A couple of days back, I read Part II of an interview that ESPN.com's Bill Simmons did with author, rock critic and manic sports fan Chuck Klosterman. And now some folks are buzzing because they feel the both of them have taken shots at bloggers.
I took a pass at first because neither of these guys managed to say anything new when it comes to blogging and mainstream journalism. In my mind, their conversation sounded a lot like those "Why Soccer Sucks" columns that come around every four years with the World Cup. You're not going to change anybody's mind on either side, so why get involved?
I guess I'm plowing ahead regardless. Here's Klosterman:
What will be interesting about the coming generation of people (at least if you're a writer) is that they will have a twisted concept of what the word "media" is supposed to mean. A term you hear people use a lot these days is "New Media," which really just means, "Electronic Media, Minus the Actual Reporting." This is what the Internet is, mostly. I constantly see all these media blogs that just link to conventional "Old Media" articles and pretend to comment upon them, but they add no information and no ideas. They just write, "Oh, look at this terribly archaic New York Times story. Isn't it pathetic?" But that sentiment is being expressed by someone who's never done an interview and has no tangible relationship to journalism. It all seems kind of uncreative...
This is something I've discussed with Beau Dure at length. It was in college that I learned a hard truth: Editing is easy, but writing and reporting are hard. And when you blog, you're acting as a sort of editor, poking holes in arguments, supplementing conclusions with new information and perhaps most importantly, seeing where a writer's bias comes into play to alter their conclusions.
Here's how I put it in my FAQ back in 2002:
Once I do come across a story I like, I try to pass it along with at least some sort of commentary or new angle. I've seen plenty of sites that just pass along the latest from the wire without adding any value, but what use is that? If I don't pass along something extra, even if it's just a wise ass aside, I really haven't done my job.
As for the development of a "twisted definition" of media, that's all to the good. The definition has changed because the technology has changed. The marriage of simple publishing software and the Internet has drastically lowered the barriers to entry when it comes to writing. And people are coming online in droves because they have something to say.
As for a lack of reporting, I wonder what Klosterman would say about Michael Yon?
Why is Klosterman so afraid of engaging readers in a conversation?
New Media will never replace Old Media, because New Media couldn't exist without Old Media; they would have nothing to link to. But the net result is that all people are starting to assume that the media is inherently useless and that there is absolutely no difference between news and entertainment. This will make the coming generation even more cynical than the current one, which is mostly bad (but not necessarily tragic).
"Starting to assume"? Seems to me like folks have felt that way for quite some time, but now they have an outlet for their frustrations. As for the crossover between media and entertainment, I can't see how you can pin that on bloggers. After all, how many features has Time run on movies churned out by the Time Warner empire?
Here in the hockey blogosphere, the most successful blogger is arguably Eklund, a man whose credibility I've challenged many times. But while bloggers like me have been calling him out for months, the mainstream media neglects to ask him any hard questions.
Who's confusing news and entertainment now?
The point I'm not sure Klosterman or Simmons really get is how the business case for "old media" is gradually being undermined. We know that movie studios have cut back on newspaper advertising because the people who go to the movies just don't read the paper anymore. Those ad dollars now go to Yahoo, Google and AOL. Though I don't have the link handy, I know that the online edition of the Wall Street Journal is more profitable than the print version. And in cities around the world, newspapers are getting hurt in their traditional sweet spot -- classified advertising -- by Craigslist.
The import is this: Your publication moves online or it's going to die (unless you're a celebrity magazine). Because the economics are different, you're going to have to restructure. That's because the standards and practices of newspaper journalism were built with the print, and not the online world, in mind. You're going to have to interact with your readers rather than just broadcast to them. And at times, the world of online media may seem chaotic with rules that you don't understand.
It's time to change, and change is good.
Here's how Simmons responded:
I liked your point about New Media. Everyone keeps talking about the Blog Revolution, but what does that even mean? If you were in film school and wanted to make movies for a living, would you create a movie from scratch, or would you just make documentaries about other filmmakers and how much they stunk? You'd make the movie from scratch, right? Well, what's the point of writing about people who write about sports/movies/politics/music if you're not backing up your words with your own columns or features? How do you have credibility then? I could write for a living, I just choose to rip everyone else. What? How does that make sense? What's the ultimate goal there? Why not come up with your own material, angles and thoughts? Wouldn't that be more rewarding? How do you get better? That's what I don't understand.I'm not killing all blogs here -- some of them are useful because they find me stories that I couldn't find on my own, and some of their comments or features make me laugh and think. When the goal is to keep everyone on their toes, have some fun, provide an alternate take on things and remain at least somewhat objective, that's great. If you're using a blog to constantly ream everyone else, that's depressing.
Which led mgoblog to retort:
Simmons--who hasn't exactly done any investigative reporting on Page 2 unless it's an experimental look into how many Daniel LaRusso references he can pack into 4,000 words (8,000, it turns out) and implies that certain announcers should be stricken with throat cancer in every NBA column he writes--is the last person who should be dissing the "Electronic Media Without the Actual Reporting" wing of media, since he is its undisputed king.
Truth be told, I think Simmons would be happier if he was a blogger. The fact is, and I've written this before, Simmons could probably walk away from ESPN.com right this second and open up a shop where he would attract Drudge-like traffic numbers.
How many times have we heard Simmons complain that there are things he can't write because he's working at ESPN? I'm willing to bet he could throw off the shackles and be generating serious advertising revenue in the course of an afternoon.
At one point in the conversation, Simmons finds himself in basic agreement with Hillary Clinton when it comes to regulation of online speech:
Also, how can we have so many libels/slander laws in place for newspapers, and yet the Internet is like the Wild West? People can steal material, slander people, rip them to shreds, make up news ... I mean, you can get away with anything now. Do you know how many times an NBA Web site reported having sources that confirmed some trade that ended up never happening? It was embarrassing. I could go on about this forever.
Hmmm. Sounds like he's a little envious if you asked me.
Thanks to my podcasting partner, Rob Visconti, for the pointers.
UPDATE: Be sure to read this interview with Simmons from Boston Sports Media. It's an incredible read.
