The Not-So-Great Debators

Blogs. Are there any old people they can't alienate? There's lots of great sports blogs on the Internet, none of which are found on Sportsnet.ca. I like Sean McCormick's bold attempts at ruining his reputation as a fair and honest reporter, Jim Kelley writes a column, not a blog, and the rest either pander to the more idiotic contingent of their commenters or serve up bland tasteless cliché-gumbo (I'm looking at you, Jamie Campbell). None of the Sportsnet blogs are bad, they just don't offer up anything new or challenging. TSN blogs are either just more "Insider" news and rumours and not really in the true spirit of a blog, or are written by James Duthie and are awesome, if still pretty safe and avoid any real outspokenness.

There's a reason why official news outlets, whether online, print, or on TV are pretty safe. They're written by reporters, beat reporters mostly, who cover the same team for a whole season and as such don't have the leeway to write anything too challenging. Annoying the players, after all, means no golden juicy "110%," "it is what it is" and "he adds some MUCH NEEDED GRIT" quotes for you, Mr. Reporter Man! As a result, sports journalism is kind of stuck right now; traditional (meaning non-bloggy) sports media has become so invasive and omnipresent while also becoming stagnant in its ability to cover the game. It's paralyzed by its own omnipotence. Mainstream sports journalism is usually conservative and derivative and when it tries to be radical and push the limit, such as with sports-talk radio or anything written by the critically under-medicated Mike Toth, it comes across as contrived and formulaic as a Flavor of Love ho-spat.

At the other end of the spectrum, since it's perceived this way in world of mainstream journalism, sports and otherwise, are blogs. Blogs in the sporting world are viewed the same way as they are viewed in general: irresponsible, profane, unaccountable, low-brow and, of course, written by pale-faced virgins living in their mother's basement. Mainstream journalism is a highbrow, contemplative, respectable, gentlemanly art form undertaken only by those of the highest fortitude, wisest minds, and owning the greatest number of slaves. The reality, as is evident to anyone with an ounce of common sense, is that both are wrong. Newspapers, TV outlets, books, websites and blogs are just mediums. To ridicule a conduit of information rather than the information itself merely exposes one's ignorance of the conduit's content. We're supposed to dismiss blogs because some people are immature psychopaths? Hmm, better not read any books then.

Of course, this is common sense and everybody knows this. Wait, no they don't. My two favourite sports blogs, linked on the sidebar, are Joe Posnanski's and Firejoemorgan. There are lots more great sports blogs and I'll discover them in time, in the true organic tradition of Internet searching: Huh, what's that. *Click*. Lame. *Click*. Haha, cool. *Bookmark*. *Click* What an asshole. *Click* Ew!!!! OMG that’s DISGUSTING!!! *Bookmark*. ...And so forth. Both blogs were involved with, in a matter of speaking, last Monday's HBO show "Costas Now" where Bob Costas, wearing his father's best suit, (he seriously looks like he's posing for his fourth grade class photo) (Costas seems like the kind of kid who would’ve worn a suit to fourth grade class photos too) (right, like Michael Scott) (I wonder if they'd get along) (Hmm, maybe not, Costas seemed pretty cool on Newsradio years ago) interviews people about stuff. Firejoemorgan's intrepid Ken Tremendous was on the panel and Joe Posnanski, actually a columnist for the Kansas City Star and named best sports columnist in the U.S., was initially asked but did not appear, much to his apparent relief. Both websites give their impressions (Firejoemorgan's are here, read from the bottom) on the bizarre performance taken by noted writer Buzz Bissinger, which you can watch here if you hate yourself. Buzz says blogs are bad while across the U.S. (those who bother paying extra for HBO) other old people nod their heads in agreement while cleaning cat hair off their sock garters. Meanwhile, common sense everywhere watches and becomes paralyzed in frustration.

The Internet has a real problem with its interactiveness (new word). Old people have a point, the Internet is a pretty nasty place. People can hide behind anonymity and toss out the kinds of verbal grenades that would have you beaten to a pulp in any other circumstance. It's pretty shocking to see the depths of depravity that exist in both blogs and comment sections of otherwise innocent websites. When you read a thoughtful article that's even-handed and well-researched, as is usually the case with JoePosnanski's Star columns or Spector's Foxsports blog, and find comments like "yur a f.u.c.k.face go die in hell," it's a pretty disheartening portrayal of our society. People who don't like the internet don't like how id-driven human interests and opinions can be when in public society people will bother to control themselves. There is a positive in this though, and that's what pillars of the old-school sports journalism don't understand. Internet journalism, whether in blogs or independent websites, says all the things about sports that columnists and reporters won't say because of they’re in too deep. Bloggers can say David Eckstein sucks even if he tries hard, that is doesn’t matter if Darin Erstad played football in college, he can’t hit worth shit. This deliberate contrarianism (awesome new word) can be a problem when the subject is race or homosexual rights or any numbers of hot-button issues, but when the subject is sports that contrarian perspective can do wonderful things and spread terrific research and findings with incredible speed. Of course, that's often accompanied by, and greeted with, the requisite Internet ignorance, psychotic rage and profanity.

The idea of a debate between Internet and "traditional" journalism is rather silly, being that both are just vessels for ideas both good and bad. There's plenty of crappy journalism anywhere you look, the only difference is that on the Internet you become exposed, without consent, to the "thoughts" of everyone else who read the article. I've never really understood the value of having comments sections on "traditional" sports outlet websites, I have one since I figure only friends will say anything, but if you're Foxsports or TSN what's the point? They just turn into flame wars or get flooded with spam. At least if you go to an individual's blog you know what you're getting, it's like rolling into a bad neighbourhood and wondering why you got shot. Unfortunately then, whether you’re talking about a person's blog, an online publication or a professional website, there's going to be blowback in the comments section that you’ll have to ignore. If you want to get your crappy sports journalism somewhere else, and avoid these nuclear tirades and clever swearing loopholes, you can always read it here, here, or here.