Simmons on Boston beat writers ...

93Devil, I agree with you that Simmons' appeal is that he reads like someone you'd have some beers with (when he's not in High-N-Mighty mode that is) and just watch a game. That's what everyone I know who reads him says. And to be honest with you, that's why I started reading him.

I think the problem though is when the most influential sports writer in the nation is so...lazy? Inaccurate? Unaccountable? Use any of those adjectives as needed. If you doubt his influence, go to any college journalism school and ask the aspiring sports writers who their "guy" is, and I'd estimate 4 out of 5 times you get Simmons.

He's entertaining at times, but when you've got the following he does I think he owes it both to his reads and sports journalism itself to be thought-provoking and accurate. As it stands right now, he's sports answer to a Michael Moore or Sean Hannitty -- all have massive followings, all are entertaining in their own right, and way way way too many people get misinformation from them that they take as gospel.

 

I would rather have a beer with Cheney than with Bill Simmons.

 

It's nice that Simmons is a guy you'd want to have a beer with. It means that of the many, many takes on sports that come out every day, he's got the regular joe take, the one that makes all the other bleacher creatures feel like they've got a voice, too. But Simmons should by no means be a trendsetter or opinion maker. The fact that he is is an indictment of ESPN's disregard for quality thought over Web hits/Magazine subscriptions. And hey, fair play to them. But it takes hard work and long, tedious sourcing to get truly good insights into sports beyond what everyone else saw on their TV. It takes hard work to get the real story, which is almost never about who's watching, but what they're watching. That's why I (and many others) abhor the "go talk to the locals at the sports bar during the Super Bowl" story. Not because it means conversing with the public, but because it's lowest-common-denominator journalism: Rather than go and dig for a good story, let's just take it easy and punch out something people will read because their buddy's name is in it.

 

Mert, I bow to your Jedi knowledge

 

So does he need a fact checker? I know everyone here at one time or another had a copy editor.

The point I am trying make or just bring out is that he produces so much text and content, and the blog writers seem to, do they need more than a copy editor?

I know all of you will hate me for writing that, but the blog writer was not around 10 years ago. Maybe we should think like it is 1985 or 1975.

Once again, not saying it is correct, just typing out loud so to speak.

 

93Devil, don't be sorry. This is why I signed up for the message board, discussion of these kinds of matters

The beauty of the blog age is you can produce much more in terms of words, since you're not inhibited by inch/space restrictions. Also, the style doesn't necessitate spending hours gathering quotes, transcribing said quotes, etc. That time that would otherwise be spent interviewing people and picking out/rewriting quotes lends more time for research, though.

Like you, I'm "typing out loud,' playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate.

 

At least now ESPN's making him print corrections. He used to fill his pieces with blatant errors that were never acknowledged.

 

He needs a fact checker, because he does not make occasional errors (like everybody does) or astronomically rare errors (like I and a lot of other people do), he makes all sorts of ridiculous, egregrious errors, all the time. Basic dates, basic names, basic places, basic quotes. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Mistake after mistake after mistake.

 

It seems as though there are many, many people who are so damn resentful of his success. It's like Robert Fripp. He's known as a musician's musician but neither he or King Crimson were/are household names. Kind of like many of the sportswriters and columnists and board at large respects.

Simmons is like Madonna. Never played her own instruments (except for Don't Tell Me) but hugely popular with some talent in different areas that made her one of the biggest stars of the 20th C.

There may be something to be said for going out and doing such rudimentary journalistic duties as interviewing people and attending games but, shit, there's also a larger part of me that says give the people what they want.

50 million Elvis fans ...

 

. . . CAN be wrong.

 

A lot of people went to see "Norbit." Does that make it a good movie?

 

Whoa now; Madonna is very savvy and very multifaceted. She doesn't deserve to be bunched with Britney and Ashlee and Paris.