The Buzz about Buzz

by Menelaus on May 5, 2008 12:51 PM PDT in News

My apologies for indulging in this post, which doesn't relate to the Bruins or even BN much at all. But, I wanted to say a few words about the dust up last week regarding Will Leitch's appearance on HBO's Costas Now.

As you may have heard, Leitch, of Deadspin.com fame, made an appearance on Costas last week only to be ambushed by Buzz Bissinger, writer of Friday Night Lights. In case you didn't catch the program, the video is here and here. Take a look, it's pretty amusing to watch a grown man almost lose control of his facilities.

Yes, Buzz, I'm mocking you. And I'm saying this as someone who has spent 34 years perfecting the craft.

I'm not all that interested in the "new media" versus "old media" debate. I don't need to point out, again, how embarrassing Bissenger's profanity laden meltdown was. I don't need to note sharply declining newspaper readerships or the employment fears of traditional writers. There's no need to point out that there are good and bad professional journalists, just as there are good and bad blogs. I don't even need to chuckle about some folks inability to discern the difference between a comment and a front page blog post. Those points, and many others, have already been made (among other places, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

I prefer a slightly different angle. As a blogger on BN, I don't spend my days worrying about how I'm perceived by professional journalists, or, frankly, anyone beside our community members. I'm not looking for links. I'm not hoping to see my post quoted in the paper. And, while I can't speak for the rest of the front-pagers, my only interest is talking about the Bruins and sharing information of interest to the Nation.

I don't need to be evenhanded. I'm proudly partisan. I don't care to mediate a detente between the media of new and old. I'm only care to bleed blue and gold. I'm not part of any movement. I'm a proud Bruin alumni. I'm not a journalist, and don't pretend to be. I'm a fan who enjoys stepping away from my hectic life to talk Bruins with my friends. In the end, I view Bruins Nation as first and foremost a community. At that's it.

So, when something like the Buzz Bissenger episode comes along, I can only shake my head, and wonder how so many people can not get it, and why so many of those people care. Sure, some folks may think blogs are the end of sports news as we know it, but I'll just keep blogging about UCLA and won't spend a moment worrying about what's got Buzz's undies in such a twist.

More videos from the "ryanparkersongs's channel" channel at Heavy.com

(HT: the Wiz)

So, for the record, if anyone here posts another photograph of Matt Leinart boozing with teenage co-eds, please know that were not trying to show he's "a real human being." He's an ex-player for our main rival, and we're making a joke at his expense. And, yes, we're also trying to embarrass him (in whatever infinitesimally small way we can).

Oh, and also talk about UCLA.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

On the same page with you

This sums it up well for me:

I have never really cared too much about the ongoing feud between the traditional and new media. I think they both have a role and should complement each other in keeping all of us better informed.

As for this Buzz guy, his tirade was pretty sad. Yet I think there are more of his colleagues who will eventually learn to work with the reality in the digital world and adapt accordingly. Meanwhile, all we can do is just keep having fun talking up UCLA sports. If there is need to keep any reports/writer covering UCLA honest, we will do so, but that will never be the reason for why we keep writing here. Again you summed it up perfectly on how I felt towards the whole ordeal.

by Nestor on May 5, 2008 4:04 PM PDT reply reply 0 recs

Sad, Pathetic, Defensive Generalizations

Wow!

I cannot believe that it was worth HBO's time to put on this segment -- but, hey, that's entertainment.

I don't see much of a serious message here and I don't think one was intended. One can see this as the reaction of the old school against the new -- but I don't think that's really the case. There are a lot of old school folks using new media to find a greater audience. This was just one cranky man having a moment.

The real issue was not squarely engaged: Has there been slippage in the quality of information available since the expansion of the media?

To say that, one would have to have much more faith in the MSM than I do. I've been a part of major news stories since I got out of law school -- and have rarely found true and accurate reporting in the MSM. So, the "old media's" claim to the "quality high ground" doesn't fly with me.

In fact, in our own little corner of the world, we've seen the absolute and utter failure of both the DN and LAT to live up to the high standards of journalism that I think are essential to the strength of a fully informed public.

In that light, one has to look at the Blogs. I don't. I don't venture far from here. But, I will put the writing and analysis of BN up against any media outlet covering UCLA.

What I like most here, is that everything posted is subjected to critique -- and the people here are smart and knowledgeable. Can't say the same for the MSM. They don't offer the same give and take. Most of their critique comes on Blogs and maybe that's why they are so sensitive.

Why the deep resentment? Do they really want us to believe that they are standing up against the needless embarrassment of stars and celebrities? Oh, please. They've set the standard for exploitation. Watch any newscast. How much is really news? How much is "human interest" stuff that many don't find interesting?

I think these are grumpy people whose audience is shrinking because of the competition for viewers' and readers' minds.

The stratification of the audience because of niche media is a challenge to the big guys and the big bucks they want to make.

Bottom Line: Hey guys, I know you've had a monopoly before, but guess what, this is America and America was built on competition. Want your readers back? Write better. It's that easy. Be so good that you become the place to go.

Competition is great. It gives us better products at better prices. Information is a commodity. Want a big share of the market? Earn it.

I will always support a world of choices. That gives me power. I use that power by pushing buttons on my remote and computer. If you're not good, you don't get my attention and time.

The MSM has been playing in its own sandbox for too long. It thinks it owns all sand. Sorry, guys, you don't.

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 5, 2008 4:04 PM PDT reply reply 0 recs

Just piling on

Like N and M, I don't care much either way about this old vs. new media debate. Seems there are more important problems in the world than something this trivial. You raise a good point though, that the assumption throughout the discussion was that the old media is the bastion for sound reasonable thought, when we have seen all too many examples to the contrary. I also have no sympathy for the journalists who feel that their oligopoly is a birthright and an entitlement. The rule applies in the vast majority of industries out there and journalism is no exception: Adapt or Die.

by Tydides on May 5, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

RE: Bissinger

I loved the Billingsleys from Friday Night Lights.

Bissinger's meltdown was more Shane Falco from The Replacements.

by bruinhopeful on May 5, 2008 4:21 PM PDT reply reply 0 recs

They have a point...

That the general blogger is going to be FAR less qualified to communicate the issues on to the reader than a seasoned and skillful journalist.

However, how many actual journalists these days can even claim the things they put in print are adequately researched and accurate? Not a whole hell of a lot!

The journalists these days have essentially become bloggers who happened to go to journalism schools and gotten to where they are by following the old system. They are probably threatened to see internet bloggers with ZERO qualifications put out essentially the same quality material without having to pay their dues.

What's the important piece that they are missing? That juornalism standards in general have fallen so far that most of us can't even tell the difference between print and blogs anymore!

The solution is for the "professionals" to get their act together and start putting things out there that actually separate their material from the guy wearing the Brett Favre jersey pounding away on his macbook while sitting in his mom's basement.

by BruinsWin on May 5, 2008 4:24 PM PDT reply reply 0 recs

Ding! Ding! Ding! We Have a Winner!

Congratulations on being the 1,000,000th person to use the 'mom's basement' line. You've just won a copy of "Dave Barry Turns 50." Keep an eye on your mailbox, as your gift should be arriving soon!

Why should there be any set of qualifications necessary to have a voice, which is what most independent blogs are about? The reader can determine who best communicates their ideas and whose writing they can trust. Personally, when it comes to UCLA sports, I'd rather hear Ryebread's take here on BN than Plaschke in the LA Times.

Like you said, it's up to the writer to differentiate himself from the pack.

by insomniacslounge on May 5, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

How to differentiate oneself from the pack

This is the Doh! version of standing out. It is a two-part exercise: (1) Just make stuff up, (b) be wrong about what you make up, and (iii) deny what your originally said when it turns out that your guess wasn't even remotely close to reality. And then, (IV) refuse to open your blog to criticism of your reporting and writing.

I tried to phrase this as Doh! would. It's this type of writing that has really differentiated him from the pack.

by Fox 71 on May 5, 2008 8:27 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

the 'mom's basement' line

Has anyone done a specific post taking down that line?

by bluestreet on May 6, 2008 7:06 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Wasn't it Michael Wilbon on PTI

And the Washington Post who made the "Mom's Basement" comment famous?

by bruinhopeful on May 6, 2008 9:32 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

quality is not the issue

I don't think traditional journalists' real issue is that the quality of work is inferior. It's that the new media has forced them to operate in way that terrifies them because they are no longer insulated from their harshest critics which has always been their readers. In the old days, the only way that you could voice criticism about a piece was to write a letter to the editor. If you were lucky, it would appear in the editorial section. Otherwise, it was probably ignored. With new media and the Internet, even traditional writers now see their pieces online, linked to, quoted and trashed. They have thin skins (just like everybody) and they are operating in a world they are very uncomfortable in.

Think about how many times Dohn has had his feathers ruffled about something that he's written in his blog and then have thoroughly lambasted. He straddles the world of traditional print sports writing and new media blogging and has experienced the media world to come -- participation from the average fan with opinions that can carry the same weight of his almighty pen...or typewriter...or word processor...or laptop...or blackberry. Yes. Blackberry.

by beentie on May 6, 2008 12:39 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

A Lot of Good Points Here

The original post by Meneleas is pretty close to dead on. We are fans, we are partisan; we as bloggers are just different from the main stream media.

I think things get murky when the main stream media starts challenging bloggers as equals (or for that matter, when bloggers challenge the main stream media as equals), as opposed to each recognizing the fundamental differences between blogs and the main stream media.

We are partisan, main stream media is not (conspiracy theorists go away). We post instantaneously and without editors, main stream media does not--they have editors and fact-checkers. Main stream media has to work hard to be fair (in fact, $$ depends on it), many bloggers play up the absurd or play to their audience.

There are similarities between the main stream media and bloggers. Big ones. And there can be no doubt that bloggers generate great material which is hugely entertaining. But I just think it's pointless to compare the mainstream media to bloggers, or vice versa--they are too different, and not equal.

When either side gets on their high horse things get ugly.

by rfirpo on May 6, 2008 9:16 AM PDT reply reply 0 recs

Sorry, But Your Generalizations Don't Help Here

With all due respect, your general labels don't move the ball forward.

There are great reporters in the MSM and great reporters on Blogs. One cannot say that all MSM reporters strive for accuracy and that all blogs are driven by passion.

Truth is, we never know who is writing here. We know Blog names but not qualifications or skill levels. You might be surprised with the professional credentials of some who contribute. The same occurs on other Blogs.

The anonymity forces us to evaluate posts on their content and not on the name of the poster. I think that's great.

And, one need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to challenge the concept of "neutral reporting" or reporting without the interplay of the reporter's value structure with his output. Our perceptions are shaped by the way we see the world. Some reporters know that and try to factor that into their writing and others don't.

The few Blogs I read are written by people who are the masters of their subject matters, strive for accuracy and provide cogent, detailed analysis. That is one of the great things about "niche journalism".

Yes, there are posters who treat the blog sphere as some form of rage therapy. There are also MSM reporters -- in print, on TV, and on the radio -- who do the same thing.

BN is the perfect place for this disagreement. Take a look at the depth of the postings here -- posts that use empirical research and data to support their conclusions and/or opinions. Compare that to either the Fishwrap or Duh. Do you think Streeters play of the race card was more accurate and impressive than the rebuttals that appeared here?

Yes, there are impulse posters here -- but there are also some very serious analysts.

BN may not be representative of all blogs, just like Frontline and the McNeil/Lehrer are not representative of all TV news, and the New York Times does not represent all newspapers.

As my Mom says, the proof is in the pudding. There are a lot of people, like me, who get our serious Bruin sports news here. I almost never read the 'Wrap or DN, anymore.

Rather than focus on generalizations and speak of the MSM in the abstract, we should be talking about specific Blogs and MSM outlets.

I'll throw down the first challenge: Where, in the MSM, can I get accurate, unbiased, fact based reporting on my Bruins? What is better than BN?

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 6, 2008 11:22 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Well, I agree with your comments about BN

It (BN) is excellent.

In a debate about the mainstream media and the blogsphere (a big topic), I think working with generalizatons is fine--everyone here is smart enough to know that even well-founded generalizations about blogs don't necessarily apply to BN. Generalizations make it easier to addresss the big issues, however. And I'm not trying to move anything forward, I'm just giving my opinion.

I agree some bloggers are great, some reporters are not. No question about it.

I do think the average reporter is more unbiased, fair, and neutral then the average blogger. That is my opinion. However, I think that the average blogger has a greater interest and passion then the average reporter.

I don't think the LATimes is more biased then BN posters. I think the LATimes is less biased and more neutral then BN, though it covers significantly less material.

BN is superior to just about anywhere else for Bruin news because it has so much material on so many sports and so many topics. I don't think BN's strength is its journalistic integrity and unbiasednessd. Sure a lot of the takes here are unbiased, but that's not why I come. I come because this is where the vast majority of great content is. The community is the strength, not the even-handedness. And I sift through the material here knowing that it is a blog, and I often post because I completely disagree with something--usually an opinionated take).

The lack of UCLA content in the LATimes compared to BN is why I don't got there as much. However, when stories do appear, I read them (and they are almost always posted here, because the site needs the mainstream media in a lot of ways) because the stories involve access to the key figures at key times and are mostly solid takes. I sometimes disagree with the paper, but not nearly as much as I do here (another reason reading this blog is so much more entertaining).

Anyway, I can't remember my point, except that I actually agree with a lot of what you said, but disagree with some stuff--or maybe just the defensive tone. I love BN too.

by rfirpo on May 6, 2008 1:24 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Well-Stated, M.

Obviously, there are blogs for everyone, and some are more "factual" and serious than others. Is the same not true of the "traditional" media? I choose to read and post here at BN because I love my Bruins and I find it informative, reliable, and entertaining. Other folks prefer to read and post at sites which are more "in-your-face," profane, argumentative, etc.

Blogs are not, Mr. Bissinger, all the same, and your ridiculous tirade has done more to lessen one's faith in your self-acclaimed dedication, professionalism and inegrity than any blog, comment, or photo of Matt Leinart boozing it up could ever, ever do. While I may have been interested in something you had to say before seeing this, now I can grant you no credibilty whatsoever, because you clearly have a personal agenda and you have completely lost control and perspective.

It somewhat far-fetched to call articles in certain publications "journalism" at all, really, and the same is true for television "reporting." Some folks read The Wall Street Journal, some read The National Enquirer, some don't read at all. To each his own.