Deadspin with some more solid investigative journalism

Well, Deadspin did it online. And often uses curse words in posts.

That's some solid investigatin' right there!

 

Okay, a lot of good points were made. I'll try this listening and being reasonable thing.

You make a solid point on how I can be so against the NYDN for using anonymous sources, and yet laud Deadspin when that's what most of their material is. To that I say, bravo, I can't come up with an answer.

And so I've changed my stance. I feel Deadspin does a good job for what it tries to do. That is, corner the market on its type of writing. Nobody does what Deadspin does as well as Deadspin does it.

Is it proper journalism? No. But Deadspin doesn't care. They get pageclicks and whatnot. I will say that some of what they put out there actually helps though, because newspapers and other media outlets wouldn't publish some of the stuff Deadspin does.

That being said, I have to ask: Did the Brett Favre story that was broken by Deadspin contribute anything to anything? It told us Favre, if the allegations are true, is a cheater. Worse, his wife had cancer. But soooo many athletes are like that.

So, I'll leave it to the veteran journalists here to give their take on the matter. Should Deadspin exist? Do you enjoy their work (and some of it is investigative, like when they leaked MLB financial documents)? Is it despicable? I'm interested.

 

I like Deadspin for what it is. Magary's really my only must-read there, because I don't go there for good writing. I go there for the funbag and the DHF. Other than that, I skim.

 

Everything is not always about assuming you're on or off the record. Sometimes its about "Really? You thought that was newsworthy enough to publish? Douchebag."

Brian Williams snarks about SNL musical act in casual e-mail conversation with random colleague

Really? That's what you're reporting on? Supermarket tabloids look wonkish by comparison. You just have to take the online version of Globe for what it is -- trash entertainment.

 

Do you think it was inherently wrong for them to pay $12,000 for the Favre story like they did?

 

Not arguing that point at all. But YOU KNOW exactly what Gawker's rep is and what they've done in the past. You talk to someone there at your own peril, knowing that anything remotely "shocking" or "controversial" could wind up slapped onto one of their websites at any time based on Daulerio's track record. If I'm a celebrity figure, I tell anyone I know who works at Gawker that you aren't getting anything more exciting than "they weather is great, thanks for asking" out of me until the current regime changes.

Like you said, it is what it is. When I wrote for Sports By Brooks, I only had a few chances to use the reporting skills from my previous life. Most of the time, I was writing a few snarky paragraphs on whatever sexxxy story came across the wire (or, something Brooks came across from his contacts). I wasn't breaking new journalistic ground and that was OK for me.

 

I hear you. I think we're largely in agreement. My only point to add is that you can both know someone's rep and still be disappointed (not surprised, perhaps) at the depths of douchebaggery they will sink to for content.

 

Opinions by people here on Deadspin's ability to quickly sift through emails and find this gold mine of a video?

 

Saban stopped calling in the scores a long, long time ago.

 

Doodah, your fingers are writing checks your mind can't cash. Deadspin threads are above your pay grade. With that said, this was a solid post:

You're right. Deadspin is what it is. It's an entity that can't be defined or constrained by journalism rules in ways even the New York Post and Daily News can only dream. It's very limiting to push our values on them. Maybe that speaks ill of our own industry. I tend to think there's a market for each.

Deadspin exists because if it didn't exist, something would exist in its stead. This is the way the Internet works. Drudge Report had been pushing stories the mainstream won't address for years before Deadspin was even a glint in Will Leitch's eye. It's despicable when its editors want it to be despicable. It's a journalistic force when they go that route.

It's pushed sports journalism, which it does not purport to partake in, into a dark alley most of us never wanted to enter. But it may have our coverage of the sports world more honest because of the challenge. I'm glad Deadspin exists. I don't think I would ever want to work there.

 

I don't think any of that stuff is visionary or Pulitzer-worthy.

Now, video of SEC cheerleaders fighting certainly would be though...

 

It scares me that society and journalism are in such a place that this is a legitimate debate. And it is a legitimate debate.

I wish that the "journalism" practiced by Deadspin was limited to supermarket checkout stands. But the Internet has allowed that ship to sail. The bigger question, I guess, is, would we have been better off without the Internet? (FWIW, I don't think we would. But it is a debatable point.)

It's going to be so tough to not long for the old days as I age.