Monday, October 30, 2006

Fanboys Unite

Bryan Curtis' article about Rivals.com yesterday reminded me I had not returned to a topic I had planned to address earlier this season. Better late than never, I suppose.

In his well-written piece, Curtis, while correctly (and honestly) calling fansites an "essential journalistic resource", says:

"Ever since Grantland Rice immortalized Notre Dame’s Four Horsemen in deadline metaphor, college football writers have had a penchant for swooning. But outside of a few great local papers, they never combined the cheerleading with an intensive study of a particular team."

"What has emerged is something beyond even what you’d find in the most boosterish local columnist: a new Internet species — half dogged reporter, half deliriously over-the-top fan."

"For readers, Rivals and its counterparts mean a different trade-off: more news but with less pretense of objectivity."
This revisits a theme from the infamous Clausen series by Carroll and Weineke, during which sites like NDN and writers like Mike Frank were derided as "fanboys" by the reasoned minds at SportsJournalists.com (to which I refuse to link; seek it out at your own emotional risk). The school of thought is fanboy writers for sites like Irish Eyes and NDNation are incapable of providing quality journalism because they cannot get past their bias and can only serve as electronic mouthpieces for the schools they represent.

This is the point where I (and because I'm on the Internet, I can) call bullshit.

I credit Curtis for using the word "pretense" with regard to objectivity, but we're beyond pretenses here. All writers are biased one way or the other, especially in college athletics, so decrying one group as being more culpable in this area than others is the height of hypocrisy.

Bias is part and parcel of writing, because it's the truly unusual automaton scribe who can set aside all opinion and emotion when reporting a story. This is even more true with topics like college athletics, for which the presence (and sometimes manipulation) of emotion is a key element. While I'm sure all writers like to parade themselves as a truly objective voice, the fact of the matter is they've all got their agendas, and some are just better at hiding it than others.

There's plenty of ND bias out there, for example, and it swings both ways. People like Beano Cook, Dick Vitale, Kirk Herbstreit, John Walters, Jason Kelly, Malcolm Moran and T.J. Simers are pro-ND, whether they'd admit it publicly or not. On the other side of the aisle, you have guys like John Saunders, Bob Ryan, Craig James, Jason Whitlock, Michael Wilbon, David Haugh, and Jay Mariotti, who probably aren't all that shy about admitting their feelings.

For all of them, pro or con, their bias seeps into their writing / commentating / voting / whatever. Sometimes such seepage is subtle, like emphasizing the first-half struggles of the ND defense in a 38-14 Irish win. Sometimes it's quite obvious, like proclaiming multiple Heisman trophies for a quarterback who hasn't yet taken a snap in college. But regardless, it's there and (as far as I can tell) accepted.

So what is it about the writings of the Mike Franks and Tim Pristers and Lou Somogyis and Todd Burlages of the world that makes them somehow below standard as journalists? How are the "fanboys" any more or less biased than any other sportswriter?

Answer: They're not. In fact, I put it to you, gracious reader, that the fanboy perspectives are infinitely more valuable than "neutral" contributions. To wit:

Their alleged "bias" is right out front where you can get a good look at it. They're not pretending to be something they're not, and as a result, don't have to engage in journalistic acrobatics to get their points across. It's a refreshing (and unpretentious) honesty.

Their information and perspective is usually of better quality than you'd find elsewhere. These are guys who know the program and people in it. If they're telling you something, you know it came from those who know and those who know are being as straight with them as possible. It's funny what kind of relationships you can grow when you're not looking for the "hot story" that will vault you to national prominence and an ESPN gig.

(Then again, that would be a biased agenda, so I'm sure the "traditional media" wouldn't engage in that.)

They're held accountable by their readership. It's really easy for a Jay Mariotti or a Rick Telander to selectively respond to criticism of their writing. They can pick and choose the Letters to the Editor that get published, and usually get the chance to put their own spin on it. The Internet guys, however, are under the gun 24/7. If their readers don't like what they write, they (and everyone else) will hear about it on the message boards. They're also more likely to lose a subscription over a minor issue, as the team coverage is 100 percent of the reason the readers are there.

And most importantly, I strongly believe it's easier to overcome a positive bias and write something critical when it's warranted than it is to overcome a negative bias and write something positive when it's warranted. I don't know if it's harder to admit error when you originally came out against something or just a case of cranky pundits short on their prune juice, but that's been the rule of thumb from my vantage point.

Need evidence? Take a look at the AP ballots for this week. Craig James, king of the subtle seepage, has Notre Dame ranked 14th, behind Rutgers. Jason Whitlock also has ND 14th, ranked behind two-loss teams like Oklahoma and LSU, neither of whom have defeated anyone of note yet. On the other hand, Michael Pointer has ND 11th (but still behind Cal), and Kirk Herbstreit has the Irish 10th. The anti-ND contingent goes over the top in its criticism, while the pro-ND group isn't about to canonize Weis' crew but still manages to keep an even keel.

I enjoyed Curtis' article, but I'm tired of hearing about "cheerleading" writers for college-specific sites from hypocritical newspaper and television folks who use those sites for most of their leads. The fanboys are no more cheerleaders (or detractors) than those traditional media writers are. They're just more honest about it.

Labels: ,

25 Comments:

Anonymous dbldomer7375 said...

Well said. If there were no opinions offered on any sporting event or team, the Sports Pages would publish only box scores.

10/30/2006 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger forND said...

Take Herbstreit off your list of anti-ND commentators. He is relatively unbiased and picked ND for the NC at the start of the year.

10/30/2006 06:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's really only one difference between the website fanboys and the newspaper beat writers. The newspapermen embrace the old Jerry Seinfeld philosophy: "Because the players are always changing...you're actually rooting for the clothes when you get right down to it." The website writers don't.

Both groups of "journalists" are bloodthirsty for information, it's just a question of how they present it. Some are bothered by bias, others are not. Some are bothered by clothes, others are not.

10/31/2006 02:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have met run into Beano Cook several times at restaurants in downtown Pittsburgh, and he HATES the Fighting Irish. Everything he says that might sound like it's pro-ND on the air is said with malice in his heart and evil subtext. Trust me. His blanket response to any comment or question I've ever posed to him about ND is "Most overrated team of all time," when the cameras are not rolling.

10/31/2006 04:56:00 AM  
Blogger El Kabong said...

Sorry, I don't agree. I don't think the newspapermen embrace the "clothes" philosophy any more or less than the website operators do. There are newspaper guys who have hated/loved ND for a long time, and plenty of players have worked their way through the "clothes" over that period.

The only truly unbiased sportswriters are the ones who, when it comes down to it, don't care about sports that much and just write about it. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many of those I've met.

10/31/2006 06:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

. . . .one would wonder of the possibility existing of writers who strive to celebrate themselves by purposely being controversial; being somewhat devoid of bias' or prejudices, but rather enamored with perpetuating their very existance.

bs

10/31/2006 08:22:00 AM  
Anonymous jw said...

You clearly haven't a single clue what you're talking about, Mike.

Columnists are not TV hacks who are not lowly reporters who are not beat writers. You can't say "journalists" all have an agenda because all those different types of journalists have different goals and manners of achieving those goals. You appear to jump around from referring to each of them, and that's completely unfair.

Beat writers, with few exceptions, DO NOT have an agenda and have at least as good a handle on the program on as the Rivals.com folks. I don't even have a big problem with the Rivals.com-type guys. The biggest difference between them and the beat writers is that the beat guys are generally willing to risk access for news, if necessary. If it's easier for the other guys to overcome their positive bias, as you say it is, they don't seem to show it. With the team I deal with, I've never seen one negative article from the Rivals.com guy. He's a good reporter, but he's hamstrung by his position. He isn't willing to risk access for news, and so he just stays All Positive, All The Time.

Fans love him for it, but sometimes real journalists have to tell fans things they don't necessarily want to hear. That's what a real journalist does, Mike.

10/31/2006 09:19:00 AM  
Anonymous jw said...

You clearly haven't a single clue what you're talking about, Mike.

Columnists are not TV hacks who are not lowly reporters who are not beat writers. You can't say "journalists" all have an agenda because all those different types of journalists have different goals and manners of achieving those goals. You appear to jump around from referring to each of them, and that's completely unfair.

Beat writers, with few exceptions, DO NOT have an agenda and have at least as good a handle on the program on as the Rivals.com folks. I don't even have a big problem with the Rivals.com-type guys. The biggest difference between them and the beat writers is that the beat guys are generally willing to risk access for news, if necessary. If it's easier for the other guys to overcome their positive bias, as you say it is, they don't seem to show it. With the team I deal with, I've never seen one negative article from the Rivals.com guy. He's a good reporter, but he's hamstrung by his position. He isn't willing to risk access for news, and so he just stays All Positive, All The Time.

Fans love him for it, but sometimes real journalists have to tell fans things they don't necessarily want to hear. That's what a real journalist does, Mike.

10/31/2006 09:19:00 AM  
Blogger Nathan said...

I agree that many (perhaps most) sports journalists take a biased perspective in their work—although some hide their biases better than others. I believe that much of this is a calculated effort to provoke or pander to the readership or viewership. I’m sure that many journalists contrive their pro- or anti-[insert team] angles for the sake of getting a specific reaction from their consumers, and that many editors and producers choose their contributors for the same reason

I also agree that fansites often provide more and better information than other media outlets. However, although Frank, Somogyi, et al may provide better and perhaps more objective ND information than the MSM, I don’t think that kind of team-specific information represents very much of what the papers and networks produce, especially at the national level. I think they are more focused necessarily on comparing teams and players to one another, and that’s the context in which ND usually comes up.

I don’t think many of the pundits do very well at comparing teams and players, but I’m not sure the fansites do it much better, when they do it at all. Assuming there are good fansites devoted to multiple football programs, do they not offer conflicting assessments of their own teams relative to the others? And if the bulk of mainstream college FB journalism is about which teams and players are better than which others, can you really point to a fansite as a better resource for a neutral reader? If so, which one?

Sorry for rambling, but here’s what it comes down to: Both fansites and the MSM are limited by their scope. Fansites provide (A) highly-researched information on specific teams, at the expense of (B) neutral perspective regarding how their home teams compare to others. Most MSM outlets provide less of (A) and at least as much of (B), generally providing more superficial analysis of a larger number of teams.

10/31/2006 09:58:00 AM  
Anonymous derfuersprecher said...

Thanks for the post - this is a subject that is of some interest to me.

As you pointed out - no one is free of bias and only the most naive continue to claim epistemic neutrality. This is an essential aspect of our finiteness. In other words, we perceive the world through particular points of view that are continuously being shaped and molded by a complex mosaic of current and prior beliefs/experiences. It is the inescapable & universal condition of humanity.

However, even a so-called a programmed "automon" would be unable to attain “objective” reporting due to time and medium constraints (i.e., every report [whether written or communicated verbally through audio or video] is incomplete and therefore directs attention toward certain avenues, which by necessity directs attention away from other avenues of inquiry - avenues that other viewers/readers may find significant and meaningful).

In other words, all reporting is selective by nature – and various observers will find the particular selection more or less favorable to their own point of view.

The most we can hope to do in a quest for objectivity is 1) admit the impossibility of ever achieving it (in an absolute sense), 2) strive to become more self-conscious of our own biases, and 3) remain willing to allow our own preconceptions to be challenged & modified by different preconceptions and beliefs.

10/31/2006 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger El Kabong said...

"Beat writers, with few exceptions, DO NOT have an agenda and have at least as good a handle on the program on as the Rivals.com folks."

Sorry, JW, now you're the one without a clue. I've met plenty of beat writers who are agenda-laden, if not for the team they cover then against that team's competitors. Read Angelique Chengelis' commentary about the Weis appearance on 60 Minutes if you don't believe me.

The beat writers are just as access-needy as any other writers are. The online guys I know aren't shy about writing critical articles if the need requires it and the facts support it.

I'm sorry if my blog entry tells you something you don't want to hear, but as you said, that's what a journalist does.

10/31/2006 10:42:00 AM  
Anonymous jw said...

Yeah, yeah, Kabong. It's me who's clueless. No doubt (Where's the "rolling eyes" smiley when you need it? Damn these blog comment logs!).

Of course there are beat writers with an agenda. I didn't say they don't exist. I said there are few exceptions. If you've encountered a couple of those, well aren't you just the finder of rare creatures? Take some pictures for us next time.

Look, beat writers (like, well, me) of college football teams generally couldn't care less whether their team wins or loses. What exactly would their "agenda" be? I'm not saying they're completely free of bias, but to have an agenda is something completely different. That's taking your bias and putting it into action toward seeking a particular outcome with regard to the team you're covering, and beat writers rarely do this. Columnists? Sure, sometimes. TV hacks? All the time. But beat writers? Hogwash.

Do beat writers need access? Of course they do. But real journalists don't make that their No. 1 priority and do the job they're paid to do. Fanboys just give the fans the rosy news they want, and they do a good job of it. But if they've ever done a gritty investigative piece, I've never seen it. And if they've ever done anything to risk the cushy access they get, I've never seen that either.

But I'm sure you know more than me, Kabong. I'm obviously clueless when it comes to beat writers' jobs. Your position as Blogger makes you much better qualified to state an opinion on this than I.

10/31/2006 02:53:00 PM  
Blogger El Kabong said...

Whatever, "JW".

Beat writers couldn't care less? I'm sure some couldn't. Some however, could, and care (or don't) very much. Unlike you, I don't view that as a character flaw. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in criticizing them for it.

"Real journalists don't make access their #1 priority?" GMAFB. Of course they do. No access = no job.

How many "beat writers" had the nerve to criticize Tyrone Willingham when his coaching was costing ND game after game and his recruiting was terrible? Answer: None. Zero. But Tim Prister, Mike Frank and Lou Somogyi all called him out. And last time I checked, none of them lost access to the program.

I've certainly seen websites that shy away from bad news. Then again, I've read plenty of non-rosy news on a lot of other websites. I guess I'm just good at finding "rare creatures".

I find your zeal to demonize the websites you depend on for information to be particularly lame. But I am glad to see you threw the "columnists" and "TV hacks" under the bus in your haste to defend yourself, though. Good work.

10/31/2006 03:08:00 PM  
Anonymous jw said...

I didn't "throw" anyone "under the bus," Kabong (Man, I'm tired of that "thrown under the bus" cliche). Unlike you, I didn't pass judgment on any of these people. Website Fanboys, columnists, TV hacks and beat writers all serve a purpose. One is not necessarily a better source than another. Each of them practice pure journalism to different degrees.

What I said was you can't lump them all together. It's unfair to all of them. They all do different jobs. And a beat writer is not just as likely to have an "agenda" as a TV hack or a columnist, due to the very nature of the jobs they do.

10/31/2006 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger El Kabong said...

So it's not OK for me to "lump them all together" because "it's unfair to all of them". Isn't that what you're doing to the Internet sites? I quote:

"Fanboys just give the fans the rosy news they want, and they do a good job of it. But if they've ever done a gritty investigative piece, I've never seen it. And if they've ever done anything to risk the cushy access they get, I've never seen that either."

Doesn't sound very fair to the Internet sites.

Beat writers don't have agendas? Ask Angelique Chengelis about that. Better yet, ask the ST's John Jackson, whose piece on Willingham's tenure was so off-base and had so many miquotes (from people I know) that his editor sent my misquoted friend a hand-written apology, assigned a columnist to write a follow-up piece, and took Jackson off the ND beat entirely. And those are just two examples.

As I said, it doesn't bother me a bit if any writers have bias. It's part of the human condition. The only people I'm passing judgement on are the people who put all the Internet writers in one box and cast aspersions on them as being somehow inferior.

10/31/2006 04:10:00 PM  
Anonymous jw said...

Ugh. I said if it's happened, I've never seen it. I didn't say it hasn't happened. I made a general statement based upon my own experience. That's in no way lumping anyone together.

And, once again, I never said beat writers don't have an agenda. I acknowledged there are exceptions. Did you not see that? I said it. Twice, I believe. I have no idea why you keep pushing that line. All I said was that beat writers are less likely to have one than other types of journalists.

Disagree with that assessment if you like, but my years of experience in the job at the very least gives me a pretty strong perspective at which to come to this question. But I know, it just makes me biased, so I'm clueless. I know, I know.

10/31/2006 04:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bottom line, Mike, is that you love Mike Frank not because he's a "fanboy," but because he acknowledges the existence of NDNation.com, which gives you a supersized french fry. If Carroll, Weineke or any of the other people you rip as "biased" courted NDNation the way Mike does, they could write that Charlie Weis molests the Pope and you would lick them off, too. You just want validation from the media you claim to hate. Sad, really.

10/31/2006 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger El Kabong said...

"I made a general statement based upon my own experience. That's in no way lumping anyone together."

I did the same thing. Of the 30+ beat writers I've met who cover various college teams, I've found most of them harbor a bias/agenda one way or the other.

So why are you right and I'm wrong?

10/31/2006 05:36:00 PM  
Blogger El Kabong said...

I don't court anything. I get no reward financial or otherwise from operating the site, so I fail to see what validation I seek.

I like Mike Frank because in the six years I've known him, I find him to be extremely professional and a good writer. Ditto writers like Lou Somogyi, Tim Prister, Avani Patel, Mike Pegram, Todd Burlage, Malcolm Moran, Teddy Greenstein, Vaughn McClure, and a host of others.

The South Bend Trib loathes the bandwidth on which we operate and hell will freeze over before they "acknowledge" us, but that doesn't stop me from liking Tom Noie, Jason Kelly and Eric Hanson.

I don't give a damn who "ackowledges our existence" or not. I like and respect quality, professional writers. That's where it begins and ends.

And since you're having problems with the concept as well, I'm not ripping anyone for being "biased". I'm criticizing people who somehow think they're above bias and are superior jouralists as a result, all of whom are fooling themselves.

10/31/2006 05:42:00 PM  
Anonymous jw said...

bias and agenda are very, very different things. Everybody has biases. Not many journalists truly have an agenda.

And you didn't talk about beat writers in this article of yours. You talked about "journalists," as if they're all doing the same thing.

You're not wrong, necessarily. I just think your post sounded like something written by someone who didn't know much about the journalism business, if only by the fact that you lumped all non-Internet journalists together.

10/31/2006 05:49:00 PM  
Blogger El Kabong said...

I realize bias and agenda are different things. In my experience, agenda is usually driven by bias, however subtlely. The stronger the bias, the more likely the agenda.

I know a fair amount about the journalism business, given the number of relatives and friends of the family who are in that business (including sports editors at two of the largest newspapers in the country) and my own minor dabbling in it. I didn't feel the need to differentiate, given my statement that Internet writing is not the unique source of bias in journalism. As far as I'm concerned, all journalists regardless of medium or responsibility are capable of it.

10/31/2006 08:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think there is a place for both professional beat writers and fanboy Web sites in college football coverage. They offer different perspectives. The more voices, the better.
But there is one area where fanboy sites are terribly deficient. If writing a particular story might get the program punished -- say, put on probabtion for example -- the fanboys wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

11/01/2006 02:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read Pristers' stuff pretty regularly and all bias arguments aside, the folks on that site are as solid in the writing department as any beat writer out there.

Obviously the reporting is a little different for "fan" sites because they have to keep subscribers to stay in business. But really, the overall report is more balanced than the small-town boosterism you get from the local paper.

After all, the fan site has a much wider reach than the local paper and its web site.

And you want cold analysis instead of fan-site boosterism?

The growing debate about the legitimacy of the "fan site" is proving the value of the product. In the debate is a huge step. Makes us legitimate.

Let's bottom line it for the people in the vacuum: The people screaming "this is not true journalism" are hemorrhaging readers and working for no Christmas bonus and a 2.5 percent raise next spring. Keep your corporate journalism ideals and your sense of importance.

We're okay being called "fan boys."

You can have the journalists. We'll make due with the audience.

And their checks.

11/01/2006 02:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps you could those checks to buy usage lessons, fanboy. It's "make do," not "make due."

11/06/2006 01:43:00 AM  
Blogger El Kabong said...

You're really going to make a condesending criticism about a typo in a blog comment?

And people have the gall to think sportswriters are arrogant.

11/06/2006 07:05:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home