, is video of a woman pooping in a store and throwing it at the clerk.

I think some of you are a bit over the top about the site’s journalistic importance.

Hi Strawman, I'm Chones. How do you do?

[humanrefutation]

Again, I'll preface this with "Barstool in general sucks" because Portnoy et al suck...but that site gets into all sorts of other topics and they do not bootlick the leagues...but they do not do a, "by the way, here's a 5000 word piece on climate change that will be presented right next to the 49ers preview."

I don't visit barstool because I'm not a dick, so I can't speak to that sh** trap. But deadspin doesn't do that, either, and I'd give your criticisms more credibility if you didn't strawman the site that way. I just scrolled through several pages of articles on the site and I didn't find a single non-deals post on there that was as exclusively political as you're alleging. The only posts that came close were linked from their sister sites.

That isn't to say they haven't done so in the past, but as I've said, it's not very common at all despite your allegation to the contrary. Then again, you seem to think that writing about misogyny in the sports world is too political for you, so perhaps you should spend more time perusing something like Yahoo Sports or ESPN.com? Just a thought. The rest of us who like that stuff want it to stay, though.

[crkone]

Again, I'll preface this with "Barstool in general sucks" because Portnoy et al suck...but that site gets into all sorts of other topics and they do not bootlick the leagues...but they do not do a, "by the way, here's a 5000 word piece on climate change that will be presented right next to the 49ers preview."

I don't visit barstool because I'm not a dick, so I can't speak to that sh** trap. But deadspin doesn't do that, either, and I'd give your criticisms more credibility if you didn't strawman the site that way. I just scrolled through several pages of articles on the site and I didn't find a single non-deals post on there that was as exclusively political as you're alleging. The only posts that came close were linked from their sister sites.

That isn't to say they haven't done so in the past, but as I've said, it's not very common at all despite your allegation to the contrary. Then again, you seem to think that writing about misogyny in the sports world is too political for you, so perhaps you should spend more time perusing something like Yahoo Sports or ESPN.com? Just a thought. The rest of us who like that stuff want it to stay, though.

Maybe he's talking about all the cross-linking they do? Their own stories are usually sports related but they do throw in a ton of non-sports stuff on their front page where it looks like the site is half sports and half cars,politics,food,games,etc.

[humanrefutation]

Again, I'll preface this with "Barstool in general sucks" because Portnoy et al suck...but that site gets into all sorts of other topics and they do not bootlick the leagues...but they do not do a, "by the way, here's a 5000 word piece on climate change that will be presented right next to the 49ers preview."

I don't visit barstool because I'm not a dick, so I can't speak to that sh** trap. But deadspin doesn't do that, either, and I'd give your criticisms more credibility if you didn't strawman the site that way. I just scrolled through several pages of articles on the site and I didn't find a single non-deals post on there that was as exclusively political as you're alleging. The only posts that came close were linked from their sister sites.

That isn't to say they haven't done so in the past, but as I've said, it's not very common at all despite your allegation to the contrary. Then again, you seem to think that writing about misogyny in the sports world is too political for you, so perhaps you should spend more time perusing something like Yahoo Sports or ESPN.com? Just a thought. The rest of us who like that stuff want it to stay, though.

Maybe he's talking about all the cross-linking they do? Their own stories are usually sports related but they do throw in a ton of non-sports stuff on their front page where it looks like the site is half sports and half cars,politics,food,games,etc.

Yeah, that's what I mentioned earlier in this discussion but Kerb rejected that hypothesis.

[Kerb Hohl]

I don't visit barstool because I'm not a dick, so I can't speak to that sh** trap. But deadspin doesn't do that, either, and I'd give your criticisms more credibility if you didn't strawman the site that way. I just scrolled through several pages of articles on the site and I didn't find a single non-deals post on there that was as exclusively political as you're alleging. The only posts that came close were linked from their sister sites.

That isn't to say they haven't done so in the past, but as I've said, it's not very common at all despite your allegation to the contrary. Then again, you seem to think that writing about misogyny in the sports world is too political for you, so perhaps you should spend more time perusing something like Yahoo Sports or ESPN.com? Just a thought. The rest of us who like that stuff want it to stay, though.

Maybe he's talking about all the cross-linking they do? Their own stories are usually sports related but they do throw in a ton of non-sports stuff on their front page where it looks like the site is half sports and half cars,politics,food,games,etc.

Yeah, that's what I mentioned earlier in this discussion but Kerb rejected that hypothesis.

I never actually type in deadspin.com anymore. Who does that?

All of their personalities on twitter and the deadspin account do a ton of political commentary. A TON. Go to Laura Wags' twitter account and there is like less than 10% "let's analyze the Brewers" type of stuff.

But even their own website has plenty of these stories:

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/chicagos-strike-is-for-the-children-1839161258

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/this-guy-truly-has-no-idea-what-hes-talking-about-1838500602

For the record, I politically agree with/have no problem with them. I love most of Roth's political takes.

But these types of articles do not exist on any other "sports" platform even if labeled clearly as politics.

Am I like just seeing a different version of stuff?

If you just type in www dot deadspin dot com you can try to avoid the articles.

If you follow in any other way (twitter), you are bombarded every moment with, "OMG you'll never believe what Trump did THIS time." If I wanted this content, I'd tune into CNN. I don't want this content.

[humanrefutation]

Maybe he's talking about all the cross-linking they do? Their own stories are usually sports related but they do throw in a ton of non-sports stuff on their front page where it looks like the site is half sports and half cars,politics,food,games,etc.

Yeah, that's what I mentioned earlier in this discussion but Kerb rejected that hypothesis.

I never actually type in deadspin.com anymore. Who does that?

All of their personalities on twitter and the deadspin account do a ton of political commentary. A TON. Go to Laura Wags' twitter account and there is like 10% "let's analyze the Brewers" type of stuff.

But even their own website has plenty of these stories:

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/chicagos-strike-is-for-the-children-1839161258

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/this-guy-truly-has-no-idea-what-hes-talking-about-1838500602

For the record, I politically agree with/have no problem with them. I love most of Roth's political takes.

But these types of articles do not exist on any other "sports" platform even if labeled clearly as politics.

Am I like just seeing a different version of stuff?

If you just type in www dot deadspin dot com you can try to avoid the articles.

If you follow in any other way (twitter), you are bombarded every moment with, "OMG you'll never believe what Trump did THIS time." If I wanted this content, I'd tune into CNN. I don't want this content.

Let me get this straight. Your problem is that the people you follow on TWITTER - which is clearly distinct from the website we're talking about - have takes that go beyond what you want to read. And instead of simply unfollowing them and/or following the countless numbers of sports personalities that stick almost exclusively to sports on Twitter, you want them to filter their own thoughts for your sensibilities?

Perhaps Twitter isn't the venue for you, man?

[Kerb Hohl]

Yeah, that's what I mentioned earlier in this discussion but Kerb rejected that hypothesis.

I never actually type in deadspin.com anymore. Who does that?

All of their personalities on twitter and the deadspin account do a ton of political commentary. A TON. Go to Laura Wags' twitter account and there is like 10% "let's analyze the Brewers" type of stuff.

But even their own website has plenty of these stories:

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/chicagos-strike-is-for-the-children-1839161258

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/this-guy-truly-has-no-idea-what-hes-talking-about-1838500602

For the record, I politically agree with/have no problem with them. I love most of Roth's political takes.

But these types of articles do not exist on any other "sports" platform even if labeled clearly as politics.

Am I like just seeing a different version of stuff?

If you just type in www dot deadspin dot com you can try to avoid the articles.

If you follow in any other way (twitter), you are bombarded every moment with, "OMG you'll never believe what Trump did THIS time." If I wanted this content, I'd tune into CNN. I don't want this content.

Let me get this straight. Your problem is that the people you follow on TWITTER - which is clearly distinct from the website we're talking about - have takes that go beyond what you want to read. And instead of simply unfollowing them and/or following the countless numbers of sports personalities that stick almost exclusively to sports on Twitter, you want them to filter their own thoughts for your sensibilities?

Perhaps Twitter isn't the venue for you, man?

I've unfollowed many of them (actually barely ever followed them).

The sheer existence of those articles on the site I think is less benign than you think.

Like it or not, if ESPN had articles about the Chicago teacher strikes, it would turn people off from their website.

You're telling me that if ESPN.com only wrote [mostly] sports stories but every time Adam Schefter showed up on TV or tweeted about a trade he said, "AJ Green has been traded for a 2020 conditional 4th rounder. By the way, I stand with my brethren in the Chicago teacher strike and I want you to know that climate change is very important and to make sure to call your republican senator and tell him to go **** himself" is a problem with the person ingesting the media? There's overlap.

Do you see the issue here? The ESPN writers could say, "go to our website and it is mostly sports...what do you mean, politics? Schefter just injected his personal opinion there."

I mean, you literally said, "I don't go to barstool because I'm not a dick" because of David Portnoy. What if I told you that you should go to that website and only read the baseball articles? There's plenty of normal content on that website as well.

[glenn]

So what you’re saying is, they should stick to sports?