On Thursday I wrote that I thought Bob Costas booked Friday Night Lights author Buzz Bissinger on his HBO show alongside Deadspin blogger Will Leitch because he wanted precisely the explosive, Jerry Springer-style confrontation that their panel discussion turned out to be.
On Friday Costas called me to, in his words, "Correct your entirely incorrect assertion."
"Did I knowingly set up this kind of dynamic? Not only did I not do it but I would argue that it would not have been in my best interest to do it," Costas said. "I don't like Jerry Springer-type scenes. I prefer light over heat."
In fact, Costas said he expected Bissinger, a gifted writer and Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, to show the same kind of thoughtful approach in his comments on the panel that he shows in his writing.
"I feel bad for Buzz," Costas said. "When you have a body of work like he has, when you have the talent and intellect that he has -- you know, even the greats can have a bad day. He's a Hall of Famer who had a bad game."
So what did Costas want his panel discussion with Bissinger, Leitch and Cleveland Browns wide receiver Braylon Edwards to accomplish? Costas said he hoped for an exploration of blogs that included both an acknowledgment of the talents of the best bloggers and an examination of whether some blogs are so mean-spirited that they drag down the discourse. Costas is troubled by what he sees as an over-reliance in the blogosphere on insults rather than arguments. But he says he recognizes the value of the best blogs and doesn't paint all blogs with the same brush, as some have suggested he does.
"I'm perfectly willing to defend the criticisms that I actually believe and to not only defend them but to re-emphasize them," Costas said. "But my observation never was that bloggers as a group or bloggers in general have no insight or have no talent or have nothing worthy to contribute. I emphatically don't think that."
Of Leitch in particular, Costas said, "Will is a talented guy who is funny and who makes a lot of interesting and in my view valid points." But Costas also decried the way Leitch at times takes "sub-sophomoric delight in schoolyard-level potshots and insults which ought to be beneath him."
Costas seems to be most repulsed not by bloggers but by blog commenters. During Tuesday's show I thought Costas conflated the two, and as Michael Schur of Fire Joe Morgan, who was also featured on Costas's HBO show, wrote after the show aired, "Picking a random blog comment and wielding it as a club to bash 'blogs is like picking a random romance novel off an airport bookstore shelf and saying, 'This book sucks. F--- you, Tolstoy -- your medium is worthless!'" But in our conversation Friday I thought Costas grasped the distinction and made some fair points about lowbrow blog comments. There's no question that many blog comments are appalling. The question is whether bloggers should banish the appalling comments. As the political blogger Kevin Drum has noted, moderating comments is much, much harder than it sounds.
In Costas's view, professional writers allowing anyone to post anything in the comments section below their work "would be the equivalent of HBO just leaving the microphone open after the show and letting anyone who wants to rush the stage." That argument works for Costas's medium -- television -- but I'm not sure it does for the Internet. After all, doesn't "leaving the microphone open" and "letting anyone who wants to" basically describe YouTube?
In our conversation, I found Costas generally open to criticism. I found Edwards' presence on the panel baffling, and Costas said that although "Braylon is obviously a very bright young man, a very likable young man," he wishes he could have had an athlete who would offer a specific insight about how athletes are affected by blogs. He also said he would have preferred to have another online sports writer on the panel, someone who might have bridged the gap between Bissinger and Leitch.
If the panel discussion had been the other way around -- if it had been the blogger screaming obscenities at the Pulitzer Prize winner -- I think Costas would have taken a firmer hand as a moderator. However, I do not believe there's much point in viewing Costas as an enemy of the sports blogosphere. That would be as much an oversimplification as the opinions Bissinger stated on Costas' show. If Costas' problem is with the "airport romance novels" of the web, and not the "Tolstoys" then he actually seems to be in agreement with Schur and Bethlehem Shoals.
Leitch was treated poorly. But sports bloggers normally have a pretty high tolerance for rudeness, and bearing a grudge for more than a few days on this issue would eventually reek of crocodile tears.
As Leitch said on the show, people tend to choose their words more carefully when talking to each other directly rather than over the internet. The same goes for being on TV: Having talked to Costas, I do believe him when he says he wasn't looking for Jerry Springer-style confrontation, even though every talk show moderator will say the same thing after a night of particularly "good TV" crosses a few lines.Whatever Costas' plans for the roundtable were, they aren't the point anymore. Costas has scheduled an hour-long interview with Leitch on his syndicated radio show, and he can show by asking Leitch pointed but fair questions -- and giving Leitch a chance to answer -- that he means it when he says he didn't want his show to be the ambush Bissinger made it.
Interestingly, although Costas was wrong to use the tired "blog from their mother's basement" cliche when he discussed blogs in March, he also has made good points on this issue. He's right when he says "a portion of Internet sports discourse ... consists of nothing more than potshots, ad hominem arguments, ignorance and invective." He's right when he says "There's a difference between being edgy and abusive." I think (and I'm sure Leitch agrees) that tough, pointed questions about Deadspin -- including some of the issues Jason Whitlock raised in his recent column -- are appropriate.
Which brings us back to Tuesday night's panel discussion, where few tough, pointed questions could be asked because Bissinger hogged all the time allotted to the segment with his profane tirade. I no longer believe Costas wanted to set up a Jerry Springer-style confrontation, and I think Costas is open to a continuing dialogue with bloggers about the changing face of the sports media landscape. Given that Costas is one of the most influential voices in sports, bloggers should embrace that dialogue.
ADVERTISEMENT
_thumbnail.jpg "NASCAR Cowboy Hats")
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Well said. I think one positive we can take away from all of this is that some of the MSM types are learning that you can't classify everyone who writes on the internet as a hated, lowly "blogger."
Like all media there are people who use it well and people who don't. Buzz obviously uses the written word rather beautifully while his TV rapport is quite the opposite.
Posted at 8:10PM on May 3rd 2008 by enrico
2. Mose Shrute (sorry, can't separate the two) invoking Tolstoy is a bit much, but I got the same impression as you after listening to Costas' radio show today: Costas actually hates blog commentors and about 5% of blog posts on the big-boy sites.
What he may not realize is that commentors often feel there's only 2 way to be heard: shoot or shock.
Buzz on the other hand, made a fool of himself with that explosion: he's a Puliter Prize winner yet he looked like a self-righteous 16 year old hippie talking about the Iraq war in civics class... just juvenile and with zero perspective.
Posted at 8:26PM on May 3rd 2008 by August West
3. *edit* shout not shoot above
Posted at 8:28PM on May 3rd 2008 by August West
4. If Bob Costas (or anyone else) doesn't like blog comments, he doesn't have to read them. It's that simple.
Posted at 10:04PM on May 3rd 2008 by T
5. You're giving Costas way too much credit. And, I actually like him. If he didn't want the Jerry Springer style show, why didn't he give Leitch a chance to speak? Why didn't he make one counterpoint to Bissinger? He knew what he was getting. Or, maybe he doesn't have the balls to control his show. Guess that's always a possiblity.
He could have easily pointed to the very good blogs out there that are written by excellent journalists. I'm from Kansas City, so I will give the example of Joe Posnanski. He has a great blog. He could have mentioned Fanhouse. He could have mentioned any number of excellent blogs that aren't based on the "shock and awe" style of some, but he didn't because he knew what he was getting.
Posted at 10:16PM on May 3rd 2008 by Wade
6. Costas is one of the most biased so called sports commentators I have ever seen. He stoops to blog like BS spin often in his stories and he is mean spirited and just plain off more times than not. His crusifiction of Barry Bonds as the "poster boy" of steroids was some of the most one sided judgmental actions I've ever seen a sports commentator stoop to and frankly I turn the channel when Bob comes on. He is a lame pansie who wishes he was an athelete but never had the guts to be one. Costas critisizing bloogers is just plain idiotic ... he is worse about not having real facts to back up his opinionated BS spin that he spouts and he is a legend in his own mind. Get a life Bob ... You couldn't make a pimple on a good commentators keaster!
Posted at 12:27AM on May 4th 2008 by Roger Reikilight
7. Buzz did nothing in my eye but reemphasize my belief in the elitist mentality that writers and sports casters have in this country. If you didn’t pay your dues as a copy boy in the pressroom if you didn’t ride the bus to cover the Kentucky Cornels then you don’t have the right to write, speak out or convey your opinion on anything that you may be passionate about. Are there bad blogs out there Of course. Are there poor tasted responses from some of the people who read them yes. But that doesn’t mean the medium in itself is bad or in poor taste. I applaud the fact that bloggers put themselves out there and are open to the public criticism that comes along with it. God knows Buzz and Costas would never allow such openness themselves . As for Buzz trying to emasculate Leitch in asking him if he had ever heard of W.C. Heinz, how “sophomoric” was that? In talking about the speed in witch blogs are written and how its dumbed down the country, hasn’t he ever read Heinz’ piece Death of A Race Horseand how that was written? I will admit I am not a fan of Costas never have been don’t think I ever will be. And I have never read anything Buzz has written. But at least if Bob wrote a blog I could tell him the reasons. And if buzz did maybe I would have read him.
Murph
Posted at 1:03AM on May 4th 2008 by murph207
8. The failure on the part of Costas to control the exchange on his show was the most disappointing aspect of what happened last week. I fondly remember the quasi-rambling interview style on his show “Later” from years ago and how it was a powerful way to learn so much more about his subjects.
So it was surprising to see him allow things disintegrate to a Jerry Springer-esque spectacle. Still the wide variations between his own efforts within his medium should be a vivid example of what happens daily on Deadspin and other blogs.
And, as maddening as it can be at times, commenting is a critical piece of the medium. Most blogs prosper as a sort of community. You can be a fan of a team but, for the most part, the relationship is one direction, either via their work on the field or the work of the sports journalist.
Sites like Deadspin are more about the community itself and their varied interests of which sports in the commonality. The comments are where this prospers, for better and for worse.
Perhaps Costas should read the comments to the post below on the death of Eight Belles which, in less than twelve hours has more entries than any other on Fanhouse. It’s also interesting to note the tone of those posts as well.
Because certainly Buzz understands the interest in such incidents on the part of the public and the need for sportswriters to express what happened in an artful manner. I’m sure many of the commenters, who are expressing strong emotions today, will be interested in buying a well-written book about it a year from now.
Posted at 6:33AM on May 4th 2008 by kleph
9. Costas is such a weasel. Enough of this everyone has a right to know.
Posted at 7:27AM on May 4th 2008 by buhlinger
10. Gimme a break. Bloggers are much like those so-called sports fans on sports talk radio shows that SCREAM at each other, trying to talk over the host, who often is another idiot.
If I wanted to build a roof, I'd hire a carpenter. If my toilet was leaking, I'd hire a plumber. And so on. The majority (95 percent) of those who blog just want to have others HEAR them. They are not accomplished or even trained journalists reporting anything of substance. It takes a bit of training in the REAL world of news to know the who, what and wheres of a story.
Blogging? It sucks. It is amateur hour.
Go back to work kiddies and enjoy your "15 seconds of fame" on the blogging network.
Posted at 9:21AM on May 4th 2008 by bobdunk
11. Hmmm...methinks Roger just kinda made Costas' point with his comments there. Seriously, it wasn't possible to get across the idea that you don't like/believe Costas without crossing the line to blatant insults and general obnoxiousness?
Posted at 6:03PM on May 4th 2008 by Beatuofa
12. I'm sorry bobdunk, but who forces you read blogs?
Posted at 9:38PM on May 4th 2008 by bizzo5000
13. I don't understand why Costas didn't have on an athlete that blogs? Curt Shilling, Chris Cooley. Other ones I don't know about... Braylon Edwards came off as smart, nice, but had no more to add to the conversation than any other of the 3,000 major professional athletes in US Sports.
As much as I find Curt Shilling to be a blowhard, he could have added something truly interesting.
Posted at 8:39AM on May 6th 2008 by Biebs