DG_Now

The Sports Media Thread

Recommended Posts

On 4/26/2016 at 1:02 PM, 2001mark said:
On 4/26/2016 at 1:19 PM, CS85 said:

 

Read Susan Fornoff's book, "Lady in the Locker Room" sometime.   As far the video goes it's just the same old crap.  Men and people in the internet are cretins.  Breaking news.

 

Man oh man, our girls finally made it to the big time! Little background and editorializing for the out-of-towners:


I feel bad for Julie, really, which is an unpopular opinion among Hawks fans, but she's the victim of two systems here: yes, the obvious systemic misogyny of the sports world and/or internet, but also a tenuous media landscape where one has to wear too many hats and at all times market oneself as a commodity. Before all this crap went down, Julie was an update anchor at WGN's startup sports talker, which failed miserably because no one had a goddamn clue how to program or market it, but no one really had a bad thing to say about her or to her. She turned up at the Score, the main sports station in town, after the afternoon host made Deadspin for saying he "only cares about [a TV reporter]'s giant boobs" and suddenly management realized maybe they could call off the dogs if a woman were actually on the air. Again, she worked on the air without incident, and was actually good at her job, insofar as she was able to read scores and headlines without comically babbling herself into a corner or pooping in her chair. By WSCR standards, she was Paul goddamn Harvey.

 

Where it all came crashing down (or up, apparently, if we're having this discussion) was the Patrick Kane investigation. After writing a thoughtful column about her own experiences as a lawyer and victim, she was either made or made herself to be the station's investigative journalist/commentator/rape expert, and if you think "boy, sounds hard to be a pundit, expert, and journalist on the same story at the same time," well, you're right, but that's what's gonna happen in the dying star of radio! This would be an untenable balancing act for any story, but in something as emotionally charged as "the best player on our best team might get sent up the river for rape," it brought out the unforgivable worst in people. The whole Kane story went sideways for Julie when it was revealed that her main source was the knife-wielding Raider Dad, who turned out to be about as reliable as you'd expect a knife-wielding Raider Dad to be. 

 

As that story ended, but not before she had to miss a day of work because someone threatened her, she went from focusing on Kane to various other injustices and inconveniences, like there not being enough women in management across pro sports, or someone eating a sandwich in her train car on the way to work, all of which prompted the same incendiary attackers and white-knighting defenders as the higher-stakes Kane stuff did. (By the way, this is almost all taking place on Twitter, the message board for idiots.) This whole charming gavotte would go on day after day, until one day she decided to call out TV's The Rock for making a cunnilingus joke on Monday Night Raw, which brought in a whole truckload of WWE fans who had nothing to do with Chicago sports, and who by all accounts were just as bad or worse as the Kane defenders. Now she's a viral video superstar and went from freelancer at the Score to salaried employee, so I guess once you ignore the nonstop storm of abuse, she did sorta come out on top, but the real shame of it all is that we have to view trolling and taking abuse on the internet as a viable way to market one's talents. It's all so darkly surreal and cynical that it would have made a good Paddy Chayefsky film if he were still alive.

 

As for Sarah Spain, well, she's been glomming onto every Chicago sports story around for the past ten years. You may remember her as "the girl with huge jugs who sold herself for Super Bowl tickets," and in the meantime she's bounced around (if you'll pardon the expression) various websites and broadcast outlets fully untrammeled by any sort of humor, pleasant voice, or trenchant insight. While Julie DiCaro unwittingly fell backwards into media hustling, Sarah Spain's been at it for-ev-er, and in the dark cynicism necessary for this story, her transformation from "just one of the guys, tee-hee!" flouncing to Very Serious Feminist can't really be divorced from the fact that she's since gotten on in both years and pounds, and an honest evolution in sensibilities is hard to assess from someone whose devotion to self-promotion predates the iPhone.

 

Should women take crap from people about sports on the internet? Yes, of course they should, but no worse than anyone else does. I have adversarial interactions with people here all the time, but as someone who cut his teeth trolling Usenet newsgroups in 1998, I do believe in some basic rules for being a prick online. I mean, I won't go full Gothamite and say "tut tut, attack the post, not the poster," because I will definitely attack the poster, but I don't believe in making legitimate threats to people, as I don't wish for people to make real threats to me. I won't claim to always be on my best behavior, and I've said things I'd rather take back, but I know where the line is, and some of these Twitter dopes don't. (Oddly enough, exposing someone's identity and calling their workplace to get them fired is a tactic of the social-justice side more than my random-jerk side.) Everyone should be able to talk crap to one another in a spirited but ultimately unserious fashion, but that requires much better behavior from the offenders and an admission that a little blue checkmark on Twitter does not place you beyond reproach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree insofar as that I hate when these videos (or other clearly feminist-leaning viral stuff comes into the mainstream) seem to hold some people hostage if they don't champion it as a victory for the internet.  

 

Sarah Spain is making herself look a little foolish right now, but honestly I feel trapped out of saying more, as I don't want to branded a sexist or misogynist for being critical of a woman.  It's confusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CS85 said:

I agree insofar as that I hate when these videos (or other clearly feminist-leaning viral stuff comes into the mainstream) seem to hold some people hostage if they don't champion it as a victory for the internet.  

 

Sarah Spain is making herself look a little foolish right now, but honestly I feel trapped out of saying more, as I don't want to branded a sexist or misogynist for being critical of a woman.  It's confusing. 

 

Granted, I only know you through these here boards and the mighty BASS, but I'm pretty confident that you know where the line is with this stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DG_Now said:

 

What's your point? Or, what are you talking about?

 

I'm just guessing, but Brass could be referring to way back in the day when Tirico allegedly claimed he wasn't black. According to Syracuse legend, Tirico was up for some African-American based award in Syracuse but he withdrew his name stating he was not black but Italian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously personal attacks about appearance or threats are outside the lines and women in sports have to deal with this :censored: every time they send out any tweet regardless of the tweet's content. If the reporter tweets poorly they deserve all the ridicule a man would receive, but dummies don't know the difference between attacking the content and attacking the person's appearance and it happens more with women. 

 

Using Darren Rovell as an example - He is a tonedeaf idiot who has a poor grasp on when is and is not an appropriate time to tweet about sports business, but I don't think many people who react derisively to his tweets attack his personal appearance. They attack him for being a dumbass, which he is. Mary Kay Cabot is a reporter on the Cleveland Browns beat and I happen to think she's not very good at her job, but it's not because she's a woman. She'll send out a bad opinion and the responses are sexual and demeaning in a physical way and that's obviously not okay. There is a double standard and a meathead problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Obviously personal attacks about appearance or threats are outside the lines and women in sports have to deal with this :censored: every time they send out any tweet regardless of the tweet's content. If the reporter tweets poorly they deserve all the ridicule a man would receive, but dummies don't know the difference between attacking the content and attacking the person's appearance and it happens more with women. 

 

Using Darren Rovell as an example - He is a tonedeaf idiot who has a poor grasp on when is and is not an appropriate time to tweet about sports business, but I don't think many people who react derisively to his tweets attack his personal appearance. They attack him for being a dumbass, which he is. Mary Kay Cabot is a reporter on the Cleveland Browns beat and I happen to think she's not very good at her job, but it's not because she's a woman. She'll send out a bad opinion and the responses are sexual and demeaning in a physical way and that's obviously not okay. There is a double standard and a meathead problem. 

Essentially this.

 

CS85's point about "I don't want to be branded a sexist..." is an interesting one.  Yeah, there are always those people who will call you a sexist for criticizing a woman or not liking the WNBA.  Or a racist for not liking rap music.  But reasonable people get it: "if she says something stupid, call her out like you would a man." I am not sure what you (CS) want to say but if it's that she has a history of (saying stupid things, unfairly criticizing the Bulls, or not criticizing the Blackhawks enough), that's fine.  If you want to throw in a barb about her weight, that's not.  Does that make you a sexist?  Maybe not; I am sure Jason Whitlock and Brian Windhorst take crap about weight, too.  

 

As someone not privy to these Chicago-based sports journalists' history, I only know what I saw in the video.  And I think it's an important video.  I don't care how bad they are at their jobs, the things people say are way, way, way over the line.  It happens to males too, I suppose, but there's a clear double standard.  To be a woman in the business, good looks are needed if you are not stellar at the job (and very few men or women are viewed that way).

 

It sounds like Sarah Spain is not particularly popular in Chicago (nor the other one to a lesser degree).  And that, in and of itself, is not a problem.  But the leash seems to be shorter for women and to a degree that's born from misogyny.  I happen to think this is an important video and I don't feel it is "clearly feminist-leaning" so much as common decency-leaning.

 

What kind of a person gets so upset at sports (or any other reporting) that they taunt a reporter about rape or their looks?  I think we know who the real losers are.  It's not cool to make "fat" taunts if you don't like something Windhorst says (and I suspect that happens to him).  But the sheer volume of crap women take along with the more threatening nature indicates a double standard, based in large part on "I don't want no women covering man's games."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to add that the only male reporter I'm aware of who gets comments on his looks is Windhorst, but I think even that has been toned down a bit (partly because he's off the LeBron/Cavs beat so you don't see him as much).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to the day when I am allowed to hate a woman in her job because she sucks, and not be heaped on with a lot of "you hate her just because she's a woman".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

I look forward to the day when I am allowed to hate a woman in her job because she sucks, and not be heaped on with a lot of "you hate her just because she's a woman".

You are sexist for even thinking that! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine is a hardcore MGTOW (google it, it's awkard), so whenever I post something about women in the news in a positive light, he'll call me a "beta" and it's remarkably uncomfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CS85 said:

A friend of mine is a hardcore MGTOW (google it, it's awkard), so whenever I post something about women in the news in a positive light, he'll call me a "beta" and it's remarkably uncomfortable.

 

So unemployed and heavily dependent on government handouts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CS85 said:

A friend of mine is a hardcore MGTOW (google it, it's awkard), so whenever I post something about women in the news in a positive light, he'll call me a "beta" and it's remarkably uncomfortable.

 

The MGTOW website is...ummm....interesting. People are weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Using Darren Rovell as an example - He is a tonedeaf idiot who has a poor grasp on when is and is not an appropriate time to tweet about sports business, but I don't think many people who react derisively to his tweets attack his personal appearance.

 

On the contrary, I've seen Darren Rovell's school photo come up a lot in sick twitter burns:

 

darren-rovell-7th-grade-photo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/05/01/curt-schilling-not-happy-bloody-sock-game-cut-from-red-sox-yankees-30-for-30/?tid=sm_fb

 

Pretty ham-fisted stuff from ESPN here. tl;dr: they reran a 30 for 30 on the 2004 Red Sox but cut Game 6 that Schilling pitched. That Schilling is a boor doesn't diminish one run over seven innings on a bad ankle to tie a series that Boston trailed 0-3. Pretty petty stuff, but at least no one's watching ESPN like they used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, the admiral said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/05/01/curt-schilling-not-happy-bloody-sock-game-cut-from-red-sox-yankees-30-for-30/?tid=sm_fb

 

Pretty ham-fisted stuff from ESPN here. tl;dr: they reran a 30 for 30 on the 2004 Red Sox but cut Game 6 that Schilling pitched. That Schilling is a boor doesn't diminish one run over seven innings on a bad ankle to tie a series that Boston trailed 0-3. Pretty petty stuff, but at least no one's watching ESPN like they used to.

I definitely don't agree with Curt Schilling in any way and I think memes (his favorite thing and the thing that got him fired) are generally idiotic, but that game is essential to that story. You can't cut that out. Would've been better to just not air that particular 30 For 30 anymore if they have an issue with his participation in it. 

 

EDIT: Bill Simmons, another former Espen employee, is in that one, isn't he? Did they leave him in the doc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty stupid.  History still happened.  Schilling was a great pitcher who had great moments that year.  That he is generally a buffoon now is really neither here nor there.  On the plus side, now I get to hear about how liberal and PC ESPN is despite letting Schilling's right-wing talking points go on for years (and suspending people who dared fired back at him about evolution).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, oddly enough, if you were to gloss over any game of the four Boston won, it would be Game 7, where Kevin Brown got kicked in the teeth and the game was effectively over by the end of the 3rd. Series was basically SCHILLING HEROICALLY PITCHES AND BLEEDS TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE and then a blowout to finish the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to ESPN, Schilling's segment was cut due to time constraints. As someone who worked in master control, I think that's probably all that happened. Considering the fact that live TV was involved, I seriously doubt it was anything more than a guy in the control room either having some fun or making a very poorly timed choice. Or it could have been a simple (albeit weird) coincidence - the master control operator needed to find 12 minutes and the Schilling segment fit the bill. In any case, as much as I'd like it to be, I'm reasonably sure that it wasn't some ESPN conspiracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sinister attempt by ESPN to erase Curt Schilling from history, or a sloppy job by an intern editing a mid-afternoon repeat program that maybe 50 people were actually interested in watching? You tell me what happened, and by tell me, I mean completely ignore the second possibility which kills the story in two seconds and focus entirely on the first.

 

Its a slow news day people and this needs to be as big of a story as possible. No detail is too mundane to gloss over nor is there a take is that is too nuanced not to cover. Did John Skipper himself order the edit himself? Or maybe he didn't even know about it and it was someone further down the food chain. If so than who? We need to talk to John Skipper to find out more, and by talk to him I mean use every word he says included none at all to paint a picture of him being directly involved in some way.

 

In closing, I wish all involved parties the worst. ESPN's baseball coverage has gone so deep into the crapper, its to the point where I would prefer the Sunday Night game be ended if ESPN is the only network that would be willing to broadcast that game. And as a great of a pitcher as Schilling was, from every account I've heard he's just miserable person being to be around. A well known fact even before he got the broadcasting gig. The fact that ESPN hired him in spite of that rep is a testament to how totally inept they are at hiring decent people, let alone people who are actually good at their job and its another reason why their network continues its downward spiral into mediocrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see John Skipper taking revisionist history tips from Vince McMahon...I don't think much of Schilling one way or another, but for ESPN to remove the bloody sock storyline from the documentary is WWE levels of pettiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.