but is more interested in cracking silly one liners giving his own spin of events–which is not reporting?

This sounds more like the Plaschkes and Mariottis of the world than anything else.

I don’t want to be accused of being a blogger in terms of rumors but there is a rumor that the Minneapolis Star-Tribune may go bankrupt.
Good riddance, I'd say. It's as bad a big city newspaper as it's ever been my misfortune to read.

Did I miss something or is their writing terribly confusing?

Dude, you are no victim. You sat there all boyish trying hard to smile because you vexed but neat witted Deadspin opportunistic as Buzz became newspaper’s last gasp, bottom of the ninth, down by 10 million, crickets in the 300 million collar stadium because God Saved the Fan sick ‘em?

WTF was that? It was pointedly absurd like the grotesque absolute love of the Green Bay French Licked Chicago Miked cheese curd; without words…just unmitigated and unapologetic ######## blurbs, Victorianish [sic] and luckily entitled but always unaccountable midget mouthed while pandering to defense mechanism carotid artery bleeding demography hoping to stay relevant little boy on the playground getting his ass beat every day in front of his pops words?

It's like one of those websites that has a bunch of random text splattered all over the place for the search engine crawlers.

Did I miss something or is their writing terribly confusing?

You didn't miss anything. The Starting Five leads the internet in lengthy, garbled outrage. Outrage over sports/sports media to be exact, and despite the fact that there are real problems that deserve a little outrage, the Starting Five just gives me a headache. Yeah, Will Leitch doesn't deserve this much credit or attention, and sure, newspapers are on the brink of becoming an entirely different product, but trying to be edgy, controversial, and loud (very LOUD) while pointing all of that out is annoying. It's borderline dishonest, and hardly an alternative to edgy, controversial, and loud MSM columnists, and radio personalities.

So this is what it would be like if Poochie had a blog?

So this is what it would be like if Poochie had a blog?

That would mean sports blogs are on their last legs, and I wouldn't have a problem with that.

It's like one of those websites that has a bunch of random text splattered all over the place for the search engine crawlers.

It is one hell of an interview though, despite the really uncool intro.

That would mean sports blogs are on their last legs, and I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Really?

They all think they’re much funnier than they are. It adds to this era of mockery that we live in. That’s not true of every blog. There’s one called the Beer Leaguer that covers the Phillies where the posts are rational and so are the comments. It’s all about what’s happening with the Phillies and what’s happening with Howard (Ryan), and Myers (Brett) etc. Do the Phillies need another pitcher and the like. It does give the fan a voice to give their opinions. I think that’s great.

This is absolutely true. I think Buzz lives in Philly, but he is absolutely right about this. Beerleaguer is about 100 times better than something like Deadspin.

This is absolutely true. I think Buzz lives in Philly, but he is absolutely right about this. Beerleaguer is about 100 times better than something like Deadspin.

Why worry if there are bad blogs out there? I think CBS is an awful, awful television network, but they have an audience so what can I do about it? Instead of fretting about how awful tv is, I just don't watch CBS. Nobody has to read Deadspin. Nobody ever need look at a blog of any kind for the rest of their lives if they don't want to. Seriously.

I can’t imagine a paper going bankrupt. It’s really scary out there. I guess what’s really scary is what is going to replace it? Is Deadspin going to replace it? Is that where we are going to get our information? Is it going to come from someone who doesn’t know reporting but may watch the game on TV but is more interested in cracking silly one liners giving his own spin of events–which is not reporting?

And the difference between the type of bloggers to which he refers and Mariotti, Plaschke, Paige, et al. is . . .

. . . that the bloggers are more passionate and truly enjoy what they write about, rather than simply trying to say something controversial in order to boost circulation.

I don’t want to be accused of being a blogger in terms of rumors but there is a rumor that the Minneapolis Star-Tribune may go bankrupt. I can’t imagine a paper going bankrupt. It’s really scary out there. I guess what’s really scary is what is going to replace it? Is Deadspin going to replace it?

For anyone who remembers the #### that Aaron Gleeman went through back in 2002 -- his dealings with the S-T pretty much took over a chat during a World Series game IIRC -- there's some schadenfreude waiting to be found.

I guess what’s really scary is what is going to replace it? Is Deadspin going to replace it? Is that where we are going to get our information?

I guess one can use fear-mongering and say Deadspin is going to replace every newspaper in the country. Or, one can be intelligent and actually use that lump that sits a foot above their shoulders and think that ESPN AND FOX SPORTS (you know, the websites he mentioned earlier in the answer) would replace newspapers.

Or, one can be intelligent and actually use that lump that sits a foot above their shoulders and think that ESPN AND FOX SPORTS (you know, the websites he mentioned earlier in the answer) would replace newspapers.

Is that supposed to comfort me?

Bissinger:

I guess the best of all worlds would be that newspapers exist in print and dedicate themselves to great writing. That newspapers not cave into this notion that everything has to be shorter and dumbed down. Newspapers are dumbed down terribly now so I don’t think that’s gonna happen. Newspapers are preparing for the moment where they will be extinct in print. It might not happen in my lifetime but it’s going to happen.

The question is will readers read long nuanced and wonderfully written stories on the Internet like they do in print. My instinct would be no because that is not what makes the Internet special. What makes the Internet special is that you can bounce around site to site in ten minutes. Even when I look at the Internet.

Well, that's just about completely backwards, from my perspective. No newspaper in the world ever devoted as much space to good writing as the best sport blogs do. There just isn't enough paper. When I get the Ft Worth Star-Telegram, I get a brief game story plus a side story about Hank Blalock's amusing adventures picking out a first baseman's glove or something. When I look at Baseball Time in Arlington I get a long, attentive, meticulous picking-apart of last night's game with all the nuances I missed while I was snoozing in front of the TV set. When I look at the Newberg Report I get an involved discussion of the Rangers' prospects in the minors or of a strategic development within the organization that barely makes the three-dot stuff in the paper. There's really no comparison.

And as others have mentioned, there is no lack of irritating, barely-readable blogs. But in print there is no lack of Mike Lupica.

Is that supposed to comfort me?

No, but Bissinger thinks that everything with .com at the end of it has no journalistic credibility, even things that he mentions in the same damn answer. This kind of ignorance is infuriating.

that the bloggers are more passionate and truly enjoy what they write about, rather than simply trying to say something controversial in order to boost circulation.

Not only is this exactly the kind of generalization that Bissinger is getting blasted for making, it's completely untrue. There are many, many blogs that post sensational stuff meant to build hits and consequent ad revenue. We can start with Deadspin, which among other things works in about three photos of Erin Andrews a week, but it sure doesn't end there.

This kind of ignorance is infuriating.
This willful ignorance and the misguided pride in the same has deep roots in the MSM, in which I include talk radio. This morning at the radio shift change, I heard the local yahoo in the morning, Angelo Cataldi (former print reporter, BTW) wax ignorant on any modern fielding analysis. When the overnight host, Paul Domowich?, mentioned that some stats said that Scott Rolen was a better 3B than Mike Schmidt, Angelo went into his trademarked faux anger schtick. "What, did someone go back and look at each play?" "Some idiot made up a new stat?" When Paul D. meekly protested that Bill James made a living at that kind of stuff, more invective poured out. This stuff was all ad hominem, more or less saying something like James sitting around in his PJs making this stuff up. Besides, Rolen was hurt all the time, so how could he be better? (A moment of rationality in the diatribe, as Rolen has missed 20-30 games per year on average.) Besides, Rolen was a miserable person so how could he be better? It was all schtick but I think that Cataldi hasn't looked at a new stat since someone explained ERA to him back when he learned about decimals in grammar school. I guess Paul D. is either a wimp or he is only allowed to be the setup man with the star and the "discussion" finished.
As I've said before, if I had stuck with mainframe BAL and never learned another thing, I'd either be delivering papers like one of my former Luddite bosses or I'd be doing maintenance drudgery for some podunk company for 1/3 of what I am making now.

The fact that a journalist "can't imagine" a newspaper going bankrupt is exactly why newspapers are going bankrupt.

I know Bissinger has written some decent books in his day, but he's an idiot, plain and simple.

The fact that a journalist "can't imagine" a newspaper going bankrupt is exactly why newspapers are going bankrupt.

Well, it does appear to be true that, as a rule, even the worst-performing newspapers have a profit margin in the high teens, or so I gather ... to the extent that when we hear publishers whine & cry about plummeting profits these days, what they're actually blubbering about is margins that aren't quite as obscene as they're used to. My understanding is that any number of other industries, like grocery stores, restaurants, etc, would kill for half that.

Again, though, that's simply the impression among the newspaper rank & file. I haven't done any sort of study of the numbers.

When I look at Baseball Time in Arlington I get a long, attentive, meticulous picking-apart of last night's game with all the nuances I missed while I was snoozing in front of the TV set. When I look at the Newberg Report I get an involved discussion of the Rangers' prospects in the minors or of a strategic development within the organization that barely makes the three-dot stuff in the paper. There's really no comparison.

And who exactly did this "long, attentive, metculous picking-apart" of the game?
Ohhhhh. It was a guy in front of a TV set.
Newspaper reporters still have something that the bloggers lack: access. And if it's used correctly, it should have another thing that the bloggers lack: credibility.
I'll take access and credibility any day over the self-indulgent tripe I read on most blogs nowadays. Earth to bloggers: you ain't that funny.

Earth to bloggers: you ain't that funny.

It doesn't sound as though your comment is relevant to either of the blogs mentioned in the post you're responding to. There goes your credibility.