Jones/ESPNMAG

[playthrough]

Boom has an issue with Jones writing for ESPN The Mag, as if it's some form of hypocrisy. I'd call that a cheap shot, but that's just me. I don't think someone ever owes an explanation to sj for what he/she writes and where it is published.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

jgmacg is a well-reasoned man. I doubt he'd leave permanently.

jmac is a baby.

And you are doing nothing but trolling. JDV was less of a troll than you. You two are equal in your attention whoring.

 

[Boom_70]

I think the bottom line here is that art is open to interpretation, however a person decides to interpret, for good or for worse.

So Boom and Evil don't like Jones' piece(s). No big whoop.

No - I like the piece. Just thought it an odd location for Jones.
It would be like seeing an story written by Stewart Scott in The New Yorker.

 

[spnited]

I think the bottom line here is that art is open to interpretation, however a person decides to interpret, for good or for worse.

So Boom and Evil don't like Jones' piece(s). No big whoop.

No - I like the piece. Just thought it an location for Jones.

Care to translate that into English?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Boom, my brother, David Halberstam used to write for Page 2 on ESPN.com.
You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work.
Jonesy's piece is a forking masterpiece of the genre, and would be wherever it appeared.
This is an argument I do not understand.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Boom, my brother, David Halberstam used to write for Page 2 on ESPN.com.
You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work.
Jonesy's piece is a forking masterpiece of the genre, and would be wherever it appeared.
This is an argument I do not understand.

Agreed with the caveat that the genre of end-of-year-review pieces isn't exactly populated by a Murderer's Row of legendary journalism.

 

[pallister]

Are other professions filled with so many whiny, thin-skinned professionals?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

OK, because Elliotte asked, and I respect him as someone who's probably already seen the Canadiens exhibit at the Hockey HOF while I have not, I will attempt to present a substantive reply to one of CL's critiques -- namely, his problem with Part III, the point of which section seems fairly obvious to me.
(I will leave aside any response to the fourth-grade snarkery attending the basic point.)
The section begins with one athlete talking about an encounter with one president, and moves from there to a general discussion of how these two men -- and athletes/celebrities/etc. -- maintain and/or rehabilitate the public personae that developed around them during the peak of their respective career. Secondarily, it seems to be a nuanced study of how we define public figures -- do we define them by the good they have done, will do, and continue to do, or by the worst mistakes/crimes/blunders/rumors of same with which they are involved. Can they come back from the latter? Should they? Is that something they can do, or something we allow them to do? As for Tyree, it seems that he doesn't want the sum total of himself to be one catch in the SB. Albeit, it's a lower level of concern than Clinton's or Armstrong's, but as a microcosmic perspective, I think it works.
Therefore, I do not believe that you can find three random people and do the same thing, and I think an argument based on that premise fails.

 

[Moderator1]

Are other professions filled with so many whiny, thin-skinned professionals?

Yes

 

[beeranyone]

I came on this thread because of the high praise that was being heaped upon Jones' piece. I thought "hey I should check it out" but the piece was for the most part crap. I criticized the piece because it deserves criticism. Seriously - the issues I raised nobody has addressed. Please - just one person explain to me what the hell Lance Armstrong and David Tyree have to do with one another. Someone explain to me a piece called The Things We Forgot includes among others Lance Armstrong, Yankee Stadium and Michael Phelps. Who has forgotten them?

I understand that in some of your eyes Chris Jones is not just a literary God but someone on this board who you hope notices you to give you a patronizing pat on the head but come on. That piece was a mailed in piece of year in review on acid crap. Jesus - Chris Jones could literally ship on some of you and you would praise him for his performance art.

Sheep.

Hi everyone. I started this thread. Because I enjoyed Jones' piece. Not because I think he is a god. Just because I thought it was cool that he did it, that I enjoyed it, and that a magazine in a down economy would devote that many pages to something that, let's face it, most don't view as essential journalism these days. but since Evil Basket has pooped all over all our keyboards, lemme just help him out. EB: you forking idiot. Jones says clearly in the piece that Armstrong and Tyree are two opposite sides of legacy. The section is about legacy.

Now, i feel better.

 

[shotglass]

EB: you forking idiot.

I like you already.

 

[beeranyone]

Oh well, while I'm here I might as well jump in. The folks who think ESPN Mag sucks because of all the hip-hop graphics and whatnot are probably still reeling from its early incarnation and will always find fault with a publication that is design and photo heavy. In truth, the front of that mag is way better and meatier than it used to be and the features are as strong as anything you'll see in SI, and they're often way more useful. I think it's a smart rag. Smarter still for adding Jones to a roster with Thompson, Keown, Fleming and Wickersham. If you disagree, fine. But of all the ESPN properties, the magazine is the one with the most independent voice. If you let one Stu Scott sidebar kill that for you, then good luck finding your way out of the forest.