Do we like anybody?

I like Iverson.
Shaq, too.

 

I'd say Tiger and LeBron are appreciated for their excellence without being bashed very much at all. So was Gretzky. There are a few out there, but it's true, the list is short.

 

I've watched the phenomenon of "sportswriters who hate athletes" for 20 years and I'm damned if I can figure out how most of the writers in question get up in the morning without sucking on a shotgun. The degree of self-loathing must be fathomless. I've seen it in a more damaging way in political writing, but it seems to be sharper in our business.
The 'Net doesn't help, either. Snark is good. Love snark. Couldn't live without it. But it's not a reason for living. It's substance free. But, anyway, the problem long predates the 'Net. The old geezers hated athletes, too, but they weren't so free with it in print. (And, of course, there were no other jobs in other media.) Sitting at a table with old sportswriters when I was a young one made it clear to me what I did not want to become.
If you want to be fair, you can't operate in the craft under the assumption that everybody you cover is not worth the powder to blow them to hell. That's as bad a form of journalism as any other. It's cynical and dishonest and it'll get you on TV, but it's not what we're supposed to be about.

 

How much of it, at least in the last 10 years, is the O.J. Simpson effect? I know a lot of times when I'm writing profiles, or columns that focus on a figure, I worry about being "too positive" for fear of being burned down the road. Now that doesn't account for the "hating" of the A-Rods of the world, who have never committed a crime, but it might explain why there's less balance these days between negative and positive stories.

 

I don't think it is one thing, but several things.
As Mizzou said on another thread, the real celebrity is cool, the B-listers are the ones who are the jerks. I think that would also apply to athletes.
I think that the financial gap also plays a part.
The rise of column gamer, the one where the writer interjects opinion. It is a lot easier to take a shot than throw in some really insightful analysis.
Plus, controversy sells.
Also the internal editor, the one who wants to avoid that "oh crap" moment. The one where you write something glowing and the athlete is in fact a turd, and gets busted for it later in life. That and wanting to fit in with the other writers on the beat.

 

More than OJ, RW, I think, is the fact that most of the big folks are so damned insulated that, absent a court proceeding, there's no way of finding out anything that's real, let alone anything that's real negative. For example, is there anyone alive who knew -- let alone knew well enough to print -- that Bill Belichick was such a horndog? We found out because he got tangled up in a divorce.

 

Well, people have been hiding their peccadillos as long as there have been people. They haven't always been a big focus of coverage in sports, however. Maybe an athlete, Jim Bouton, actually started that with Ball Four.

 

We all liked Mark McGwire.


As Fenian said,

The true talents in sportswriting manage to recognize both glory and disgrace, and write about either with equal passion.

 

jeter.

curtis martin.

i'm sure there are others who go about their biz at a high level/in the right way. it would be a nice change of pace to hear about them.

 

As far as Tiger goes, people have been trying to knock him off his pegs for several years. If he looks at someone cross-eyed, you can count on scolding columns coast to coast.

 

fuck you all, I hope you all die of bird flu and whooping AIDS.

(the preceding message was furnished by the sports journalism business, which has singlehandedly made me hate anyone and everyone within a 500-mile radius, living, dead or otherwise. Rebroadcast of this message without expressed written consent of sportsjournalists.com or Mystery Meat Productions is prohibited. And no, Homer, implied oral consent does not count.)