The highlight of my living in Miami for all of 2008, besides once being aside the delightful Hank Goldberg at a Hialeah urinal trough, was listening to ESPN Pardon The Interruption co-Host Dan Le Batard’s weekday radio show on 790 The Ticket. Le Batard’s show, if you haven’t heard it, is the opposite of the typical auto-piloted, local yocal offering.
Sports is incidental as Le Batard riffs about whatever, which usually makes for appointment listening. He’s decidely anti-establishment, proffering provocative and oft-unpopular opinions.
Le Batard is one of the rare with ability to connect with old media consumers who still think ESPN Berman/Vitale/Holtz bots are relevant, while still plugging-in with the Unfortunatest Generation. (Those growing up on CollegeHumor.com.)
With that backdrop, jawdropping was his MIAMI HERALD piece on Friday bemoaning how TMZ.com has soiled sports journalism. Lede:
I remember the first time I felt the shift. It was while viewing a photograph of Alex Rodriguez that made me feel dirty in June 2007. He was getting on a hotel elevator late at night with a curvy blonde woman who wasn’t his wife. It was gotcha! gossip disguised as . . . what? Investigative journalism? Regardless, it was in a major American newspaper. And it felt to me like the game changed forever that day.
Usually reserved for the martini-tipping mediasaurus, Le Batard goes on to decry the subsequent prying into personal lives of athletes by TMZ and the like.
… sports journalism is being forced to evolve into selling its principles and fairness (its soul, in other words) in exchange for clicks and cash, a trafficking not that far removed from porn.
It is either that or lose money and ratings and eyeballs to people who don’t make any kind of moral stand. The mainstream media might have wanted to stay out of the TMZ-ization of the Tiger Woods story on principle, but it literally couldn’t afford to do so because viewers were going to go find it somewhere. Show me the restaurant that tells you what you should be eating, instead of giving you what you want to consume, and I’ll show you an empty restaurant.
The marketplace has spoken, loudly, and you can’t and don’t argue with a mob.
So much irony ensnarled in what Le Batard lays out in that small selection. Don’t know where to begin.
1) The NEW YORK POST, which Le Batard describes as a “major American newspaper,” has long been a gossip broadsheet masquerading as a traditional print outlet. The NYP’s flagship brand, Page Six, inspired the creation of TMZ and is the progenitor of a now-enormous online gossip industry. If you took a poll of New Yorkers and asked them if the Post was a newspaper or a tabloid, I have no doubt the latter would win in a landslide.
The NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, for the most part, is no different.
Despite that, Le Batard cites the New York Post breaking a salacious story about Alex Rodriguez cheating on his wife as a seminal moment in the decline of sports journalism ethics.
2) Le Batard writes, “The mainstream media might have wanted to stay out of the TMZ-ization of the Tiger Woods story on principle, but it literally couldn’t afford to do so because viewers were going to go find it somewhere.”
The Tiger Woods accident, because it could affect golf, was a legitimate sports journalism endeavor. The sports journalist of record on the subject, golf writer Doug Ferguson of the ASSOCIATED PRESS, reported after the accident that Elin broke out the back window of the SUV with a golf club and rescued Woods from the vehicle. (A prospect I’m guessing that made even Le Batard chuckle.)
We now know from police that the AP account came directly from Elin. If not for TMZ subsequently contradicting Elin’s story, the wife of Tiger Woods would’ve provided the accepted version of what happened that night for all eternity. (Days later, Tiger legitimized the TMZ reportage of marital strife leading to the accident by admitting “transgressions” and then “infidelity.”)
If it was up to the AP and other traditional journalists, there would’ve been no story for viewers to find “somewhere.”
3) Le Batard writes, “Show me the restaurant that tells you what you should be eating, instead of giving you what you want to consume, and I’ll show you an empty restaurant.”
The very network that Le Batard draws a paycheck from is a direct contradiction to that statement.
Can Le Batard honestly say with a straight face that the Bill Plaschke, Jay Mariotti, Woody Paige-driven Around The Horn on ESPN would have millions of viewers if it wasn’t for ESPN force-feeding it to us? That Mike & Mike would have a an enormous audience if it wasn’t for the relentless over-promotion of the show by the network and other Disney outlets?
Weekdays, ESPN is the only sports media television show in town. So if you want sports Monday through Friday, say hello to Kevin Blackistone & Co.! (ATH host Tony Reali is great, deserves better supporting cast.)
For sports fans, ESPN indeed “tells you what you should be eating.” Every single day.
Because newspapers held similar monopolies across the country, the quality of the product was, in many cases, incidental. When aggressive, web-based media outlets (see Politico) popped up and gave consumers not only choice, but a better product, “traditional journalism” was called into financial accountability.
Is there something wrong with that?
4) Le Batard writes, “The marketplace has spoken, loudly, and you can’t and don’t argue with a mob.”
Didn’t Le Batard just get done telling us that the opinion of the marketplace matters? Now he’s calling the same marketplace a “mob“?
5) Le Batard writes, “… sports journalism is being forced to evolve into selling its principles and fairness (its soul, in other words) in exchange for clicks and cash, a trafficking not that far removed from porn.”
The reality of the newspaper business is that because of its monopoly for so many years, it was as insanely a profitable business this side of the pharmaceutical industry.
The desperation some old media outlets have shown during the inevitable downsizing, mainly with advertising, has been regrettable. Eventually the industry will find its footing and the business of serious sports journalism will continue to go on as usual.
Though the days of colossal print media outlets and parent companies are over, traditional journalism is not facing a similar demise. In fact, the smaller the newspaper business is, the less conflict of interests exist in reporting. You could argue that the collapse of the old print media biz model is a positive development for traditional journalism.
And just because less people are taking the paper doesn’t mean that the consumers who always cared about good journalism are reading any less of it.
6) Snip revisited: “It is either that or lose money and ratings and eyeballs to people who don’t make any kind of moral stand. The mainstream media might have wanted to stay out of the TMZ-ization of the Tiger Woods story on principle, but it literally couldn’t afford to do so because viewers were going to go find it somewhere.”
I watch ESPN 24/7 because of my gig. The network has taken a pass on covering 99% of what TMZ and other gossips have reported since the Thanksgiving accident. Are ESPN’s ratings any less today because of that?
SI.com, same thing. Does that site have fewer visitors today because it hasn’t been parroting reports from TMZ?
Are you less likely to read your local newspaper because it isn’t trafficking in Tiger rumors produced by the gossips?
No, no and no.
7) Le Batard writes, “Next thing you know, just a few years after the A-Rod photo, our appetite for celebrity and sports and scandal had grown so insatiable and profitable that a broken professional golfer had to give a 13-minute sex confessional in front of his poor mother, a room full of support-group friends and more than 20 million Americans on TV.
Charlie Sheen doesn’t have to do this after allegedly holding a knife to his wife’s neck. Skid Row drummer Phil Varone doesn’t have to do this after having not one, not two but three ménage à trois (Is that the plural? Ménage troises?) with three mother-daughter combos on one tour.
“But a rock-star entertainer who hits a golf ball for a living somehow had to grovel before America after a frenzied media realized just how much money there was to be made in and around his famous shame.”
This is the heart of the subject, and the height of irony. Le Batard on his radio show often delights in the bizarre behavior of non-sports celebrities as reported by the tabloids. So why do athletes get a pass? What’s the difference?
The difference is “traditional journalists” have, for whatever reason, ignored the personal peccadilloes of their subjects for a century. Peccadilloes I might add that have often affected the outcome of games. (See Tiger missing tournaments.)
Now athletes are finally being treated like the genuine mainstream celebrities that they are. Once upon a time, they were able to enjoy their movie star-like trappings of fame without the accompanying drawbacks. Online sports media has only now, after 100 years, evened up the reporting score.
On the subject of public apologies, there’s a good reason why Charlie Sheen isn’t required to confess in public and Tiger is. Companies and ordinary people across the globe spent billions of their hard-earned dollars under a false pretense presented by Tiger.
That’s like billions being donated to a minister of a church, who then turns out to be a devil-worshipper.
When you watch Charlie Sheen’s TV shows or buy his Hanes underwear, you already know he’s a bad guy. The friendly image he presents on his TV show is understood to not be real. Hanes knew, as we all did, that Sheen previously patronized prostitutes under the auspices of Heidi Fleiss before it signed Sheen to an endorsement deal.
How many people who bought Hanes underwear where surprised and/or disappointed that Charlie Sheen did something unseemly? Exactly zero.
But with Tiger, everything he represented was deceptively presented. Tiger signed a social contract with the public, and when he took a billion dollars out of our pockets based on abject fraud, he owed all involved an apology.
I love Le Batard. He’s talented and a good guy. I’m not here to tear him apart personally. We need more Le Batards on ESPN to balance out the mind-numbing pap produced by the network every day.
But to his point, online sports media, be it TMZ or otherwise, has done nothing to diminish standards of sports journalism in the main. Or, as he contends, the standards of the sports media-consuming public.
What online sports media has done is corrected a 100-year-old oversight in celebrity reporting. And that correction has naturally, and appropriately, caught the interest of the public.
Again, it’s important to understand that many, if not the majority of the reported stories involving the personal affairs of athletes affect the outcome of the sports they play. While the other portion of reportage is merely mirroring how the entertainment media covers its subjects - which is long overdue.
If reporting sports that way is wrong, then I hope I’m never right.
3:49 pm on March 7th, 2010
Mike & Mike is forced onto a large percentage of ESPN Radio affiliates, even though the show (from what I’ve seen) has seldom done much to move the needle in the ratings, particularly in the all-important Persons 25-54 demographic.
5:22 pm on March 7th, 2010
Tiger didn’t owe us any kind of apology. He didn’t sell himself as anything other than a golfer. He chose to keep his personal life as private as possible, and when we finally got a glimpse and realized it wasn’t what we thought, we were shocked. Nothing more, nothing less. All this piece seems to do is try and justify why it’s okay to report on the gossip side of sports. And if that’s your cup ‘o tea, then that’s perfectly fine. To each their own. But don’t try and make it sound like it’s ultimately necessary.
7:30 pm on March 7th, 2010
@Adam
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
9:08 pm on March 7th, 2010
Only the 20 year oold pin heads listen to La Bastard….he is an imbecile!
11:52 pm on March 7th, 2010
Great articles Brooks. “mike & mike” blows cause I was forced to watch it after Imus kicked off PMSNBC. Once again, great article. U speak the truth.
12:02 am on March 8th, 2010
As a loyal listener of Dan’s I suspect he would agree with most of the things you said about ESPN. If you really listened to him for a year you would have heard him take issue with the network consistently and on a number of issues. ” The very network he draws a paycheck from,” is a lazy assumption and demonstrates that you are not as familiar with him and where he stands as you suggest to your readers. I take exception to you misleading them.
The only people to whom Tiger should have to apologize are his wife and children. Anyone else who thinks he or she deserves an apology is self-involved and and pitiful. I believe the vast majority of the people who are consuming the details of his affairs do so for entertainment. However, contrary to what much of the media (new and old) would have you think, these people don’t do so with a silly since of entitlement that Tiger owes them something. You are great at bringing us this kind of fluff Brooks, I enjoy it daily. Don’t take what you do more seriously than it warrants.
12:23 am on March 8th, 2010
A GREAT column on Tiger’s apology
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/02/24/notes022410.DTL
1:01 am on March 8th, 2010
Thx, great article, not sure why more people can’t see this more clearly.
6:14 am on March 8th, 2010
well said Brooks and great comment Adam.
Don’t really care about all the extra stuff off the field. i watch sports for what they do on the field and separate their personalities or misgivings.
Some people like the gossip and that’s okay too. There is a market for it.
I’ve always wondered what coverage would have been in the old days if the media would have been like it is now. Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, etc.
Would their iconic figures have been tarnished somewhat in peoples eyes if things they did would have been reported then?
7:12 am on March 8th, 2010
I don’t think LeBatard gets paid from ESPN. And he doesn’t do endorsements so he can say whatever the bleep he wants. IN YOUR MAW! I have to give Brooks a big ol’ SUEY on this one.
9:09 am on March 8th, 2010
WOW. what a beatdown. nice job brooks. one of the best thing ive read in a long time.
9:30 am on March 8th, 2010
ESPN sucks
1:03 pm on March 8th, 2010
I guess I am in the minority here, but I am a fan of Mike & Mike, it is good drive-time listening (to me) and I can listen in the office without fear of offending others in the office (hello Bommer and Carton!). Plus living in the DC Metro area, the ESPN station is owned by Dan Snyder, and after M&M it is crap. The Sports Junkies on WJFK are fun, but again, not so good for the office.
Guess I just don’t understand all the Mike & Mike haters.
6:51 pm on March 8th, 2010
Hey Brooks Get over it Lebatard rocks.
7:19 pm on March 8th, 2010
LeBatard-1, Brooks-0. Pitiful arguments.
7:55 pm on March 8th, 2010
Brooks - This may be the longest piece you’ve ever written. A tad DEFENSIVE, no? Relax, you went all Buzz Bissinger (in reverse) on Le Betard. C’mon, plenty of your own readers told you you at times went overboard with Tiger coverage. Photo of Tiger’s plane in Ariz???? That doesn’t live up to your “it could effect golf” edict re journalistic necessity The whole world knew he was going to rehab the day after his statement; the plane pic was unnecessary. If you’re so darned sure of how good you are, stop worrying about and criticizing other outlets and just do your thing.
8:01 pm on March 8th, 2010
Adam and Joe, Gillette, Buick, Accenture, Gatorade, Tag Huer, don’t manufacture golf equipment. You probably didn’t see Sally Jenkins article, written within a week after the news broke. She is the daughter of Dan Jenkins, the 70-something mainstream golf writer from Ft. Worth, who goes back to the Hogan/Nelson/Snead era. She ripped Tiger up one side and down the other. She was right.
8:27 pm on March 8th, 2010
Brooks - Your like a little cry baby girl, i love your post of chicks pics but come on man stop being a bitch….
hogfat - Dan does PTI, thats an ESPN paycheck right there douche.
6:07 am on March 9th, 2010
Brooks, it is adorable that you set up LeBatard as a straw man when he is kind of the antidote to everything that is kinda terrible about “sports reporting”. Basically, all the Vecseys, Alboms, Thompsons of the “old media” make up everything, and the “new media” have no journalistic training. But instead, you believe that…
>But with Tiger, everything he represented was deceptively presented. Tiger signed a social contract with the public, and when he took a billion dollars out of our pockets based on abject fraud, he owed all involved an apology.
So, if I bought a Buick (fat chance, I’m under 80) or bought Nike golf products, I must have purchased them believing that his belief in monogamy would save me some strokes? The only fraud, as LeBatard has pointed out, is this weird sociological phenomenon, that somehow a person unconnected to me owes me anything. If the products Tiger pushed were defective, then I can see how the social contract broke down. But otherwise, I truly do not care.
Frankly, the only “crime” LeBatard has committed is to ask for empathy for figures that the Mariottis, Baylesses, a million local sports talk radio judges, and another million internet bloggers get a raging hard-on to tear down, because, to be honest, they all want to be them. However, God saw fit not to give you the skills to be successful at sports, and your envy of them compels you to ruin them.
Also, you need your page-views. Good luck with that. You do realize that sports are merely games and distractions? I suppose on one hand, I am happy you haven’t put your efforts towards politics or something of actual substance, since we have have enough untalented and idiotic morons using that as a pursuit already.
>my face when you get 8 replies
philiprivers.jpg
11:54 am on March 9th, 2010
LeBatard may indeed do PTI, but it is not where he ‘draws his paycheck from’ as he is a columnist for the Miami Herald and has his own rdio show (I thought these things would have been obvious to you all as this is the basis of the article).
Brooks, if you want to talk about contradictions, look at the points you made, and then the content/style of your site.
1:43 pm on March 9th, 2010
Lebbitz, PTI gives him a paycheck monthly so he still draws a paycheck from ESPN regardless of his Radio show or failed newspaper crap…
Brooks is still a biatch….
1:44 pm on March 9th, 2010
So let me guess Miami Herald pays LeBatard for being on ESPN?? Jack ass he still gets a paycheck from the 4 letter network.
2:11 pm on March 9th, 2010
Has the best radio show ever, even though he rides both sides of this fence for sure I still love his show, Mostly because of Stugotz dumb ass but they are the interview kings! ESPN pays that man don’t get it twisted, Dan ain’t stuuuuupid get that money homie I aint mad at ya!
2:41 pm on March 9th, 2010
You guys are taking the term ‘draws his paycheck’ literally. Sure he draws A paycheck from Bristol, but it is not his priomary one (which the term refers to). From his radio show, the Herald, and ESPN, ESPN pays him the least and is the most disposable.
He could have stayed more involved at ESPN, but prefers his lesser role so he can say things like Tony Kornhole did without being suspended. I don;’ think he worries too much about losing his four digit pay from the four letter network.
3:02 pm on March 9th, 2010
I have heard him say on his radio show that he doesn’t take a check from ESPN, and I don’t think he was joking. He said its for the same reason he doesn’t do endorsements…that way he can say what he wants. The only two parties he can’t piss off are Lincoln Financial (owns 790) and The Miami Herald. Other than that: Whateva! I’ll do what I want!
3:04 pm on March 9th, 2010
Exacto.
3:31 pm on March 9th, 2010
Yeah Dan is doing work for free… When you work at Bristols accounting department and know for a fact this guy don’t get a cut let me know until then somehting you THINK you heard on his show is null and void…. EXACTO… If Dan says something like Tony did he will be switching radio stations and joining Sid on 560… Not being on ESPN that much doesn’t give you a hood pass.. lol even Dan knows that…
3:36 pm on March 9th, 2010
I could care less how much he makes from them, regardless it’s more then we make at our normal jobs, I don’t care that the radio station pays him more or that Miami Herald does too, If he will work for ESPN for free he should give the Herald a break too since no one buys newspapers anyways….
Brooks get over your jealousy of Dan
Dan should help our weightwatchers and do an endorsement with them!!
3:45 pm on March 9th, 2010
The point is he does not hold back on his opinions because he is scared ESPN will fire/suspend him.
If you think Dan has not said worst things than Tony, you are not paying attention. Listen to his show the day after Tony was suspended. He said much worse things about Tony, Berman, and a host of other ESPN personalities.
3:46 pm on March 9th, 2010
And btw, I don’t need to be a Bristol accountant to confirn the reposts because … I am LeBatard! Eat it
6:52 pm on March 9th, 2010
Your argument is overblown, in order to justify your 12,000 Tiger related “posts” you write a slam article about one of the only mainstream media personalities who is ashamed at the direction that all media outlets have been forced to take in order to keep up with the TMZers. Weak. Just lump yourself in with all the sensationalists.
9:02 pm on March 9th, 2010
“ATH host Tony Reali is great, deserves better supporting cast.”
Great?? At what, pushing a mute button and throwing wads of paper at a TV camera? Really??
C’mon man!
9:50 pm on March 9th, 2010
Lebbitz is the man
7:08 am on March 10th, 2010
I would EAT IT but Dan already did!!!
7:13 am on March 10th, 2010
Dan says alot of bad things about people sure but he isn’t calling black men Coons, just ask Luther Campbell.. Lebbitz wouldn’t have to worry about being fired the 305 would go to his Miami Beach home and LYNCH his fat ass. I still love ya Dan, I’ll be listening again today at 4pm when I leave work..