Leitch on Ebert

[Simon_Cowbell]

http://deadspin.com/5482198/my-roger-ebert-story?skyline=true&s=i

I can't even imagine what sort of arrogant punk this guy is deep inside to have skewered Ebert like he did after all the support he had been given.

But I give him some credit for revealing it.

 

[tmr]

It's nuts, but that's what makes the story so good. He's obviously carried that around for a long, long time.

I think we've all "been there" at some point, even if only in our thoughts, and not in an online magazine most of us have never heard of.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Interesting how everyone's coming out of the woodwork after that Esquire story. If that hadn't run, does Leitch ever write this?

Bingo. That mea culpa made me dislike Will Leitch. Where was the apology 5 years ago, 10 years ago (not saying it was necessary, but if it was in you, why now?)? Where was this piece before the Esquire piece (if he really has those deep regrets)?

This was: Hey guys, I know Ebert too. Time to cash in on it AGAIN. And I have a great story to capitalize on the attention he's getting. You see, I was such a punk, and Ebert is so gracious, and look at my maturity now, so you see, I am really not a punk! No, I am a swell guy. Look at me. Me too! Me too!

Punk.

 

[tmr]

Ebert gives your last posts a thumbs down. http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/9849648901

 

[The Big Ragu]

Well, what does that fat **** know? [/Will Leitch]

 

[DoctorFace]

I guess if Leitch'd been a writer at the Tribune instead of at some vewwy, vewwy bad old sports blog, this would have been a moving story of a man's complicated relationship with his hero.

Instead, it's "suspect."

 

[drakescoffeecake]

Ebert gives your last posts a thumbs down.

I wish I had more hands ...
so I could give those titties four thumbs down! The milk's gone BAD, Murphy!!!

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

****, Leitch is a professional writer. Regardless of timing or intent, as Jimmy Breslin once said, "The No. 1 reason any professional writes is to pay the bills. This isn't the Lawn Tennis Association, where you play just for the thrill of it." Not that a guest post on Deadspin pays more than a lunch bill, but still.

But, if you read it, he did apologize to Ebert when it ran, and he felt too embarrassed to keep correspondence up. (I emailed Leitch to congratulate him on the story, and as always, he was very humble and still sort of mortified)

Also, why do we only write about curling when the Winter Olympics are on? Timing is important and Ebert will be on Oprah tomorrow.

 

[playthrough]

If a major beloved sports figure dies today, all the columnists will have their paeans tomorrow. Why didn't they write those five years ago? 'Cause the guy wasn't as newsworthy.

Like Leitch said, Ebert got a big Esquire story plus Oprah. He's hot, for lack of a better word, which makes others jump into the ring so they can get web hits. That's the biz.

(edit: cousin jeffrey beat me to it. same thing.)

We all have a smarter-than-we-think-we-are story from our youth, but I can't top Leitch's. Thankfully.

 

[DoctorFace]

I guess if Leitch'd been a writer at the Tribune instead of at some vewwy, vewwy bad old sports blog, this would have been a moving story of a man's complicated relationship with his hero.

Instead, it's "suspect."

The timing is suspect.

But now that you mention it, why not a private letter of apology to Ebert rather than a blog post? Or is that too old fashioned?

Still, I think there's a double-standard at play here. I get the feeling that if this were Haugh or Telander and this story had appeared in the Trib or Sun-Times, everything would be okay. But, since it's Leitch, it's a tossed-off story by some "punk" with "suspect" timing.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

When Oprah becomes appointment television for me, you know she has a good guest.

 

[Ace]

Roger Ebert is an enormous talent and a national treasure that most people took for granted. Everyone can write about him if they want. Why complain about it?

Leitch had a great story to tell and he told it. Geez.

 

[Point of Order]

The point of the original story was how bad Leitch felt for cannibalizing his relationship with Ebert just for pageviews.

No one sees the irony or hypocrisy in Leitch doing it again with this piece?

Exactly. This is a perfect example where if any non-douchebag would have done what Leitch did, and truly regretted it, then the only thing in the world they would ever want is to let sleeping dogs lie and never have it brought up again.

 

[Ace]

The point of the original story was how bad Leitch felt for cannibalizing his relationship with Ebert just for pageviews.

No one sees the irony or hypocrisy in Leitch doing it again with this piece?

Exactly. This is a perfect example where if any non-douchebag would have done what Leitch did, and truly regretted it, then the only thing in the world they would ever want is to let sleeping dogs lie and never have it brought up again.

The Catch-22 in your theorem is that a non-douchebag never would have done it.

 

[The Big Ragu]

If I had done what Leitch did, I wouldn't want to dredge it up again -- I'd be too embarrassed. And if I was going to dredge it up, I'd only do it if I had made amens -- really made amens.

Of course I understand why writing it is timely now. But it doesn't accomplish what he was going for if it comes off as insincere and opportunistic. This came off as opportunistic to me (maybe others disagree) -- him "using" Ebert once again. If that wasn't the case, he would have tried to make right (if he felt he really had to) long ago.

All it did was make me dislike Leitch.

 

[Point of Order]

The point of the original story was how bad Leitch felt for cannibalizing his relationship with Ebert just for pageviews.

No one sees the irony or hypocrisy in Leitch doing it again with this piece?

Exactly. This is a perfect example where if any non-douchebag would have done what Leitch did, and truly regretted it, then the only thing in the world they would ever want is to let sleeping dogs lie and never have it brought up again.

The Catch-22 in your theorem is that a non-douchebag never would have done it.

Well, there seems to be consensus that he was a douchebag in 2000 when he wrote the original slam. This piece operates as a renewal of his douchebag license for another decade.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Will Leitch seems to be making a little cottage industry out of heartfelt apologies for things that so obviously shouldn't have happened in the first place. He engaged in similar heart-rending when Jason Whitlock called him out for writing in his book about what is the proper way to be black. When the Erin Andrews video surfaced, he went on and on about how he could never look her in the eye after everything he had done to label her a sex object.

I suppose he could just stop doing the **** that forces the apologies. Or, gasp, he could have an editor who kills something that mentions someone's "fat ****ing face," which goes to pre-empt the question earlier in this thread about what if Telander or someone else at a newspaper had written it.

But the checks all cashed, the rep is made, Will is where he wants to be,and I guess all we should do is figure out who gets the next installment of the Will Leitch Heartfelt Apology Tour. Berman, maybe?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Will Leitch seems to be making a little cottage industry out of heartfelt apologies for things that so obviously shouldn't have happened in the first place. He engaged in similar heart-rending when Jason Whitlock called him out for writing in his book about what is the proper way to be black. When the Erin Andrews video surfaced, he went on and on about how he could never look her in the eye after everything he had done to label her a sex object.

I suppose he could just stop doing the **** that forces the apologies. Or, gasp, he could have an editor who kills something that mentions someone's "fat ****ing face," which goes to pre-empt the question earlier in this thread about what if Telander or someone else at a newspaper had written it.

But the checks all cashed, the rep is made, Will is where he wants to be,and I guess all we should do is figure out who gets the next installment of the Will Leitch Heartfelt Apology Tour. Berman, maybe?

Berman deserves no apologies... From anyone...

 

[imjustagirl]

I really enjoyed the piece. I thought it was gut-wrenching. I RTed it last night, and BYH read it off that. We both said that Ebert's simple response to Leitch's "fat ****ing fact" was 1000000000X more painful than if he had gone off, or even just ignored it.

We'll disagree on the impact of Leitch's story. I thought it was good.

 

[Double Down]

On the flip side, Will Leitch prostituting his relationship with Ebert yet again, heartfelt or otherwise, only reestablishes/reaffirms what a complete mensch Roger Ebert is. So while there may be selfish motivations in offering this mea culpa, in the end, it's another chance to recognize that Ebert is someone genuinely worth admiring.

I think what I also took from this is that writing will always be writing. (The same way that music will always be music.) And real writers -- and I think Leitch is one, despite his unique brand of self-deprecating narcissism -- will always want the approval and advice and friendship of real writers. The medium does not matter. Already there seems to be a reassessment taking place. Some of the young turks (as Leitch describes himself) who saw themselves as punk rock journalists determined to tear down their idols and build a new way on the net, are no longer 25 and convinced they have all the answers. We're the same age, he and I. And I can see how easily I could have taken the route he did -- maybe not in terms of success, but certainly style and tone. It's so easy, when you're young, to think THESE ARE SOME THINGS I THINK, AND THEY ARE MUCH SMARTER AND INTERESTING THAN ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE! You need someone to yank on your belt loop and prevent you from unleashing your inner asshole.

And so even though so many internet rock stars like Leitch write stories that are still mostly told through a prism of "ME!" -- because anyone who ever came of age as a writer without the help of an editor thinks this is the only way to tell a story or look at the world -- they're starting to feel some remorse about painting their "We're the new kings!" rage with such a broad brush.

Yes, there was some cultural value in poking a stick at tired, phony acts like Jay Mariotti or Skip Bayless ... but Roger Ebert?

I suspect in the coming years, Leitch will look back at a number of things he did/wrote and cringe at the way he told them. It's such a delicate balancing act between "edgy, interesting commentary" and "narcissism." At least the Will Leitch Heartfelt Apology Tour will have plenty of fuel as it churns forward toward new horizons.