Costas Intro On Internet Media Segment

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

I know you're all chomping at the bit eagerly awaiting....the Bissinger part, but I had to break them up. Enjoy the intro first and the rest should be up shortly.

20 Comments:

it's champing at the bit, actually.

dr said...
Apr 30, 2008, 11:49:00 AM  

Keep it coming. Great working getting this stuff up already. Man I guess I just totally disagree with Wilbon there. I wouldn't say he's misinformed but just doesn't share a viewpoint that I would agree with. Great to see Leitch as one of the guys speaking for the blogs. I am definitely a fan of him along with you guys an a couple others.

Rob said...
Apr 30, 2008, 11:51:00 AM  

Thanks - these are great. The whole thing is a disgusting setup - beginning with the "guy in the shadows at his computer" visual. Please.

And Wilbon - wow, he just completely misses the entire point. "Credentials" is a classic strawman in this discussion and he should know we can see through it.

Then again, on yesterday's PTI he still blames Bartman for the cubs collapse in '03 so that should tell you how out of touch and delusional he remains.

Gibbon Jockey said...
Apr 30, 2008, 11:56:00 AM  

Wow, I just Googled it and apparently it is "champing at the bit".

"CHAMPING: Repetitious, strong opening and closing action of the mouth which
produces sounds when the teeth hit together."

Sounds a lot like chomping, no? Learn something new every day.

Great work with the videos, eagerly awaiting the rest.

Vegas Watch said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:00:00 PM  

Their credentials, Mr. Wilbon, are that people want to read what they have written. Many, many people. That's also your only real credential. You can have all the degrees and education money can buy, but if no one cares for your opinion, you will not have a job.

Sports journalism in newspapers is dying for two related reasons. We don't need the paper to give us scores and recaps, thanks to ESPN, TSN, Sky Sports, the web, etc. We also never really needed the opinions of many sports writers. By reading an opinion in a paper, we could get a sense of what others were thinking, in other places. The internet does that for us now, as well. The fact that you are Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post doesn't make your opinion any more valid or useful or interesting than Pat Grady at the Shamrock and Thistle Pub. The fact that Pat could now put his opinion online means only one thing to for the Wilbon's of the world: You have to show me why I should listen to what you have to say.

Scoops said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:01:00 PM  

Most blogs are opinion based...

Why the heck would you need credentials for your OWN opinion?

ssreporters said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:06:00 PM  

I swear, Wilbon sounds like my grandfather(who fought in WW1) used to sound when he'd get all all riled up.

Bruce said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:08:00 PM  

How elitist does that sound from all of the journalists?

Credentials this, no experience that.

That's the point!

ssreporters said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:14:00 PM  

I'm willing to bet he's never even read a blog other than when someone sends him a link of an especially outrageous post or photos of an athlete. He then assumes that's all there is to sports blogging, without actually, you know, reading...

Apr 30, 2008, 12:19:00 PM  

Serious question in response to Wilbon:

What gives him "credentials" to talk and write about sports? Set aside the journalism side of it i.e. the schooling and the standards. In terms of Wilbon giving an opinion on PTI or in his column about whether NASCAR should suspend Tony Stewart or if Indiana should fire Kelvin Sampson what gives him credential on these issues? Has he been a NASCAR driver? Has he been a AD at some point? He does the same thing bloggers do. He watches the games and listens to interviews and then renders an opinion. Granted he has the training and the cloak of journalistic standing to lend him credence but the manner in which he goes about forming his opinion is the same as the way I do it. I watch the games and tell you what I think about it.

tarheelfan said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:20:00 PM  

Well, part of this comes from the fact that many hard-working sports scribes are losing their access now, and so they're holding on to what they have. What the newspaper industry always says is "sure, TV is quick, but you get depth from newspapers." It's a farce.

But in this case, people like Wilbon are losing their stump. It used to be that Jim Murray could pontificate about something and it was genius. Now, the columnists are fighting for a smaller piece or newshole, so they get rankled when someone else offers opinion.

It'll all play out soon. I give it 2 years. I mean, you don't hear Posnanski or some of the other great columnists in the country complaining... because they have accepted it. They don't have to buy in, but they better accept it.

Now, I always will say that I wish SOME of the bloggers would understand that you don't ONLY have to go for the shock value. Leitch and FJM and AA and With Leather can do it because it's not their only shtick. They don't HAVE to work blue. If all you do is curse and put up boob pics, you're gonna flame out like Andrew Dice Clay.

ianseancahir said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:24:00 PM  

Costas said it again in his voice over - that bloggers don't care about "real credentials." What are real credentials? You mean my fake Writer ID I got on 42nd Street isn't going to pass for real?

Beware those who purport themselves to be experts - they have stopped learning.

doublenicks said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:30:00 PM  

I missed the airing of this show, but this clip got me thinking a little bit about this whole thing.

First, fans have never, ever been as informed about their favorite sports as they are right now thanks to the saturation of sports on television and the internet. So, it is entirely possible that the blogger that sits all day in his mother's basement can best any columnist or beat writer when it comes to information and analysis. And bloggers that can succesfully wrangle all this information into a cohesive structure can certainly provide a better value than any newspaper anywhere (thanks, AA, FJM, and Deadspin for doing that regularly--just to name my favorites).

Secondly, fans don't owe anything to these print or tv/radio sports columnists. In fact, fans don't owe anything to anyone, including bloggers. We watch, read and comment on what we are interested in. If it sucks or isn't our thing, fans move on. It's like the traditional media feels entitled to our attention spans just because they were there first.

rhino ear said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:31:00 PM  

What Credentials do any sports writers have?

Is there some sort of Bar exam or CPA test that I've never heard of? It is just some guy with a journalism degree. How does he know more about sports than anyone else?

Jeff V said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:43:00 PM  

Well, you have to at least be in high school. No seriously, at times papers hire high schoolers to be stringers and cover high school games. Be old enough to attend prom, I believe, is the only credential you need.

Nate said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:47:00 PM  

I tuned Wilbon out a long time ago because all he did was get on his soapbox and preach down to me about every different topic.

Mac G said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:52:00 PM  

Access is important. Opinions are always more informed when you can talk with the participants involved. Is it essential? Obviously not. Is it helpful? You bet. A lot of errors are made based on presumptions gathered through the TV set.

Anonymous said...
Apr 30, 2008, 12:55:00 PM  

As any writer (even a blogger in his mom's basement) should know, it's "champing at the bit" — not "chomping."

dl004d said...
Apr 30, 2008, 3:15:00 PM  

I just like how being a print journalist has become "credentials." I'll take the credentials (cum laude from Harvard among others) Mr. Schur has before "Washington Post Columnist"

J said...
Apr 30, 2008, 3:36:00 PM  

Hey Wilbon ... having a piece of paper that says "journalism" on it doesn't make what you write any more true than what someone else without that piece of paper writes. That's called argument from authority, and it's a textbook logical fallacy.

SpartanDan said...
Apr 30, 2008, 11:03:00 PM  

Post a Comment