Klosterman's four ways to save sports journalism

That part, yes. But the rest seems aimed directly at ESPN.

As I said, I wish the article was online so others could read it.

 

Mr 12,

Your point is as well made as most of Klosterman's Insta-wisdom. You know, we don't, but why expand on it?

Amazingly, you know precisely our breadth and depth of knowledge (you'd say ignorance).

YHS, etc

 

A lot of it doesn't apply to newspapers, though the ratings stuff is interesting reading - I've always felt the same way about attendance obsessing. I used to cover preps, and one of the local radio buffoons would show up without fail and start bitching about how "pathetic" the crowd was. Klosterman's point is that ratings stories ruin people's fan experience because it influences whether they think something is "important." Kind of self-fulfilling prophesy stuff. It's an interesting point.

As far as the immediacy, it's interesting to me because it goes against the counter-intuitive idea that newspapers are outdated and full of "yesterday's news." As I suffer from news cycle overload, I'm finding it refreshing to go back to an era where I find out in the morning paper what happened the night before. It's a great feeling, really. I'll go home, watch "Seinfeld" reruns or a movie, then not catch up with the sports world until the morning papers arrive at my house. At some point, I just got frustrated and worn out trying to know everything that happened as soon as it happened. I feel like I know more when I don't.

I'm no huge Klosterman fan, especially because every snarky college kid in the country thinks that he's the heir apparent (the Bill Simmons model). But he does raise some good points here.

 

I actually like a lot of Chuck Klosterman's riffs.
I just think, often, he has a restated flair for the obvious.

 

The ratings coverage is stupid unless it's in the context of something which will affect the readers. A longterm ratings drop could lead to things like the majority of the NBA playoffs winding up on cable or the NHL's fabulous Versus deal. But who gives a crap beides TV execs or ad agencies what the numbers were on NFL pregame shows?

 

See, where does this come from?

Were you banking some hate for the dude and this is just your swing-away moment? I don't know your thoughts on Klosterman but I do know an irrational attack on the messenger rather than the message. Whatever it is, I don't think it warrants insulting him and me over something that really doesn't read as very controversial.


I truly don't get it.

 

He seems clueless about television, which, by the way, is a reality that isn't going away.

The last few of his columns I've read have struck me as "always a critic" blather.

 

Mr 12,

Well, excuse me. You call others clueless. You claim to be so smart but just can't bother to impart your wisdom, like it's beneath you and Chuck. Yup, you ride above the herd.

CK: He is a man who once had a splinter and now would tell you how to replant the rain forest. He should worry about his own business before fixing others--oh, sorry, there's nothing wrong with juvenile, self-absorbed, pop-culture criticism.

YHS, etc

 

I truly am going to leave this alone, now, because it's clearly about something other than what's on the thread.

Allow me to just point out a couple truths as I go:

I suppose one could view the following things as central ironies of the arguments on this thread that don't hold up to scrutiny.

1. Depending on who is talking, Klosterman is either too simple to be taken seriously or can't be bothered to explain the complexity of his argument, and, thus, not to be taken seriously. Of course, neither are the case in the example Inky posted and the two arguments would seem to directly contradict each other, so I don't know where that has gotten us.

2. Another criticism of Klosterman is that he is always a critic. The irony in this statement will power my car for a month.

Klosterman doesn't hide what kind of a critic he is. If you don't happen to enjoy that kind of criticism, you certainly aren't alone. But doesn't it make more sense to just say, "I don't enjoy Chuck Klosterman," or, even, "I tend to think of deconstruction as an intellectual jerk-off," rather than offer some half-baked invective, or, worse, some kind of facile meta-criticism masquerading as thought?

 

Mr 12,

You see a de-constructionist. I see a child taking apart his Lego sculpture so he can taste the pieces.

The former's enlightening. The latter's amusing for a while, until you realize that the Lego was made in China.

The richest irony--"of course," as you'd say--is holding Klosterman up to a deeper analysis than he ever offers.

YHS

 

fof --

The depth of analysis is there, I assure you.

You're concerned with the depth of the subject matter. And I assure you, to the classic decontructionist (and I'm not saying Klosterman is one of those, because he isn't; I'm also not saying I necessarily agree with this viewpoint, because I certainly don't) the text is the text is the text. The central contradictions are inherent, and are there to be teased out and show in direct contradiction to each other.

This task done, the dutiful critic makes ready his tools, has a slug of coffee and places the next text on his desk.

It is not a school of criticism that purports to offer the meaning of life at the end of the lesson -- and for that it is reviled and applauded. I fall in the applauding camp, obviously. You, apparently, are not, and I hardly begrudge you a distaste for reading an attempt to tease the cosmic signifigance out of KISS lyrics.

But that's a difference in subject matter and not in relative intelligence or critical ability, both of which Klosterman has in spades.

Derrida made me want to play with my toes,

Senor12

 

Mr 12,

I'm so sick of this I could barthes.

YHS, etc