Le Batard opines on sports journalism

He's still in the business?

 

The Cuban quote, panning media guys as the dumbest in the room, makes him look like a fool.

But then LeBatard tops that when he uses Barry Bonds and Jose Canseco who kept it real and then grew tired of the fight. Oh, they did? Bonds and Canseco are only a part of this discussion precisely because they didn't keep it real, artificially inflating their biceps, heads and stats and then snarling at anyone who suggested that might be the case.

I don't like the "gotcha!" crap that goes on in the business, which is what Van Gundy addressed so well. We want colorful quotes from interesting people, yet too many want to pounce as soon as they say anything that does not fit some mainstream norm of acceptable.

But the rest of this was an utter waste of time, straight from DLB's athletes-as-misunderstood-and-even-victims playbook. Anyone rounding up Bonds, Canseco, Thomas, Pennington, Iverson and Cuban to make his case for him deserves to have it thrown right out of court.

 

He can blow the whole thing out his ass because:

1. He's doing his Lebo act of taking the "other" side.

2. This bullshit about "the media" never flies. Who is "the media?" The New York Times? Some talk show guy who calls himself "The Nasty One?" The offbeat TV types who get credentialed for the big events and ask everyone, "boxers or briefs?" Some blogger? Lebo himself?

Fuck it.

 

I'm curious about who else LeBatard, channeling Teddy Roosevelt, believes is above criticism?

Politicians?

Supreme Court justices?

Cops?

Public school administrators?

Or is the pedestal reserved for guys who run fast?

 

There is a lot to be said for the Le Batard approach. Look at how he treats the players from "The U" and the results he gets. Also Ricky Williams.

Tom Verducci seems to have same philosophy as evidence to how he dealt with Roger Clemens.

 

Van Gundy's quote was dead on and one of my longstanding issues with our business. But the guys usually doing the ripping are the big-name columnists or the anonymous bloggers, not the daily beat guys. As a long-time beat writer, it's by my observation that if anything, we have too many jock sniffers among us. (We also have a lot of people that work their asses off. Just wish we had more of them.)

As for the rest of the column, I didn't quite get it. Not sure what the reason for it was, but if I was the sports editor in Miami, I would have killed it. Makes for good talk among us in the business, but I have to believe the casual sports fan in south Florida would rather read about something else. We write about ourselves way, way too much. I understand the need to be transparent, but hire an ombudsman or something.

 

Judging by the Twitter comments and message board posts I've read, readers absolutely loved the column and found it to be interesting.

 

Interesting observation.

We keep saying that LeBatard is pandering to athletes.

Is he actually pandering to his readers?

I just find hero-worship by grown men so pathetic.

 

Maybe I'm wrong (and certainly wouldn't be the first). I have no idea what to read into page counts and twitter comments. Also, the lead sports columnist usually has one of the most well-read and most commented stories on a newspaper's website, no matter the topic.

 

Sorry, but the Teddy Roosevelt quote, always a thin-skinned whine anyway, fizzles utterly when it comes to athletes doped to the capillaries.

Their "achievements" don't count.

They've never measured themselves in any compelling way.

 

Gee, a media-bashing screed was popular out on the Internet? You don't say.

 

The same dipshit fans who are blowing LeBatard for his portrayal of writers as know-nothings who never competed for anything in their lives will rage about why the beat writer isn't calling for the coach to be fired when he doesn't cover the spread against State U.