The Big Lead Reveal, Take 2

To be honest . . . I just like to post Muppet jokes. And thebiglead being outed is indeed big news as it pertains to topics on this site. It's not wise to put all of us "whippersnappers" in the same category. Don't associate thinking Statler and Waldorf are funny with extreme dislike of a dude who blogs. Yes, I figured I knew which way the thread would go . . . but I didn't expect the date rape joke, no.

Again, I'm 33. I like Muppet humor. Sometimes, it's really that simple, and there's no need to read a deeper meaning into something.

I don't care what the Big Lead does, ethics-wise, because I have long since come to grips with the fact that the average blogger and Internet commentator has no rules. Some choose to follow rules, some do not. I have felt this way since before the word "blog" existed, since I saw (that SOB) Matt Drudge arrogantly brag - with his stupid hat on - to C-Span cameras a decade ago that "I have no editor. Welcome to the future."

There are many dork bloggers. Dudes who start these fanboy sites which allow them to rant on and on about how their favorite team just can't win the big game. As we all know, The Big Lead is a former journalist; we knew that before. As a former journalist, it would be logical for us to think that he has a keen awareness of certain standards most of us prefer to see upheld when it comes to the written word.

And as we have seen here before (and I made an A-hole of myself railing against), the mob mentality at SportsJournalists.com when the membership disapproves of something - or, more commonly, someone - is a sight to behold.

thebiglead posted here for a while . . . my guess would be it worked as a good way to help establish something of a rapport with some of the big-timers who post here, the better to solicit interviews. And to my eyes, the big lead was accepted here until the Matt leinart and Rick Reilly stories, and his flimsy reasoning for posting both.

It's even flimsy in the SI article; he took down the Leinart story "after 45 minutes." An eternity on the Web, during which time countless peopl could have seen said story and sent it to their friends. How long did it take last night's big lead thread to explode? An hour? Again . . .an eternity on the World Wide Web.

I read some blogs, and have contributed to a couple. I found contributing difficult, since I was uncomfortable posting thoughts on sports without having done any original reporting for those particular topics. And th blogs I read do not traffic in attempting to "break news," other than the ones run by people who spend the day reporting, then bring a lot of that reportage to their posts.

The Big Lead was supposed to be one of those; a blogger who "gets it." He was interviewing journalists who are talented and interesting to read about (for the most part; I'm sure we all have a view on a Bill SCheft, for instance). He was legit, he was "One of US!" He posted here, he was in the community. His site had journalistic aspects to it; it also has "BLOGS!!" aspects to it.

Then he brought the wrath down with the defense of the Leinart story. I think people felt betrayed because here was a guy who knows the rules we hold in high regard, and knowingly broke them.

Blogs are here to stay. And when they are done for humor purposes, they can be great. When done with an undercurrent of desiring true legitimacy, as the big lead was and is, I seek more.

I'm not someone who feels that people should go away from this site if they are unpopular. I wouldn't mind if big lead guy came back. Dude screwed up, and compounded it with his explanation. But ultimately, he was still one of us, once upon a time. He gets it; he just blew it, big-time, on a couple of stories.

 

A few points here:
Yes, I know Jason but until last night I had no clue he is The Big Lead.
DD -- I said nothing about anyone being jealous, I simply said some of you people were wrong abut him in many ways.
The Good Doctor's personal attack -- "looks a little date-rapey" -- on someone he doesn't know was totally uncalled for and the piling on that followed was/is disgusting.

Here's the thing I do know... This is what Jason wanted to do...become a sports-celebrity gossip columnist. There being no call for any such thing in mainstream journalism (rightfully so) he became a blogger. So kill him. And make sure you kill Matt Drudge while you're at it...same degree of accountability.

Jason could have been and was a good journalist and a very good writer but didn't always want to play by the rules we live with in the real journalism world. So he went his own way, became a blogger and drew a little attention to The Big Lead with a few "big-name" interviews.
And yes, he and Woj were at The Record at the same time and I have little doubt Woj knew exactly what he was doing when he was interviewed by The Big Lead.

Some of you can scream FRAUD! all you want. J-Mac is not purporting to be anything he isn't. If you think The Big Lead should be held to some journalistic standard, well, then so should all blogs. And we know that's not the case.

But you all have a good time screaming BLOGS! FRAUD!

 

No, but it's certainly the answer I expected.

 

Since I seem to be the whipping boy on this one: Let me apologize to Jason for my comment. It was wrong. And it was over the line.

But to those of you carrying his water, let me add: It was a joke. It was obviously a joke. It wasn't even a statement of fact; it was a comment on his appearance. It was in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.

The things he has posted about others weren't jokes. They were intended to be taken at face value. And in the case of the Florida State football player at the very least, it was totally false. Where is your righteous indignation for him? Or Matt Leinart? Or Rick Reilly? Or any of the other potentially damaging gossip items that were proven false and retracted with a half-hearted apology?

But I guess since you knew Jason once upon a time, he can say whatever he wants about anyone, true or false, and I'm the bad guy for making a joke. So be it.

 

I'm not going to sit here and defend Doc's joke, but I think he makes a perfectly legit point. Spnited is saying that, if we're going to be rightious over one blog, we must be rightious about them all. While that's completely impracticle, Doc didn't libel TBL any more than TBL libeled Matt Leinart. Doc apologized for what was obviously a joke; obvious satire.

TBL never printed that correction about the FSU players. I can still find the Leinart item on a Google cache. No apology for that either, other than the one, I guess, Richard Deistch did for him today. Neither of those were printed as a joke or satire. So I guess that's why the sanctimonious behavoir by the Jersey gang was a little thin.

 

Viewed through an entrepreneurial rather than journalistic lens, the guy could arguably be praised for creating an original niche in the marketplace. He combined his USweekly and sports experience to become something that didn't really exist before--the purely sports Celebrity Gossip. Not easy to do in today's oversaturated market.

 

And DD, if anybody knows sanctimonious, it's you.

 

It's just some sports thing. </formernewsreporter'sperspective>

I keed.

There's a lot of serious stuff to be discussed here, but why bother? Nothing said here will change anything. This guy did what he did, for better or worse, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. It seems pointless to argue and snipe and attack a guy because of his success. It's worse than a congressional session. Everything is in the past, and the only people who can do anything about it are the people in a position to take legal action if they feel they've been libeled.

And so many of these posts from last night have shown that it just boils down to bitter jealously. Otherwise, why so mad? What has he done to you personally?

Ultimately, The Big Lead is not a big deal in my life. I don't know the guy, I've only read the site a few times, and I've got other things to worry about, such as where to find a Fozzie Bear T-shirt.

 

Go ahead and address my points. I'll wait.

Because right now, you're the one who looks silly, defending someone simply because you know them despite their slimy ethics.

 

This is completely false. Plenty of movers and shakers in this business read SportsJournalists.com. Very few of them, I think, are aware of stuff like the Leinart thing. Clearly, part of the appeal of TBL is reading the sports writer interviews. So I think talking about it and debating it here can absolutely have an impact on whether some people decide to answer those email interviews. If you do, that's fine. That's your decision. But do so knowing who you're getting in bed with. If people stop agreeing to be interviewed, he raises his standards somewhat, and people agree to interviews again. Seems pretty simple.

 

I never defended Jason's ethics. Hell, I never actually defnded Jason other than to say -- basically -- it's a blog, big deal. In fact, I believbe I said he doesnlt like toplay by the rules.
No need for doc to imply he's a date-rapist, yeah, just a joke but a little harsh.
No need for you to decide Jersey Guy and moddy and I are beng sanctimoious because we foudn the peronal attacks a little over the top.

FACT: None of these bloggers have any ethics....that's why they are bloggers.

And really, DD, can we got beyond this pompous conception that many "movers and shakers" read SJ so therefore we can have a major impact. TOTAL BULLSHIT!

 

Exactly. Glass houses, man, glass houses. How can you possibly claim to be defending journalism or ethics taste or anything associated with those things while lining up with that kind of trash? As for Fozzie Bear, funny as hell the first time, already a horse so dead it was reduced to pony jerky when that thread started.

The just-a-joke defense ... right ... sadly predictable. Might fly if we were all sophomores in high school. Probably not, though.

There are things on TBL that I don't like. Instead of acting the clown on SJ, I've expressed that to the author (who, no, sorry Doc, I have no previous relationship with). Had no idea Jason was the author before today, although I now know we've shared a press room and that some of my friends have worked with him.

Unlike some folks, I'm willing to cut the guy some slack. He posts dozens (hundreds?) of items a week, does so without any editing, and appears - to me - to have only made a few mistakes, and have learned from them.

There are folks on this board who insist on seeing life as black-and-white, good-and-evil, etc., and who want to burn him as a witch for those mistakes. And, yeah, they look bitter and jealous. Are they? I don't know, but that's how it looks. There's no other good explanation for the vitriol.

And the key word is "on this board", because in real life I think we all know situations and responses to them are a lot more gray, a lot more nuanced. Mr. oh-so-brave Double Down, have you ever sent the guy an e-mail? A PM? Please, surprise me and say yes.

If people were forced to have this conversation in a bar, with the dude present, I imagine no one would call him a date rapist or Fozzie Bear. That's what makes it vile. Have any opinion you want about TBL, argue it as hard as you want, an most people here will respect you for it either way. But what went on earlier today, again, wasn't about that.