Deadspin: Manti Te'o's dead girlfriend story was a hoax

You can make a pretty good link between Craggs' huffy reaction and Leitch's horrifically lazy piece about Darren Rovell. In both cases, they just love being the cool kids and belittling everything that isn't cool -- not answering or explaining, really, just belittling.

That's enough among their acolytes, I guess.

 

That depends on the tone of the questions. This one was clearly out to be some kind of Defender of the Faith, likely steered this way by his overlords.

Craggs' reaction to the questioner's arrogance was appropriate. Leitch's Rovell column read like a terribly lazy space filler, which many columnists end up having to do with some regularity.

If being a fan of what these particular dudes produce at their best makes one an "acolyte," then, OK, sure. Guilty as charged. I will say that my interactions with these particular people, whether on social media or over drinks, have been much more interesting and open-minded than many of my communications with those who pooh-pooh their work here.

With the notable exception of my old Quidditch teammate 3_Octave_Fart.

 

Not huge on Magary. Leitch, Burke, Craggs, Scocca . . . there's talent and insight there. Don't agree with them all the time, but there's room for their viewpoint.

 

As I wrote in the Combine thread, from the accounts published recently, it really looks like Te'o is a great person who was just hoodwinked then scared to come clean. Really too bad for him and I admit I rushed to judgment too soon.

 

When the interviewer is so intent on belittling Deadspin that he thinks a joke about Girl Scout cookies is a racial slur, then I can excuse Craggs' huffy reactions.

 

Was that a college kid? Those questions were fucking brain-dead. Think outside the box a little bit instead of presenting other people's words and doing so completely out of context.

The question about Tom Scocca saying Tommy Craggs was pacing was particularly absurd, and the answer was justly abusive.

 

Let's take this sequentially. Before the Girl Scouts nonsense (which I think the guy just doesn't know that Samoas are Girl Scout cookies), here is the part of the interview we're talking about:


Q: Ed Sherman wrote the following about a quote toward the end of the Deadspin story on the Te’o girlfriend hoax: “If I’m the editor, I don’t let that quote go through. Who was this friend of Tuiasosopo? Was this person also involved? Friends have a tendency to talk out of school. Maybe this person exaggerated the quote just to be part of the story?” and “So now you’re running an incredibly damning quote from a single source who likely doesn’t know the complete story. 80 percent sure is long way from 100 percent sure in this instance.”
How do you respond to that? What’s the rationale behind adding that friend’s opinion in the piece at all? In light of ESPN’s report that Ronaiah Tuiasosopo admitted to the hoax and that Te’o was not involved in it, does the quote in the Deadspin story accomplish anything other than leading the reader to believe that Te’o was somehow involved?

A: This is a concern troll’s complaint. It’s moronic. That’s a quote from a source who knew both the hoax and hoaxer better than anyone we’d spoken with. It contains its own grain of salt. Eighty percent is not 100 percent: congratulations, Ed Sherman, you can understand the basic English words and number concepts that went into the quote. Yet 80 percent is nevertheless “incredibly damning.”

There are 2,000 words of context preceding that quote, context that was perfectly understood by everyone who read the story except committed Notre Dame truthers and certain willfully dense journalists who were determined to remind people that Deadspin isn’t real journalism. When the story broke, almost none of the people who gleefully jumped on Manti Te’o pulled out that quote to make the case. Only retroactively did people decide this had been the prosecutorial pivot of the piece.

-----

The question is perfectly legitimate and Craggs is being an officious asshole trying to dismiss what is in actuality a pretty major fuck-up in the story.

 

There's somebody who doesn't know Samoas and Thin Mints are Girl Scout cookies!?! That's a sad existence.

Anyway, I thought he was correct with his response in the second graf. Take out the snark and putdowns and I thought it was a fair response.

 

Answers like this — which makes him sound like a thin-skinned message board douchebag — are not helping the cause. How many people who don't personally know Craggs or aren't invested in the type of work Deadspin does will take this seriously. I'd say about 0 percent.

Reminds me of this:

I guess you can go through life
saying fuck you and your horse
And maybe you think you'll leave
... a good-looking corpse

But cool is a windmill,
a Quixotic mirage
And it ain't never been cool
to do the self-sabotage

 

1) I would never have known Girl Scout cookies in college.

2) So someone who questions the out-of-his-ass "80 percent" chance assertion is either a Notre Dame truther or a willfully dense journalists? I find it very difficult to believe you agree with that. And you can't take out the first paragraph. The snark and putdowns are part and parcel of it.

Craggs and the Deadspin group don't want to stand behind their work. Again this traces to Leitch's "oh shit, did I really write that? I'm so sorry" habit. Craggs just goes another way from Leitch and decides to be a dick and a bully instead of answering the question and letting the work stand for itself.

 

I like Dorothy Parker better:

Whose Love is given over-well
Will look on Helen's face in Hell;
While they whose love is thin and wise
May view John Knox in Paradise.

... or something.

 

Poor John Knox. Sad to see his career end with that spine injury.