Media Thread - Nehm with new podcast - page 11

[humanrefutation]

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.

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.

I don't even know what you're talking about with that made-up Schefter scenario, because it's so bizarre and extreme that it's once again leading me to conclude that you're strawmanning. But to answer your broader question, I personally do not care whether you or anyone else is turned off by a political take being offered by a non-political site. The internet is a vast space where you can find content that appeals to you if you're willing to look for it. My only belief is that the sites should be accurate, and fact-based, and intelligent, and interesting. As long as someone isn't spewing falsehoods, I'm not going to whine about it, and I don't think it is reasonable for those who do to try to take away content I enjoy because you're too lazy to look elsewhere.

I'm not calling for Barstool to "stick-to-sports" even though I find it to be a gross, toxic mix of everything that's wrong with sports. I just know that site isn't for me, and I don't visit it. I don't listen to their podcasts. I don't follow their writers on twitter. It's not hard, really.

[Kerb Hohl]

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

No, the website can and should exist. I understand people being mad that a website of personalities and content they like is being torn down.

But every writer on that site (I used to love the majority of it 5 years ago) has been on their high horse that "we are what media should be. What do you mean ESPN writers have been told to stick to sports?"

If they just existed in the world and gave their takes I would be a bit more sympathetic.

I guess the reason I have paid attention/cared in all of this is that I liked the way it was and I liked the personalities 4-5 years ago (or more). Then not only did they change directions, but they looked down upon everyone else for not being on their wavelength of content and conduct.

[Kerb Hohl]

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.

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.

I don't even know what you're talking about with that made-up Schefter scenario, because it's so bizarre and extreme that it's once again leading me to conclude that you're strawmanning. But to answer your broader question, I personally do not care whether you or anyone else is turned off by a political take being offered by a non-political site. The internet is a vast space where you can find content that appeals to you if you're willing to look for it. My only belief is that the sites should be accurate, and fact-based, and intelligent, and interesting. As long as someone isn't spewing falsehoods, I'm not going to whine about it, and I don't think it is reasonable for those who do to try to take away content I enjoy because you're too lazy to look elsewhere.

I'm not calling for Barstool to "stick-to-sports" even though I find it to be a gross, toxic mix of everything that's wrong with sports. I just know that site isn't for me, and I don't visit it. I don't listen to their podcasts. I don't follow their writers on twitter. It's not hard, really.

I guess what happened to me is the opposite of what you're seeing right now with Deadspin. I enjoyed them as a sports site with fun sidebars. The content then turned to high horse/political commentary from all of the personalities. It wasn't enough to just make fun of the inner-workings of ESPN (and now Barstool) - they had to make sure that you the reader also joined in their army of telling these people they are very bad and that you don't like them.

My point is that if you cannot see that a media boss sees that as a pervasive, divisive thing for their product, I'm not sure you are seeing it clearly. Of course there are other, **** corporate acts at play here also taking things down but they simply could've toned down some of the political rhetoric and everything would probably be fine.

I think you'd also be mad if RealGM opened up an alt-right politics board that is linked to in most threads suggested to you by mods. You'd go somewhere else but you'd also look down upon the site that you once loved even if you decided not to visit anymore.

[MFDooom]

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.

lol dude, there are soooo many podcasts out there that are in my opinion WAY better than Le Betard. Download spotify and just search for "NBA Podcasts" and you'll see like 8 come up. Do the same search for any kind of pocast and you'll have options.

sports radio seems to be limited to the same potato chip style segments.. not really much real analysis going on.. just a bunch of personalities flapping their gums.. of course, if you just want to be entertained, then i understand that..

I will say, boston homerism aside, I really enjoy Bill Simmons' podcast. He and Russillo talking NBA is absolutely wonderful.

You don’t get dee shoooow

[chonestown]

The real-life unfolding case study doesn't need a ludicrous hypothetical scenario so we can ponder what if.

Related

Read on Twitter

[glenn]

I'm not going to get into why Deadspin's content specifically is worthwhile, since that ground's being covered. But no one should be happy that a media entity with a unique voice is being neutered and turned into a click/page view factory so a private equity firm can bleed the last few dollars from it before they throw it in the trash.

Edit: also this

Read on Twitter

[Licensed to Il]

I have definitely read Deadspin more than today.

The poop throwing video was a pretty fitting representation of the unnecessary vileness most contributors interjected in to their tone. “Reasons Your Team Sucks” “Reasons Bill Simmons is the Worst Thing in the History of ESPN” etc etc

I would go there from time to time because Bill Simmons and ESPN do suck, for example, and it is nice to get info that is not covered elsewhere. But there was an unnecessary crudeness, almost all the time. And I don’t mean from a clutch my pearls Im insulted type way. I refer more to the hack comedian that swears out of habit and not knowing how to express themselves more effectively.

Deadspin often reads as a more talented and pissed off version of twitter, with no character limit. I prefer more focussed and crafted opinions.

But if you call me scoffing at their intellectual value by pointing out the lead story on their site a straw man, Im honestly not sure how anything could be representative of anything. That literally was the top story, which aligns with the primitive and sophomoric tone that most there wrote with.

[Licensed to Il]

I'm not going to get into why Deadspin's content specifically is worthwhile, since that ground's being covered. But no one should be happy that a media entity with a unique voice is being neutered and turned into a click/page view factory so a private equity firm can bleed the last few dollars from it before they throw it in the trash.

Edit: also this

Read on Twitter

Not sure if you are talking to me. Im not saying i’m glad its going away. I am saying in my opinion Deadspin’s significance and value is being overstated here.

I’m sure we call all agree the current state of journalism is extremely troubling.

[humanrefutation]

I have definitely read Deadspin more than today.

The poop throwing video was a pretty fitting representation of the unnecessary vileness most contributors interjected in to their tone. “Reasons Your Team Sucks” “Reasons Bill Simmons is the Worst Thing in the History of ESPN” etc etc

I would go there from time to time because Bill Simmons and ESPN do suck, for example, and it is nice to get info that is not covered elsewhere. But there was an unnecessary crudeness, almost all the time. And I don’t mean from a clutch my pearls Im insulted type way. I refer more to the hack comedian that swears out of habit and not knowing how to express themselves more effectively.

Deadspin often reads as a more talented and pissed off version of twitter, with no character limit. I prefer more focussed and crafted opinions.

But if you call me scoffing at their intellectual value by pointing out the lead story on their site a straw man, Im honestly not sure how anything could be representative of anything. That literally was the top story, which aligns with the primitive and sophomoric tone that most there wrote with.

You're talking about something else, which is their tone. And if you don't like snark, that's up to you. The "Reason Your Team Sucks" is a time-honored tradition in which Magary and FANS OF THAT TEAM offer their own humorous takes about their team's upcoming season. They've never had an article describing Bill Simmons as the worst thing at ESPN - for a while, they were pretty pro-Simmons, until he became a bit of a caricature of himself. But I don't deny their snarky tone, and while it doesn't bug me as much as it apparently bugs you, I can get why you wouldn't want to read that.

But I need you to understand that the "poop story" is not their lead story, though. The fact that you don't understand the layout of the site is indicative enough to me that you don't visit it often.

[humanrefutation]

I've unfollowed many of 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.

I don't even know what you're talking about with that made-up Schefter scenario, because it's so bizarre and extreme that it's once again leading me to conclude that you're strawmanning. But to answer your broader question, I personally do not care whether you or anyone else is turned off by a political take being offered by a non-political site. The internet is a vast space where you can find content that appeals to you if you're willing to look for it. My only belief is that the sites should be accurate, and fact-based, and intelligent, and interesting. As long as someone isn't spewing falsehoods, I'm not going to whine about it, and I don't think it is reasonable for those who do to try to take away content I enjoy because you're too lazy to look elsewhere.

I'm not calling for Barstool to "stick-to-sports" even though I find it to be a gross, toxic mix of everything that's wrong with sports. I just know that site isn't for me, and I don't visit it. I don't listen to their podcasts. I don't follow their writers on twitter. It's not hard, really.

I guess what happened to me is the opposite of what you're seeing right now with Deadspin. I enjoyed them as a sports site with fun sidebars. The content then turned to high horse/political commentary from all of the personalities. It wasn't enough to just make fun of the inner-workings of ESPN (and now Barstool) - they had to make sure that you the reader also joined in their army of telling these people they are very bad and that you don't like them.

My point is that if you cannot see that a media boss sees that as a pervasive, divisive thing for their product, I'm not sure you are seeing it clearly. Of course there are other, **** corporate acts at play here also taking things down but they simply could've toned down some of the political rhetoric and everything would probably be fine.

I think you'd also be mad if RealGM opened up an alt-right politics board that is linked to in most threads suggested to you by mods. You'd go somewhere else but you'd also look down upon the site that you once loved even if you decided not to visit anymore.

You've already admitted that you don't visit the site and get most of your content from the twitter timelines of the writers that you simultaneously whine about but also acknowledge that you've mostly unfollowed. So, for someone who actually reads the site and knows that you're wrong when you say that "the content then turned to high horse/political commentary from all of the personalities," I'm not sure what's the point of continuing that argument with you.

But, FWIW, if RealGM went the route of an alt-right site, I'd blast it and bounce. I'm not going to demand that they cater to my interests. I'm going to go somewhere else that's better suited to my sensibilities. Perhaps there's a lesson in that for you?

[ReasonablySober]

People don't go to Deadspin for box score recaps. They don't even really go for sports. The ENTIRE reason people have loved it for over 15 years is that they simply don't stick to sports. Their traffic numbers back it up. Trump does massive traffic. Social issues do huge traffic.

So if your position is that the non-sports stuff is driving people away, I'm sorry to say that you're mistaken. You may not visit the site for that kind of content, but millions of others do.

The venture capital ghouls don't care about that, though. They don't like outlets like Deadspin making fun of them and their friends, so they buy and dismantle them.

What's going on at G/O Media (lol) is **** criminal.

[Chuck Diesel]

Do our moderators run Deadspin?

[humanrefutation]

Do our moderators run Deadspin?

I've probably visited Deadspin more than any non-RealGM website over the last decade+. It's one of the first sites I check in the morning and one of the last I'll check at night. I'm invested in them because I think they're great at what they do, and it's hard to find what they do elsewhere. But again, like the idiots who whine about "stick-to-sports" with ESPN, there are a group of people out there using a "stick-to-sports" mantra as a cover for a political agenda (not talking about Kerb, who claims to agree with most of their political takes), and I find that disgusting. And for anyone else who doesn't like Deadspin, I say kick rocks!

Or, to put it more reasonably, you don't have to visit that site.

[Rockmaninoff]

Deadspin was cool when it started. I probably miss FreeDarko, Yaysports, and Wizznutzz more, though.

[ReasonablySober]

What kills me is this bulls*it from the memo to Deadspin staff yesterday:

“We have plenty of other sites that write about politics, pop culture, the arts, and the rest, and they’re the appropriate place for such work.”

They shuttered their politics site 10 days ago and fired everyone on the staff.

[paulpressey25]

I’d like to see the cash flow numbers from all these places. Deadspin, our local sports radio talk stations, MJS, etc.

Do not believe much of this is particularly profitable at the moment for primary reason electronic communication now has almost zero barriers to entry. But a complicating factor is that because there are no barriers, many sites have really poor writers, no editors and no strategy.

[ReasonablySober]

Deadspin from all acounts was profitable, and the fact that just about all their editors and writers that got laid off or quit and just as quickly jumped to other established joints should tell you that quality hasn't been an issue.

[trwi7]

I'm just glad we're on a different topic than our **** radio hosts.

[Kerb Hohl]

I think my issue is Deadspin has been riding ESPN for “sticking to sports” and it is specifically about politics when saying that.

When told to “stick to sports” their response is, “I can’t write about cats anymore?” No, it’s the politics. We all went there for the personalities and dumb, fun sidebar articles.

I guess that is what annoys me. I know Trump articles do numbers and I agree it should have existed as their was a base of readership.

I would have more sympathy if they didn’t spend months telling other writers that they are bad when said other sites are the doing the only thing keeping me sane (sticking to non-politics, an escape).

The conflation or other fun stuff AND politics and putting it under the “stick to sports” umbrella.

[paulpressey25]

Deadspin from all acounts was profitable, and the fact that just about all their editors and writers that got laid off or quit and just as quickly jumped to other established joints should tell you that quality hasn't been an issue.

Enron was profitable.