Lipsyte's first ombud column is up

Not that anybody in Bristol will care, but he opened with a good one.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/7/what-are-commentary-boundaries-at-espn

 

Jesus Christ, that was a hodgepodge of horrible writing.

It's called an outline. Use one next time, Lipsyte. I think he had good points, but with all the skipping around and trying to write esoterically at points, they got lost.

 

I don't agree. It certainly was too long, but the organization didn't seem to be the issue. There's far too much play-by-play because the column focuses on things that happened too long ago to be in the public's memory. But I understand why he built the column the way he did. The bullet points were unnecessary, almost too much like an outline.

My biggest grievances came almost entirely in this paragraph: "A few months after Collins' coming out, when you might think we had all been sensitized, Indiana Pacers center Roy Hibbert, at a playoff news conference, described himself as 'no homo' to distance himself from the praise he had just given another man. My email called the phrase no big deal, a jokey-jock throwaway. But I think it reflected an uneasiness about sexuality even among large celebrity athletes we might assume should be more confident of their manhood."

1. "When you might think we had all been sensitized," is a crazy notion, completely unsubstantiated, just to make the Hibbert column relevant. It was not.

2. "My email called the phrase no big deal," is not the type of turn of phrase I want to read from someone criticizing new media. That sounds like something my grandmother would have said if she were alive and on the Internet.

3. "No homo," as I have tried to (and occasionally succeed in) explaining to many people since the Hibbert news conference, is no different than "That's what she said." The expression may be steeped in homophobia, but it's lost that side of its meaning entirely. Hibbert is an articulate, well-educated man and didn't even process that his turn of phrase might be offensive. Context is needed before you discuss a man's "uneasiness about sexuality" in such an offhand way.

4. Why would we assume "large celebrity athletes" would be anything unlike us?

 

Vehemently disagree.

 

I think the generational gap (perhaps along with where we grew up) matters a lot in this particular case. Hibbert and I have heard that phrase used for most of our lives. I agree that it is inappropriate, but I absolutely would never consider someone uncomfortable with his sexuality for using it.

That's what rubs me wrong about Robert Lipsyte's judgment.

 

If that were the case, and I'm open to hearing your argument, it is only used in certain situations and it's when someone is discussing sexuality or another person of the same sex in a positive light.

 

Not at all. For instance: "I'm pulling out the rear exit."

 

Which is a double entendre for anal sex, which if a man is saying it, could be a homosexual reference.

You're not disproving my point.

 

I applaud him for not spending his first column introducing himself, explaining how he views the gig and his goals for the column. He got right into it. I do think the Ombudsmen should focus more on the macro than the micro. Tick-tocks are too easy to second-guess on breaking news stories. Better to focus on ESPN's process, do they pre-screen their guests? do they pre-screen their own people to get an idea of what they will bring to the table?

 

Does Lipstye suggest that, by volume of emails he had on it, the public most certainly did remember?

I wouldn't have started with that particular piece because, let's face it: Most journalists and media watch types -- the folks who read that Ombud column -- want a blanket condemnation of Broussard, and that's it. If he'd done that -- and not explained how and why Broussard got to that comment, which included Granderson admitting he baited him into it -- the column would have been shorter and far more applauded.

But while Broussard handled himself in a way that I found disappointing, Granderson's assertion that he's a Christian in good standing is, to almost all Christians, just absurd. And if he's going to drag his definition of Christianity into the conversation, he -- and the audience -- has to be prepared for a kneejerk (however unfortunate) response.

And I appreciated how Lipstye pointed out the host teed up Broussard to go off. Again: When a gay person says: <i>Well, I'm a Christian and I'm gay, and those two things are compatible,</i> as Collins has said, there are going to be a lot of Christians -- an overwhelming majority -- who at least say privately "well, that's just not likely." When the host tossed that question to Broussard, he essentially invited a religious interpretation. Broussard handled it in a poor way -- there are far more graceful answers -- but more than one thing contributed to the comment. And Lipstye actually took the time to present those contributing factors.

 

If that's horrible writing, I'm curious as to what standards you're assigning to it.

I didn't think it was horrible writing. I do agree, however, that it could have expressed much more succinctly.

 

Lipsyte extended himself. He picked a complex topic. Interviewed a lot of people. Plunged into areas of coverage that are subtle and not easily articulated.

The point is, if ESPN is going to do journalism -- and not just sports coverage or sports journalism -- it needs to raise its game.

imo, Lipsyte threw down the gauntlet. ESPN best be on its toes.