ESPN NASCAR

[nascarwatcher]

Absurd? I can understand your thinking on that. Who doesn't want to talk about hot topics?

Of course people want to discuss. The problem is that folks are not thinking about the effect of their words before they're posting and it's affecting those they're talking about. My hope is that, at least in this situation, someone will think twice before writing something hurtful.

 

[lono]

Absurd? I can understand your thinking on that. Who doesn't want to talk about hot topics?

Of course people want to discuss. The problem is that folks are not thinking about the effect of their words before they're posting and it's affecting those they're talking about. My hope is that, at least in this situation, someone will think twice before writing something hurtful.

Agreed.

 

[kleeda]

Just to make sure I have this correct:

1. The newspaper industry is bleeding sportswriting jobs.
2. ESPN.com comes to NASCAR and very publicly courts some of the best-known people in the business.
3. ESPN makes no secret that it's offering far, far north of $100,000 annually for a .com job.
4. Still, ESPN gets the cold shoulder from at least one and perhaps more well-known sportswriters.
5. This is a board populated by sports journalists.
6. Despite Nos. 1-5, no one is supposed to ask any questions about the above.

Uh, huh. :

I'll weigh in on this, since I could be considered somewhat of an authority on ESPN and NASCAR.

1) Everyone says it's true. Not sure it really is.
2) Publicly courted? Hardly. If publicly courted means we were seen in the same room/restaurant/table/bar with some of the writers that cover the sport, then we're guilty. Truth is, we've done the above with probably 50 writers in the business, and a fraction of those were job candidates.
3) Innacurate. There are -- by my count -- six people on the planet with first-hand knowledge of what a compensation package from ESPN.com might look like. What you are hearing is rumor and speculation, unless you are hearing it from one of those six. I'm pretty sure five of them won't tell you.
4) I guess it depends on your definition of cold shoulder.
5) This much appears to be true.
6) Questions seem fine. Names, speculation, rampant rumor and innuendo? Some of it has been potentially harmful to people's careers.

I will leave you with this thought. If you don't think I can't figure out who's on this board making posts potentially injurious to someone's career, you're wrong. Anyone posting in such a way on this board is off my list. And I am the one keeping the list.

Thanks,
K. Lee Davis (kleeda, get it)
ESPN.com motorsports editor

 

[Mystery_Meat]

Just to make sure I have this correct:

1. The newspaper industry is bleeding sportswriting jobs.
2. ESPN.com comes to NASCAR and very publicly courts some of the best-known people in the business.
3. ESPN makes no secret that it's offering far, far north of $100,000 annually for a .com job.
4. Still, ESPN gets the cold shoulder from at least one and perhaps more well-known sportswriters.
5. This is a board populated by sports journalists.
6. Despite Nos. 1-5, no one is supposed to ask any questions about the above.

Uh, huh. :

I'll weigh in on this, since I could be considered somewhat of an authority on ESPN and NASCAR.

1) Everyone says it's true. Not sure it really is.
2) Publicly courted? Hardly. If publicly courted means we were seen in the same room/restaurant/table/bar with some of the writers that cover the sport, then we're guilty. Truth is, we've done the above with probably 50 writers in the business, and a fraction of those were job candidates.
3) Innacurate. There are -- by my count -- six people on the planet with first-hand knowledge of what a compensation package from ESPN.com might look like. What you are hearing is rumor and speculation, unless you are hearing it from one of those six. I'm pretty sure five of them won't tell you.
4) I guess it depends on your definition of cold shoulder.
5) This much appears to be true.
6) Questions seem fine. Names, speculation, rampant rumor and innuendo? Some of it has been potentially harmful to people's careers.

I will leave you with this thought. If you don't think I can't figure out who's on this board making posts potentially injurious to someone's career, you're wrong. Anyone posting in such a way on this board is off my list. And I am the one keeping the list.

Thanks,
K. Lee Davis (kleeda, get it)
ESPN.com motorsports editor

I'll give you this, you're not, uh, stonewalling us.

 

[Jeff Gluck]

Wow, this thread has more controversy in three pages than the entire running NASCAR thread has in 45

 

[Clerk Typist]

I'm sure K. Lee Davis would agree that ESPN won't pay one penny more than necessary to hire a reporter or two for a beat that doesn't require marquee names and a marquee name's requisite salary.
If he thinks naming names will hurt someone's career, he might well remember the old adage than any publicity is better than no publicity at all. If he doesn't think so, it doesn't say much for his knowledge of this board. Bruce Martin, for one, continues to file miles of seemingly unedited copy for National Speed Sport News.

 

[nascarwriter]

Hold on now, Kleeda. It wouldn't be fair for you to assume the identities of people on this board and write them off your list based on that assumption. What if you're wrong? What if you blackball somebody who knows some of what's going on and therefore falls under suspicion, but in reality hasn't posted anything out of deference to the parties involved?

Maybe I'm the one you're blackballing for all the wrong reasons. Think about it.

 

[jennafryer]

Hold on now, Kleeda. It wouldn't be fair for you to assume the identities of people on this board and write them off your list based on that assumption. What if you're wrong? What if you blackball somebody who knows some of what's going on and therefore falls under suspicion, but in reality hasn't posted anything out of deference to the parties involved?

Maybe I'm the one you're blackballing for all the wrong reasons. Think about it.

You could probably avoid that by posting under your real name. Works for Poole, Gluck and Christley.

 

[nascarwriter]

Hold on now, Kleeda. It wouldn't be fair for you to assume the identities of people on this board and write them off your list based on that assumption. What if you're wrong? What if you blackball somebody who knows some of what's going on and therefore falls under suspicion, but in reality hasn't posted anything out of deference to the parties involved?

Maybe I'm the one you're blackballing for all the wrong reasons. Think about it.

You could probably avoid that by posting under your real name. Works for Poole, Gluck and Christley.

You miss the point I'm making. I'm one of many who does know something about what's going on. I've kept my mouth shut. I haven't posted anything under a real or fake name. But Davis could assume it's me posting anonymously. He could assume it's anybody. He could assume it's you posting under a fake name if he wanted to. What am I supposed to do? Post under my real name and tell him, "It's not me!" If anything, that would make me seem even more suspicious.

I meant the part about me being blackballed hypothetically. I'm not a candidate. I just don't think it's right for Davis to assume an anonymous poster is somebody he knows. He could wind up crossing somebody off the list unfairly, that's all.

 

[Clerk Typist]

Not getting in a pissing match here C T, but just pointing out that Kleeda's knowledge of this board would seem deeper than your own. He's been a member of this board twice as long as you have been, and he has nearly double the number of posts that you have. Seems to me he knows this board just fine.

And maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see the correlation between Kleeda and Brucie working for NSSN.

Longevity on the board is a virtue, I'm sure, though it has nothing do to with this discussion. Nor does the amount or frequency of posts. All three of us know the board, though I will not claim being clairvoyant, as others may.
As for the reference to Martin -- I know of him but do not know him nearly well enough to call him Brucie -- you're right, you don't see the correlation. It is this: He has been bashed repeatedly on this board, perhaps deservedly, perhaps not, and still writes, not only for NSSN but other outlets.
And kudos to nascarwriter for pointing out Davis' notion that he knows who's who in these parts. What is it they say about assuming?

 

[jennafryer]

Hold on now, Kleeda. It wouldn't be fair for you to assume the identities of people on this board and write them off your list based on that assumption. What if you're wrong? What if you blackball somebody who knows some of what's going on and therefore falls under suspicion, but in reality hasn't posted anything out of deference to the parties involved?

Maybe I'm the one you're blackballing for all the wrong reasons. Think about it.

You could probably avoid that by posting under your real name. Works for Poole, Gluck and Christley.

You miss the point I'm making. I'm one of many who does know something about what's going on. I've kept my mouth shut. I haven't posted anything under a real or fake name. But Davis could assume it's me posting anonymously. He could assume it's anybody. He could assume it's you posting under a fake name if he wanted to. What am I supposed to do? Post under my real name and tell him, "It's not me!" If anything, that would make me seem even more suspicious.

I meant the part about me being blackballed hypothetically. I'm not a candidate. I just don't think it's right for Davis to assume an anonymous poster is somebody he knows. He could wind up crossing somebody off the list unfairly, that's all.

If you aren't involved and haven't been posting, then why worry about it? Many of us have a pretty good idea who several fake name posters are, and I imagine its not too hard for K. Lee to figure out, either.

Yet some are mysteries, like eastcoastwriter, who popped up out of the blue with updates and misinformation -- including something about me -- only to dissapear from the board when I PMed her to inform her the info she was spreading about me was not accurate.

Bottom line is, lots and lots and lots of people are talking a lot of crap about this job with very limited knowledge. So many people were talking about me and spreading information about me, and approaching my husband with questions about me, but guess how many people actually bothered to ask me what the situation was? One.

So don't believe half of what you read on this board.

 

[spaceman]

And ignore the other half.