my 2 cents...

The Bissinger/Lietch debate about sports blogs and journalism doesn't seem to affect this blog much when you first look at it. I don't really write about sports. I'm not a journalist, nor am I trying to be. I noticed the debate because I'm a deadspin.com reader. I don't generally comment on there, but I do enjoy reading the comments.
But before I delve too much, a quick recap. Bob Costas hosted a forum on which he invited Buzz Bissinger (of "Friday Night Lights" and "3 Days in August" credits, among many others), Will Leitch (of Deadspin.com and "God Save the Fan") and Braylon Edwards (of the Cleveland Browns) to talk about the blogs and their impact on sports journalism. The debate was actually ugly and unhelpful. Bissinger was very angry and it was hard for me to discern what it is he exactly hated about blogs, but the money quotation that's getting thrown around is (and I'm just gonna paraphrase) blogs are devoted to speed and cruelty. The debate that ensued was really not a debate as much as it was a piling on in an emotional and unthinking way. And as such, I wasn't going to say much about it. (Besides others have put more thought into it and have interesting thoughts on it.) But what does stir me to say something (I know you're thinking, Joe, you're writing because we demand your thoughts on this, but no...) was Bissinger's latest comments on NPR.
Here it was, finally, the reason Bissinger got so upset. And, you know what? I surprisingly, agree with him (on some stuff). I agree that it's enough with Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. I agree that there's a lot of dumbing down going on in the media and in our culture. And I appreciate that he's willing to say he was too angry to really make his point.
What I don't get is how blogs are responsible for the way that cruelty sells in America right now. It seems to me that tabloid rags have been doing stuff like this for a long time. And most people I know realize this and ignore the National Inquirer and its ilk. If there's any problem with how blogs work now, it's that we're not sure which ones are good and which ones aren't and it's not as easy to tell as with tabloids, which are printed up on that newstock and are put in a row at the cash registers of supermarkets.
I think the urge for cruelty that Bissinger talks about is definitely in our culture, but where he blames blogs, I blame people. The blog is just a template. It takes a person to make it good or bad. And yes, a lot of people post anonymously on the web so they can be cruel. But that's a symptom of larger problems, I think. And it's seen in a lot of places besides blogs.
Which brings me to the part of the Costas-talk where Matt Leinhart and his beer bong pictures are brought up. I agree with Bissinger that Leitch's defense of the Lienhart photos as being "humanising" was a little off. It was probably posted (and I don't know, because I've never even so much as talked to anyone at deadspin) because it was funny. And because it would bring people to the site.
But, you know, the secondary effect of it is that it does make Leinhart more human. And I think that's a good thing. I don't want to root for these marketing giants anymore. I look at Michael Jordan now and admire what he accomplished, but I don't care about it. Same for Derek Jeter. I don't see them as people. I see them as brands. And as such, I don't care much about them any more than I do Nike, McDonalds or General Motors. In the rush to be a global marketing force, they've lost the humanity, the ability to seem relatable to me.
This isn't to take anything away from their accomplishments. Jeter's a great shortstop. Jordan's probably the best ever. But as they've made themselves marketable (and God bless them for cashing in on their fame. I would if I could.) they have to pretend to be these perfect people who have no opinions and have no fun that might be considered offensive. (Remember the story about Jordan where he said (paraphrasing again) Republicans buy shoes too?)
I sort of feel bad for them, now. (Especially with the NFL just kicking guys out of the league for crimes that are never prosecuted, much less proved.) (Though it is hard to feel bad for a guy who makes a pretty nice chunk of cash, but still.) I wouldn't want to have to deal with the papparazzi he probably has to deal with daily. Much less the camera-phone that took these pictures. It does suck.
But it's not like Lienhart did anything wrong. No crime. All he was doing was enjoying the lifestyle his job (and the cash that comes with it) afford him. So, I don't see him as being "humiliated" as Bissinger says this was intended to do. I see him as a young guy who I can kind of relate to now. (Kind of.) And in a vicarious way that goes beyond dreams of playing QB, I like him a little more now. Much in the same way that going on Saturday Night Live made me like Peyton Manning more, because I saw him as more of a regular guy. Clearly these are different because Manning's move was calculated and a marketing effort, but the effect, for me anyway, is similar.
And I'm sure Bissinger could point to more, less savory material that gets posted and doesn't have this effect on us, but I think my point is this: These are normal people who are put in extraordinary circumstances. They have money and fame, but they're still as fragile and stupide and greedy, and horny and interesting as the rest of us. And it's kind of nice to see them this way once in a while, because seeing them on billboards soaring above us doing amazing feets of athletic prowess is great, but the hero worship is enough. It's only good for their marketing and my feelings of inadequecy. And really, there's enough of both to go around.