Jones/ESPNMAG

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe they're just trying to make that magazine, you know, better.

And I'm pretty sure I have no idea what either of these thoughts are meant to signify:

Boom_70 said:
Here At SJ Jones has always portrayed himself as the above it all counter culture style writer....

...I just wish I did not know of the "Jones persona".
 
I wish I had about 5 percent of Mr. Jones' ability to set a scene... damn, that's good.
 
Boom_70 said:
Inky_Wretch said:
hockeybeat said:
Boom_70 said:
What a sell out. Seeing Jones in ESPN the Mag makes me feel like I did when I heard The Stones doing Microsoft commercial on TV.

This is about as incongruent as if Bill O'Reilly started writing a column for the NY Times or Keith Olberman took over for Sean Hannity.

Please explain.

I believe the phrase is "trolling."

Not even close Stinky. It just seemed odd to see the Jones brand headlining on ESPN. Since the inception of SJ many here have bashed espnmag endlessly for being lowbrow and cheesy and hyper-commercial, so it seems odd that someone who writes for the best magazines in the business would do this piece for a publication that garners so much cynicism and disrespect. Here At SJ Jones has always portrayed himself as the above it all counter culture style writer and now he is taking the money of the anti Christ. What next - William Ayers writing a column for The National Review.

BTW - the story itself is great - as it always is with Jones work. Here's hoping that it becomes an annual feature much like the One Shining Moment wrap that CBS does for the NCAA's .It will be something to look forward to each year. I just wish I did not know of the "Jones persona".

Boom, let me ask you this:

If a business offered you X dollars to do whatever it is that you do for a living, would you take the job?

There is nothing wrong with Jones or anyone else, for that matter, taking a job at the WWL. The magazine has a pretty impressive staff of writers--Tom Friend, our own FOTF, Buster Olney. Would you call them sellouts?
 
jgmacg said:
Maybe they're just trying to make that magazine, you know, better.

I'll venture to guess that the Mag already thinks it's 'better,' at least better than anything else out there (which is probably a dubious distinction at this point).

How is it that a magazine with some of the best writers in the biz manages to be unreadable on a regular basis? If you can't make it 'better' with that staff, you have some serious problems.
 
I would say the writing being "published" on ESPN.com garners so many more readers than in the printed pages of the magazine.

And the feature pieces on ESPN.com have been amazing.

I also think the magazine is litter in my mailbox most months. It may have 5-6 decent pages wrapped around 40-45 pages of "what does this person's wife know about him or her?"
 
hockeybeat said:
Boom_70 said:
Inky_Wretch said:
hockeybeat said:
Boom_70 said:
What a sell out. Seeing Jones in ESPN the Mag makes me feel like I did when I heard The Stones doing Microsoft commercial on TV.

This is about as incongruent as if Bill O'Reilly started writing a column for the NY Times or Keith Olberman took over for Sean Hannity.

Please explain.

I believe the phrase is "trolling."

Not even close Stinky. It just seemed odd to see the Jones brand headlining on ESPN. Since the inception of SJ many here have bashed espnmag endlessly for being lowbrow and cheesy and hyper-commercial, so it seems odd that someone who writes for the best magazines in the business would do this piece for a publication that garners so much cynicism and disrespect. Here At SJ Jones has always portrayed himself as the above it all counter culture style writer and now he is taking the money of the anti Christ. What next - William Ayers writing a column for The National Review.

BTW - the story itself is great - as it always is with Jones work. Here's hoping that it becomes an annual feature much like the One Shining Moment wrap that CBS does for the NCAA's .It will be something to look forward to each year. I just wish I did not know of the "Jones persona".

Boom, let me ask you this:

If a business offered you X dollars to do whatever it is that you do for a living, would you take the job?

There is nothing wrong with Jones or anyone else, for that matter, taking a job at the WWL. The magazine has a pretty impressive staff of writers--Tom Friend, our own FOTF, Buster Olney. Would you call them sellouts?

I always thought that Jones was more about the craft than the money. ESPN needs Jones more than Jones needs ESPN.
 
I think this piece makes it abundantly clear that art and commerce aren't always mutually exclusive.
 
Boom_70 said:
hockeybeat said:
Boom_70 said:
Inky_Wretch said:
hockeybeat said:
Boom_70 said:
What a sell out. Seeing Jones in ESPN the Mag makes me feel like I did when I heard The Stones doing Microsoft commercial on TV.

This is about as incongruent as if Bill O'Reilly started writing a column for the NY Times or Keith Olberman took over for Sean Hannity.

Please explain.

I believe the phrase is "trolling."

Not even close Stinky. It just seemed odd to see the Jones brand headlining on ESPN. Since the inception of SJ many here have bashed espnmag endlessly for being lowbrow and cheesy and hyper-commercial, so it seems odd that someone who writes for the best magazines in the business would do this piece for a publication that garners so much cynicism and disrespect. Here At SJ Jones has always portrayed himself as the above it all counter culture style writer and now he is taking the money of the anti Christ. What next - William Ayers writing a column for The National Review.

BTW - the story itself is great - as it always is with Jones work. Here's hoping that it becomes an annual feature much like the One Shining Moment wrap that CBS does for the NCAA's .It will be something to look forward to each year. I just wish I did not know of the "Jones persona".

Boom, let me ask you this:

If a business offered you X dollars to do whatever it is that you do for a living, would you take the job?

There is nothing wrong with Jones or anyone else, for that matter, taking a job at the WWL. The magazine has a pretty impressive staff of writers--Tom Friend, our own FOTF, Buster Olney. Would you call them sellouts?

I always thought that Jones was more about the craft than the money. ESPN needs Jones more than Jones needs ESPN.

So the man's a sellout because he is so good at what he does, he took a job from ESPN? That's the height of silliness. End of the day, the man's got a family. He writes because he loves the craft of writing, but it is also his job.
 
Agreed. Being "about the craft" doesn't put food on the table. And it's not like ESPN was hiring him to type rosters. Looked like an incredibly fun gig. (On ESPN.com he posted some receipts from his travels with additional stories.)
 
I think a lot of people have been ripping ESPN The Mag for a long time even though they don't read it, which is a strange way to critically judge something. The feature writing in The Mag, especially by Friend, Keown, Thompson, Wickersham, Bradley, Adelson, Olney has been very good for quite awhile. If you chuck the magazine because you can't get past the Mike and Mike blurbs or the Stu Scott chat in the beginning, you're missing out on a lot of good sports writing.
 
Double Down said:
I think a lot of people have been ripping ESPN The Mag for a long time even though they don't read it, which is a strange way to critically judge something. The feature writing in The Mag, especially by Friend, Keown, Thompson, Wickersham, Bradley, Adelson, Olney has been very good for quite awhile. If you chuck the magazine because you can't get past the Mike and Mike blurbs or the Stu Scott chat in the beginning, you're missing out on a lot of good sports writing.

Yes, but you get the same stories online and usually a few days faster. The Mag does hit my mailbox.
 
Allow me to paraphrase noted author Mick Foley:

  • I like to write.
  • I like to write well and have many people read my writing.
  • I like to be paid well for doing so.
 
Double Down said:
I think a lot of people have been ripping ESPN The Mag for a long time even though they don't read it, which is a strange way to critically judge something. The feature writing in The Mag, especially by Friend, Keown, Thompson, Wickersham, Bradley, Adelson, Olney has been very good for quite awhile. If you chuck the magazine because you can't get past the Mike and Mike blurbs or the Stu Scott chat in the beginning, you're missing out on a lot of good sports writing.

So if you're right, which I think you are, there's a pretty big problem, don't you think? As I posted earlier, if you have all this talent on your staff, why do so many people have such a low opinion of the magazine? Why should intelligent readers HAVE to 'get past' the hollas and the insane graphics and the insipid chats and other promotional junk?
 
hockeybeat said:
Allow me to paraphrase noted author Mick Foley:





    • I like to write.
    • I like to write well and have many people read my writing.
    • I like to be paid well for doing so.


  • "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. And it will leave you unfulfilled."

    BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jul. 12, 2006
 
Boom_70 said:
hockeybeat said:
Allow me to paraphrase noted author Mick Foley:



  • Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. And it will leave you unfulfilled.

    BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jul. 12, 2006

    • I like to write.
    • I like to write well and have many people read my writing.
    • I like to be paid well for doing so.


  • Clever. When you don't have an argument, you quote those who are far more intelligent than you.

    There is nothing wrong with being ambitious. Most people are. That said, a person can be ambitious, can want to write the hell out of a story and still be paid for it. That does not make them a sellout, no matter what you say.
 
hockeybeat said:
Boom_70 said:
hockeybeat said:
Allow me to paraphrase noted author Mick Foley:



  • Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. And it will leave you unfulfilled.

    BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jul. 12, 2006

    • I like to write.
    • I like to write well and have many people read my writing.
    • I like to be paid well for doing so.


  • Clever. When you don't have an argument, you quote those who are far more intelligent than you.

    There is nothing wrong with being ambitious. Most people are. That said, a person can be ambitious, can want to write the hell out of a story and still be paid for it. That does not make them a sellout, no matter what you say.

And you try and support your position by quoting Mick Foley- wow.
 
21 said:
Why should intelligent readers HAVE to 'get past' the hollas and the insane graphics and the insipid chats and other promotional junk?

Well, that's my point. I get the magazine in the mail only because they force it on you if you subscribe to Insider and I never read it because you get sensory overload trying to find the good stuff through overdone design and filler crap.

And I'd humbly suggest that the TV side has the same problem. The talent is fine but the problem is someone is telling them they have to be gimmicky and snarky and oh-so-clever all of the time.

They've been trying to out-clever one another ever since the Olbermann-Patrick days. Someone mistakenly decided it was more about the catch phrases than good work. That same guy is probably in charge of the magazine's layout and design. That same guy also goes to a lot of meetings where they talk about "capturing" the younger demographic. That same guy is probably a 57-year-old white male who couldn't point out cool if you spotted him Antarctica.
 
Boom_70 said:
hockeybeat said:
Boom_70 said:
hockeybeat said:
Allow me to paraphrase noted author Mick Foley:



  • Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. And it will leave you unfulfilled.

    BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jul. 12, 2006

    • I like to write.
    • I like to write well and have many people read my writing.
    • I like to be paid well for doing so.


  • Clever. When you don't have an argument, you quote those who are far more intelligent than you.

    There is nothing wrong with being ambitious. Most people are. That said, a person can be ambitious, can want to write the hell out of a story and still be paid for it. That does not make them a sellout, no matter what you say.

And you try and support your position by quoting Mick Foley- wow.

I did not quote him. I paraphrased Mick Foley.

Let me ask you. Have you written a NY Times No. 1 best seller? Because I know I haven't. I'm pretty sure you haven't. But I do know that Mr. Foley has.
 
hockeybeat said:
Let me ask you. Have you written a NY Times No. 1 best seller? Because I know I haven't. I'm pretty sure you haven't. But I do know that Mr. Foley has.

We should all aspire to such greatness.
 
My favorite response from someone accused of being a bit of a sell-out. Dave Eggers from 2000.

Complete interview (and the selling out part is at the bottom. read it all, it's worth it):

http://www.armchairnews.com/freelance/eggers.html

Some of his answer:

First, a primer: When I got your questions, I was provoked. You expressed many of the feelings I used to have, when I was in high school and college, about some of the people I admired at the time, people who at some point disappointed me in some way, or made moves I could not understand. The rant is directed to myself, age 20, as much as it is to you, so remember that if you ever want to take much offense.

You actually asked me the question: "Are you taking any steps to keep **** real?" I want you always to look back on this time as being a time when those words came out of your mouth.

Now, there was a time when such a question - albeit probably without the colloquial spin - would have originated from my own brain. Since I was thirteen, sitting in my orange-carpeted bedroom in ostensibly cutting-edge Lake Forest, Illinois, subscribing to the Village Voice and reading the earliest issues of Spin, I thought I had my ear to the railroad tracks of avant garde America. (Laurie Anderson, for example, had grown up only miles away!) I was always monitoring, with the most sensitive and well-calibrated apparatus, the degree of selloutitude exemplified by any given artist - musical, visual, theatrical, whatever. I was vigilant and merciless and knew it was my job to be so...

..But this sellout manual serves only the lazy and small. Those who bestow sellouthood upon their former heroes are driven to do so by, first and foremost, the unshakable need to reduce.

Oh how gloriously comforting, to be able to write someone off. Thus, in the overcrowded pantheon of alternarock bands, at a certain juncture, it became necessary for a certain brand of person to write off The Flaming Lips, despite the fact that everyone knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that their music was superb and groundbreaking and real. We could write them off because they shared a few minutes with Jason Priestley and that terrifying Tori Spelling person.

And now, I am also a sellout. Here are my sins, many of which you may know about already:

First, I was a sellout because Might magazine took ads.
Then I was a sellout because our pages were color, and not stapled together at the Kinko's.
Then I was a sellout because I went to work for Esquire.
Now I'm a sellout because my book has sold many copies.
And because I have done many interviews.
And because I have let people take my picture.
And because my ******* picture has been in just about every ****ing magazine and newspaper printed in America.

...We care about doing what we want to do creatively. We want to be interested in it. We want it to challenge us. We want it to be difficult. We want to reinvent the stupid thing every time. Would I ever think, before I did something, of how those with sellout monitors would respond to this or that move? I would not. The second I sense a thought like that trickling into my brain, I will put my head under the tires of a bus.

You want to know how big a sellout I am?

A few months ago I wrote an article for Time magazine and was paid $12,000 for it I am about to write something, 1,000 words, 3 pages or so, for something called Forbes ASAP, and for that I will be paid $6,000 For two years, until five months ago, I was on the payroll of ESPN magazine, as a consultant and sometime contributor. I was paid handsomely for doing very little. Same with my stint at Esquire. One year I spent there, with little to no duties...

...Now, what if I were keeping all the money? What if I were buying property in St. Kitt's or blew it all on live-in prostitutes? What if, for example, I was, a few nights ago, sitting at a table in SoHo with a bunch of Hollywood slash celebrity acquaintances, one of whom I went to high school with, and one of whom was Puff Daddy? Would that make me a sellout? Would that mean I was a force of evil?

The thing is, I really like saying yes. I like new things, projects, plans, getting people together and doing something, trying something, even when it's corny or stupid. I am not good at saying no. And I do not get along with people who say no. When you die, and it really could be this afternoon, under the same bus wheels I'll stick my head if need be, you will not be happy about having said no. You will be kicking your ass about all the no's you've said. No to that opportunity, or no to that trip to Nova Scotia or no to that night out, or no to that project or no to that person who wants to be naked with you but you worry about what your friends will say.

No is for wimps. No is for pussies. No is to live small and embittered, cherishing the opportunities you missed because they might have sent the wrong message.

Because, in the end, no one will ever give a **** who has kept **** 'real' except the two or three people, sitting in their apartments, bitter and self-devouring, who take it upon themselves to wonder about such things.

What matters is that you do good work. What matters is that you produce things that are true and will stand. What matters is that the Flaming Lips's new album is ravishing and I've listened to it a thousand times already, sometimes for days on end, and it enriches me and makes me want to save people.

I say yes, and Wayne Coyne says yes, and if that makes us the enemy, then good, good, good. We are evil people because we want to live and do things. We are on the wrong side because we should be home, calculating which move would be the least damaging to our downtown reputations. But I say yes because I am curious. I want to see things.

And if anyone wants to hurt me for that, or dismiss me for that, for saying yes, I say Oh do it, do it you mother****ers, finally, finally, finally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top