All-Encompassing Sports TV Thread of Hate

[hammerva]

I could have sworn I saw 2014 first round mock draft even before the 2013 draft was finished.  

[Gonzo]

I could have sworn I saw 2014 first round mock draft even before the 2013 draft was finished.  

 

There's usually at least a couple of sites that have a 2014 mock that comes out the day after the draft or something. The ones that have guys like Jevan Snead as the #1 overall pick (that wind up going undrafted the next season).

[JRGoldman]

I remember that the guy who goes by 'McLovin' on the Dan Patrick show had a two or three year stretch of getting the first three picks right with his year in advance mock draft. For what it's worth, this year he had Bridgewater, Clowney, Matthews as the top three.

[TimLivingston]

The only TV show about sports I'll watch right now is Highly Questionable because Papi is a force of nature and can't be stopped.

 

Also, Fox Spots 1 because now that Jay and Dan are on US TV, ESPN has slowly been bringing back some of their older talents into their showcase SportsCenters to give them a little more zing. Kenny Mayne doing SC at this point is incredible because he's so much better than the other guys and tries to get them to show off some personality on-air, but they have no idea how to play off him. They really should let Olbermann do SportsCenter for a week for the ratings pop, too.

[odessasteps]

Do we need a Grantand / Simmons thread to discuss the Dr. v story or can we do it here?

Amazingly contrite piece by Simmons today about the story.

[Dolfan in NYC]

Well, you'd expect that when people are saying his writer contributed to a woman's suicide. 

[odessasteps]

I still think his article is mostly butt covering, showing all the bureaucracy involved and they still made a mistake.

An lgbt person i know tweeted something to the effect "i still dont know anyone happy w simmons explanation."

I will be curious if this falls under auspices of the espn ombudsman.

[Dolfan in NYC]

No one's happy with his explanation because he didn't use Donnie Brasco quotes in his explanation. 

[Ryan]

Knowing him it would be full of jokes about the film Philadelphia or something stupid.

[Zero]

Bill Simmons is the worst. 

[Jrag]

I felt his apology was sincere, but I did read it after checking out the companion piece which focuses more on the issue at hand and less on the editorial process.

 

That being said, he absolutely had to focus on that process because his writer is getting death threats (which is fucking absurd).

[Joe Lucia]

Beadle back to ESPN. That was expected.

[Niners Fan in CT]

I didn't read the story, did it deserve this kind of outrage? Also, Simmons is writing as if thus writer's career is over.. are they firing him? If so, why?

[odessasteps]

I didn't read the story, did it deserve this kind of outrage? Also, Simmons is writing as if thus writer's career is over.. are they firing him? If so, why?

Well, if you're a member of or sympathetic to the LGBT community, the answer is yes. Dr. V was outed by the writer to people involved in the story unaware of her past.

It doesnt sound like Simmons or Grantland will fire him. I wonder if ESPN or Disney higher-ups would order him fired to save face.

[Dolfan in NYC]

The humongous problem I've seen from the story is the writer made it all about himself when he discovered that the investor was transgendered and wrote "a chill went up my spine."  Out of context, he's now made trans* people everywhere the object of derision and disgust.  In context, he's now made a huge deal about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of his piece (whether or not the putter this lady invented is complete b.s., and moreover, if everything she says is complete b.s.).  

 

The fact that she was born a man, amounts to roughly jack and shit. Now, with that knowlege comes the big problem: The writer knows she's trans* and tells a potential investor about this which spooks the investor away. Whether or not he said he was going to make it part of the piece he was writing will never be known, but she committed suicide soon after he wrote the article. 

 

Simmons isn't going to fire him on his own. But now that lawyers are getting involved and a lawsuit is almost assuredly coming, you can bet your ass someone will be the sacrificial lamb.  The higher ups at Disney/ABC will not want to delve into the subject and tell ESPN someone's got to go. BSG isn't about to fall on the sword for a writer who's actions *may* have caused a person to kill themself.  

[Kuetsar]

I think another consequence of this will be that someone is going to be going to grantland to hold Simmons on a much shorter leash now. Reading his column/explanation has it come across like the site almost is the inmates running the asylum. I still like Simmons as long as he's not giving column length blowjobs to the Celts or Pats, but he needs some one to reign him in a little bit.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Why did they feel they should out this person and why did most people (as Simmons said for 56 hours) think it was a great article?

[Jrag]

Because the person was also a con-artist who lied to investors and others about her education, work history etc etc.  The story started off as a piece on the putter, but the reporter sort of got sucked down a rabbit hole because he realized the subject of his piece was just outright lying.  He wasn't able to uncover the truth until he realized that she had changed her name previously, which lead to other revelations.  It was an odd, interesting story that could still probably be a great article with the right editors.

 

The idea that this writer drove the woman to suicide is absurd, though.  Could he have contributed to it?  Yes (the outing to an investor or maybe just the simple fact that her business was being discredited or both) .  Are there probably a billion other factors?  Of course.

[muhammedboehm]

Because the person was also a con-artist who lied to investors and others about her education, work history etc etc.  The story started off as a piece on the putter, but the reporter sort of got sucked down a rabbit hole because he realized the subject of his piece was just outright lying.  He wasn't able to uncover the truth until he realized that she had changed her name previously, which lead to other revelations.  It was an odd, interesting story that could still probably be a great article with the right editors.

 

The idea that this writer drove the woman to suicide is absurd, though.  Could it have contributed to it?  Yes.  Are there probably a billion other factors?  Of course.

Id say this is sorta like the Nancy Grace case...how do you know that if she wasnt 'outed' she wouldnt have done it anyway type thing.

[EVA]

Because the person was also a con-artist who lied to investors and others about her education, work history etc etc. The story started off as a piece on the putter, but the reporter sort of got sucked down a rabbit hole because he realized the subject of his piece was just outright lying. He wasn't able to uncover the truth until he realized that she had changed her name previously, which lead to other revelations. It was an odd, interesting story that could still probably be a great article with the right editors.

The idea that this writer drove the woman to suicide is absurd, though. Could he have contributed to it? Yes (the outing to an investor or maybe just the simple fact that her business was being discredited or both) . Are there probably a billion other factors? Of course.

Yeah, I mean, you don't need an advanced degree in psych to read that story and tell that Dr. V was unwell, long before she ever met the author of the story. She already had one documented prior suicide attempt and, based on research, likely had at least a few more undocumented attempts or incidents of self-harm. With her history, it's highly likely this was just the way this troubled person's life was going to end.

[Craig H]

So, and I hate to ask because of the nature of the question, is this a possible cash grab because the writer works for one of the largest media outlets in the world?

[hammerva]

You know the one thing I love about this snowstorm in the east coast, listening to all the talking heads acting all "You better enjoy this weather because this is what will happen at the Super Bowl IN NEW JERSEY".   yeah because most snow storms in this area usually last about 11 days

 

I know it won't happen but would love to see one executive for ESPN, CBS, or Fox tell these spoiled elists that if you don't keep it down we will send someone to replace you that wants to be there

[Jrag]

An lgbt person i know tweeted something to the effect "i still dont know anyone happy w simmons explanation."

 

I would like to touch on this, as the reaction I've seen around the internet seems pretty split.  Did that person simply not believe Bill was sincere?  If someone makes a mistake out of simple ignorance (as bill claims), admits to that ignorance, apologizes and is going to change the way they handle similar situations going forward, I don't see why you would be unhappy with that.  It doesn't make sense to criticize an apology of ignorance if the goal is to educate.

 

Unless, of course, you believe Simmons did know better from the jump and is just bullshitting.  Which seems like it would be easier to do without 8,000 words.

[Craig H]

 

An lgbt person i know tweeted something to the effect "i still dont know anyone happy w simmons explanation."

 

I would like to touch on this, as the reaction I've seen around the internet seems pretty split.  Did that person simply not believe Bill was sincere?  If someone makes a mistake out of simple ignorance (as bill claims), admits to that ignorance, apologizes and is going to change the way they handle similar situations going forward, I don't see why you would be unhappy with that.  It doesn't make since to criticize an apology based on ignorance if the goal is to educate.

 

Hard to blast a billion word apology that is going to be read by a whole shit ton of people who would otherwise be ignorant of the issue themselves.  Unless, of course, you believe Simmons did know better from the jump.  

 

 

Because, to quote Michael Caine in TDK, "some [people] just want to watch the world burn." I hate that sometimes it doesn't matter what the measure of sincerity is.

[Greggulator]

Here are my thoughts on the subject as a journalist:

1) It wasn't a good article to start with. Grantland gets all of this acclaim for its long-form features and, for the most part, they're really bad. The reason why they're bad: So many of their stories become about the writer's reaction. Read that story and go in the archives and read other feature stories about other people and see how many "I" pronouns they use. "I asked, I saw, I etc." That's when the writer becomes not just the story, but THE story.

This piece was exactly that from the start.

There are really limited circumstances when someone should use the "I" pronoun when writing about another person. I am not trying to claim myself as this great journalist or anything of the sort. But I absolute never -- NEVER -- use the "I" pronoun when I'm writing about another subject.

That's where this story went wrong. It's not just "It turns out Dr. V is a transsexual!" It's "I can't believe that she's a transsexual!"

If this was the first article they wrote along those lines, I could understand the mistake. But it's not. They use that in their stories constantly. They should know better.

I learned this rule within my first two weeks of journalism class in high school, BTW.

2) I do some investigative reporting. Confirming information about combative subjects is the hardest part of the job. If I unearthed that this person was trans, I am not sure how I would have handled it in the course of my writing. I just don't.

But I would certainly ask myself this: How does this affect the bigger story, which is that this person is selling a golf club doesn't have the background she claims.

If Dr. V was born as "Allison Johnson" or something different than her claimed name, I would 100 percent add that fact into the story. That indicates the person has something to hide.

But the story says the writer talked with Dr. V. about her trans status and begged him -- invoking the words "hate crime" -- to not reveal that part of her identity. At that point, I wouldn't print about her sexuality. It's a detail about the person's life that she doesn't want out there for personal reasons, not to hide a potential fraud.

3) Why the hell is someone spending seven months writing about a golf club infomercial to start with? Simmons said he didn't run the article in September because not enough was in the story. It leads me to wonder if the trans part of the equation was in that version of the draft.

4) The writer is a freelancer. He can't get fired since he doesn't work exclusively for Grantland. He can only get his product published or not. He probably -- I don't know for a fact -- didn't get paid until the thing published. That's industry standard. I'm wondering if there was some pressure from the writer in that aspect. Did he need to make the story more "interesting" to get paid and, as a result, included the part about Dr. V. being trans?

5) All of those editors and not one person bothered to ask someone from GLAAD or the like. I wonder how many of the editors and attorneys were white guys above the age of 40.