Do we like anybody?

[dooley_womack1]

All this trashing of people in sports with records of excellence: A-Rod, Larry Brown, Nick Saban, Allen Iverson...the list seems to go on and on. We get on them for not winning in the "right way," we find ways to twist their stats into something negative, we get on them for being too outspoken, we get on them for being too quiet, we get on female athletes for using their sex appeal, or for being ugly, or for maybe being lesbian....yadda, yadda, doo wah diddy. The one word that pops into my head when it comes to far too much sports writing these days is "schadenfraude."

OK, in decades past, perhaps we sugarcoated too much, and said the Babe had a stomach ache when he really had the clap, stuff like that. But what I do miss from those days is an appreciation that the people being covered had a rare talent that millions of folks enjoyed. Somewhere in there, there has to be a middle ground. Doesn't there?

 

[slappy4428]

I like reading your posts... short or medium short...

 

[Cadet]

Excellent point, Dooley.

I think there are a few reasons for this:
1. Most of us are born cynics
2. Back in the "good ol' days" writers were more likely to be in bed with the teams and athletes; they had more access but were expected to use a great deal of discretion in return
3. All the President's Men churned out a generation of "gotcha" journalists
4. If we got along with everyone, there would be no good stories (see: Mariotti, Jay)

 

[DyePack]

3. All the President's Men churned out a generation of "gotcha" journalists

I'll agree with that one.

 

[Ledbetter]

I love a good schadenfraude reference. And I agree with your post dooley.

What to do about it? No clue.

 

[dooley_womack1]

I use schadenfraude because I don't want my sociology courses to have gone to waste. I'll try to get "verstehen" into a post someday.

Anyhoo, could it be the explosion in player salaries over the last 2-3 decades? Used to be, players and journos were not that far apart economically; players often had to work in the offseason. Journos are trained to afflict the comfortable. Multimillionaire players become "the comfortable," and it could be a kind of class warfare (tho a Woody Paige or a Gammons are on the same side of the economic tracks pretty much).

 

[Starman]

Most sports journalists/publicists are paid to be, or else eagerly volunteer to be, unabashed ass-kissers. Along with 97% of all fans, with IQ's in the low double digits, who perform the same function.

Somebody's got to be the voice of the functioning cerebral cortices.

 

[dooley_womack1]

So some degree of appreciation is dumb? The "functioning cerebral cortices" have to automatically come to the conclusion that darn near everyone in some way sucks?

 

[BYH]

OK, in decades past, perhaps we sugarcoated too much, and said the Babe had a stomach ache when he really had the clap, stuff like that. But what I do miss from those days is an appreciation that the people being covered had a rare talent that millions of folks enjoyed. Somewhere in there, there has to be a middle ground. Doesn't there?

Quick!! Someone call 911!!! Spnited has commandeered Dooley's screen name!!!!

 

[imjustagirl2]

It's spelled "schadenfreude." As an FYI.

I just hate everyone, unless they're hot.

 

[shotglass]

I hate to say it, because it somewhat demeans our profession.

But a lot of what dools speaks of stems from the fact that if a sports journalist DOES come off as respectful or deferent to an athlete, he's looked upon as an ass-kisser by his brethren.

It's all part of wanting to be in the little boys' club.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

How many people in sports are really worth rooting for anymore?

There are a few... Tom Brady, Derek Jeter, maybe even Peyton Manning. I would put Shaq on this list.

Most athletes are complete douchebags. Some hide it better than others.

Athletic excellence alone does not make someone worth rooting for...

 

[Moderator1]

Why I prefer the college level to the pro level. Most of the athletes are OK. The douche bag factor is much lower, even with most coaches (though that's where most of the douche baggery lies).

 

[Almost_Famous]

I like Iverson.
Shaq, too.

 

[broadway joe]

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.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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.

 

[Ralph Waldo Henderson]

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.

 

[JayFarrar]

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.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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.

 

[dooley_womack1]

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.