Cavaliers-Heat, Behind the Box Score (and the Woodshed)
March 20, 2016Browns continue to be heavily linked to Robert Griffin III
March 21, 2016Good morning, WFNYers. If you’re anything like me on this lovely Monday morning, you’re rejuvenated and ready to go, having watched no fewer than seven NCAA basketball games over the course of the weekend. This entire tournament has been magnificent theatre. As a sports fans with zero rooting interest in a given game, the way that these kids have battled throughout the course of the last four days has been nothing shy of fascinating—almost enough to completely make me forget about the other basketball being played.
No lead has been safe, major programs are falling left and right. If you thought the way that Texas lost on the half-court heave on Friday was going to be peak March Madness, that bad boy was just the tip of the iceberg. I watched Duke fend off Yale. I watched Miami barely scrape past VCU. UNC thrashed Providence on Saturday night, but Sunday’s slate of Oklahoma (Buddy!!) and VCU, Notre Dame shock Stephen F. Austin , Wisconsin stunning Xavier at the buzzer, and Texas A&M come back from a double-digit deficit with just 30 seconds remaining to top Northern Iowa… an insane day of basketball.
My bracket is in shambles, and I couldn’t care less. Thursday can’t get here soon enough.
♦♦♦
Hulk Hogan is $115 million richer. While his keys to success always involved training, prayers, and vitamins, the legendary wrestler’s latest windfall arrived through a combination of on-camera sex and a website that published a snippet of the interactions without his approval. Gawker, the New York-based outlet that is the parent company of Deadspin, claimed that the tape was newsworthy due to Hogan being a public figure and the story being of interest to readers. Hogan, clinging to First Amendment privacy laws, said that had Gawker felt they were being journalistic in their efforts of sharing his private life, they should have at least reached out for comment. After a well-covered trial, and several hours of deliberation, the jury sided with Hogan.
As much as I would have loved for the Web (as personified by Gawker in this instance) to prevail, the outcome wasn’t a surprise. As if it were the late-80s squared circle, Hogan was The Real American; Gawker was the villain du jour—Andre the Giant would be hyperbole; Jake “The Snake” Roberts would be more fitting. Interestingly enough, it’s Hogan’s character which may have gotten him this Hell in a Cell victory. While Gawker claimed that Hogan is a public figure, Hogan, whose given name is Terry Bolea, insisted that the video in question wasn’t of his leg-dropping, spandex-wearing alter ego, but of the actual human being with a family and (former) friends.
The trickle-down effect of this ruling has a host of tentacles. Now, this whole situation is far from over, and Gawker believes they have enough ammunition for a healthy appeal, and it will be a long while before we truly know the outcome,rar but if you listen to Ars Technica, it’s believed that this could be the end of not just Gawker, but digital journalism’s ability to take advantage of its own Amendment—Freedom of the Press.
Like Deadspin and other sites under the Gawker media umbrella, I’ve always appreciated what these outlets stood for. Refusing to play the PR game with teams and player representatives (specific to sports here), there was rarely ever a question regarding the objectivity of their reports. The Manti Te’o story is still one of the more important pieces of sports reporting over the last several years, and it was done by Deadspin. Same for countless other stories which have been linked to around these parts. But in appreciating their approach, I can also admit that even I felt they went to far in a few instances1—celebrity nudes, d-list executives, stadium bathroom sex…the list goes on. But one can simultaneously not defend certain items of content, yet immediately side with the writers and editors during the moments last summer when several members of their masthead resigned after business decisions started to interfere with editorial ones.
It was Gawker/Deadspin’s lack of “discretion” (as it says in their tagline), which has made them such a big player in this web space. As stories need to be told and local folks are forced to worry about teams revoking credentials or disbanding from radio partnerships, it’s these outlets who do the important work in taking the steps that others feel they cannot.
Here’s Luke O’Neil at Esquire putting my thoughts into eloquently constructed words:
Even if you’re inclined to agree, as I do, that the posting of a sex tape against the wishes of the parties involved, even if one of them is a celebrity, is morally reprehensible, and very hard to justify on journalistic grounds, it’s a disquieting feeling finding yourself on the side of MRAs, GamerGate losers, and smarmy listicle peddlers. If all the wrong people hate you, you must be doing something right. And yet it’s possible to arrive at the same destination through significantly different routes. …
If this decision makes an editor think twice about posting the private sex tape of a celebrity, that may be a positive outcome, but if he or she now thinks twice about reporting on the unethical behavior of a public figure in general, then we’re no longer talking about journalism anymore, we’re talking about a vast landscape of public relations and promotional entertainment.
Due to the hero-villain parallels, and the way this case played out in public with Gawker doubling down on their position before things really came to a front, it’s easy to take the schadenfreude angle, applauding Hogan without thinking of the residual impact of the ruling. I was screaming from the e-mountain tops a few summers back when everyone in the city of Cleveland refused to report out the Davone Bess situation. Yet, it wasn’t until it was too late and the player was arrested in an airport when reports of mental illness and the Miami Dolphins trading the wide receiver with knowledge of such that things started to bubble up. While George Kokinis is still cloaked in mystery, I don’t believe we’ve heard the end of the Alec Scheiner story. But I do know that if we’re ever going to find out more, it’ll be from outlets like Gawker or Deadspin.
As O’Neil said best, if all the wrong people hate you, you must be doing something right.
♦♦♦
Speaking of journalism, Bill Simmons’ latest podcast guest is FOX Sports NFL insider Jay Glazer. Glazer talks about his life covering the NFL, what it’s like to be a one-man wrecking crew, and how you have to break stories that people may not be too happy about once the information is made public. The entire podcast is a must-listen if only for the story about when he almost fought Peyton Manning in Las Vegas (around the 35-minute mark), but my favorite line transcends all professions and hobbies:
“We grind and we grind. We outwork the world… Nobody gets lucky. We outworked everybody and put ourselves in the right place at the right time.”
Glazer is now mostly known as the barrel-chested bald dude on Sunday mornings, but listening to him describe how he got to where he is today is fascinating front to back.
♦♦♦
Speaking of “outworking the world,” here’s this week’s #ActualSportswriting:
“Drew Brees has a dream he’d like to sell you” by Mina Kimes (ESPN The Magazine): “Chavez, who lives in Sierra Vista, Arizona, sat in the crowd when Brees spoke three years ago. He had been reluctant to fly to Texas for the event, which cost $119, but he says his superiors pushed him to make the trek. ‘They told me, “Put it on your credit card. If your family doesn’t support you, go anyways,”‘ he says. Friends and family members who raise questions about AdvoCare are labeled “dream killers” by other salespeople, according to several distributors. By 2013, Chavez had spent three years trying to build an AdvoCare business. He had taken out a loan on his 401(k) and quit his government job, dropping $15,000 on products that he struggled to sell.”2
“The Fall of Johnny Football” by Emily Kaplan (MMQB): “With a post-rehab glow and Scott at the helm, coaches noticed Manziel was studying the playbook more. Teammates noticed he was drinking less. By July, coaches and friends had the sense that Manziel had his life under control. By the end of the summer, Scott had been dismissed. By midseason, the quarterback had fallen back into old habits. It’s a familiar pattern: Manziel straddles the line between becoming the professional football player many believe he can be, and the kid from Kerrville who can’t help but sabotage himself.”3
“Once hands off, sense of urgency now drives Phil Jackson” by Ramona Shelburne (ESPN): “Whatever nostalgia may have been conjured up by seeing Bryant and the coach with whom he won five NBA titles in the same basketball arena one last time before Bryant retires was just a fleeting emotion. Mentally and spiritually, Bryant has already moved on and is just trying to enjoy his final 15 games for what they are. Jackson is the one in transition, metaphorically and existentially as he sat above the Knicks’ bench but still with the Lakers in the field of view.”4
“No Country For Old LeBron” by Jason Concepcion (The Ringer): “This is a lesser LeBron we’re watching. His 3-point shooting has been worsening since the 2012-13 campaign. This season, he’s posting his lowest free-throw rate (.354) since his rookie season. And he takes off more plays on defense than ever. Is this the great decline? Who knows, maybe he’ll turn on the afterburners in the postseason. One thing’s for sure, though: Father Time has more rings than anyone.”5
♦♦♦
And finally, I’m not sure what it is about this commercial, but I really dig it. Whether it’s the March Madness-April angle or the lines that the kids deadpan throughout, but the “art school” hammer is great. Well done, Buffalo Wild Wings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh7eAsYdJK0
- It is worth noting that I have not watched the Hogan tape. [↩]
- This sort of work is exactly what sportswriting should be—investigative, eye-opening—and exactly the reason Kimes is one of the best additions ESPN has seen in the last few years. [↩]
- With the Browns parting ways from Manziel, a slew of pieces will be penned. Ignore the rest and read this one that has all of the requisite attributes—in-depth reporting, excellent storytelling, a solid lede, and a killer kicker. A must-read for Browns fans. [↩]
- Reading this, all I could thnk of was Mike Holmgren and how much more scrutinized he would have been had his failed attempt at being a team president was not in the dregs of Cleveland. Another killer piece from Ramona. [↩]
- Wanted to finish with this for a couple of reasons. 1) The Ringer newsletter is great; it’s full of Grantlandish stuff, and 2) this week’s reminder that commentary can be #ActualSportswriting. [↩]
99 Comments
They’ve somehow turned tabloid reporting into a crusade and many have bought into it.
http://i.imgur.com/ZdgL9df.gif
As I’ve been thinking about it this morning, it occurred to me [Caution, I’m about to get culturally moralistic, without passing judgment from my glass house] that the proliferation and easy access to pornography on the internet is probably how we even got to the point of thinking that Gawker’s conduct here “might” have been okay. We are so conditioned to graphic depictions of sexual activity on the internet that maybe we’ve come to the point where we think it’s not just normal but normatively acceptable as a matter of business to be able to see whomever we want to see engaging in sexual activity.
Sad emoji.
Puke emoji.
Drink emoji to make me feel better.
Only part that made me feel uncomfortable was the stuff on concussions/CTE.
Also, a politician’s infidelity can lead to real world consequences that could affect the public. There’s been rumors (don’t think they’ve ever been substantiated) that Mossad blackmailed Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal. Hogan sleeping around can’t lead to a threat against national security (at least I hope not).
What if the Iron Sheik gets his hands on it?
Because, the dirty secret is that people would rather read about/watch Hulk Hogan sex tapes than actual, important, news.
Sorry if my response was overly snarky. Wasn’t trying to imply that you were arguing something so absurd. As I said, I don’t see this case moving the line on acceptable reporting one way or the other at all.
Which is fair. It has however (even before result) reportedly moved the line on how deadspin conducts business (likely for good and bad) and they are one of the few outlets who had reported what these teams/players didn’t want out there (again: for good and bad).
and thats just how our corporate overlords want us
Sort of in the same vein, in the Erin Andrews peephole trial the tone deaf defense counsel representing the hotel chain actually argued that the naked pics helped her career so, like, stop whining that the world saw you naked. I get that that case didn’t involve Andrews doing anything but being unclothed while alone but it’s a similar idea: nothing’s really private anymore, and it can make you a buck so get over it.
I saw that. Disgusting (though I understand lawyers have to argue whatever they can argue – which is what gives us such a bad reputation). She deserves absolutely every penny she can get from those folks.
That’s clearly where we are with these “sex tapes.” They have become career boosters for so many (wonderful careers), that I’m not surprised if there’s a widespread belief that Hogan should be happy, even if he didn’t record it and didn’t consent to its recording.
What I find interesting/scary is that privacy as we understand it is a pretty new concept. While you’ll find some discussion of privacy during the enlightenment, it’s often discussed as a part of the broader topic of the rights of the individual and the role of the state. You won’t find it mentioned in any of the defining liberal documents of the day, like the Declaration of the Rights of Man, Common Sense, or the Bill of Rights. It really is the mid-to-late 20th century where the idea really gathered steam, mostly as a legal concept.
Which suggests to me that what we think of as privacy is very different from what our grandparents thought of as privacy. If you could talk to their grandparents, they’d have an even more radically different view of the concept.
Which leads me to: how is a generation raised in a world of near total information and exposure going to view privacy, both as a right and as a concept? Are our modern notions of privacy, modesty, etc. dinosaurs staring up at a meteor?
My GF has started watching the nightly, national news shows. While it’s a two standard deviations better than local news, I’m still amazed at how trashy and uninformative it really is. And people wonder why Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate. Reap what you sow….
Personally, I don’t see why stricter editorial oversight should prevent them from doing the type of reporting they’ve been noted for. Of the entire Gawker kingdom, Deadspin seems to be the one with the least questionable ethics.
I know it’s not your intent, but you’re showing me that I’d be totally cool with the Hogan sex tape leaking under the proper conditions.
Yes.
Penumbral rights: where rights are only limited by your imagination and your ability to argue a point.
Of the many bones I have to pick with the Founders, the 9th amendment is high on the list. What a freaking cop out.
Yeah, it appears that since we’ve been wandering the sports journalism desert, many are happy to drink the Gawker urine.
As an aside, I can’t believe two things: 1. They can’t do their snarky thing, their edgy thing without turning total tabloid sleaze or without politicizing things. and 2. That there’s not another site with comparable quality sports content competing for our clicks (national, no offense WFNY).
a media entity can’t break something like the T’eo story without also publishing celeb sex tapes
I don’t think this was a point Scott was trying to make and I certainly was not trying to come off with this angle though I can certainly see I could have stated my position more clearly.
Followed by another puke emoji? A philly cheesesteak emoji?
If anyone doubts you, I suggest they discuss the topic with any teenager/early 20-something.
while places such as CBS and FOX decide they need less feature writers and more quick-clicks.
What I like about the 9th is that it memorializes the truth that rights exist naturally and are not conferred upon citizens by governments. I think my bone to pick is primarily with the many flawed justices that have interpreted and applied the 9th since its drafting. But it’s also all part of the grotesque beauty of our system.
Maybe they need less feature writers writing features that don’t matter? Not to insult sports journalists, but there’s a lot of vapid filler out there.
If it’s Jim’s Steaks on the corner of South and 4th, yes, please.
I think the politicizing thing is part of the business model (as well as part of their success). Like the Esquire quote admits, people want to defend Gawker’s irresponsible, unethical behavior because they generally piss off the right kind of people.
There are no third parties! I’ve been told the only candidates are Pat’s vs. Geno’s.
(Or you can abstain and go eat at Mr. Hero’s, in which case you may have to use the puke emoji)
I thought that was one of the more shockingly sexist defenses to such a thing I’ve ever heard. Like she should be penalized for making lemonade out of lemons even if she HAD benefited. And the idea that such benefits counteract emotional trauma is ridiculous. It’s almost like saying “she was asking for it” in a date rape trial.
Or at least a subset of the population that is big enough to make a business model out of. (see also: tabloid sports news)
Most people are actually indifferent to or even opposed to the idea privacy for celebrities (of all types) for a variety of complicated sociological reasons. They want privacy for themselves, though.
Fair enough, though I do think that’s exactly the argument that O’Neil is making in the Esquire quote, which Scott quoted approvingly. Honestly, I don’t take umbrage with anything agree with anything Scott wrote himself (though I do disagree with his opinions on the matter.) It’s the Esquire quote that got me all worked up.
Thinking twice about the legal and ethical issues involved in publishing a sex tape isn’t going to turn Deadspin into PR hacks or the promotional department of a sports team.
You’ve been lied to. If you want to wait in line for an hour to be treated like crap in order to get an “okay” steak, then go to Pat’s, then Geno’s. If you want to get a GREAT steak from friendly people (for Philadelphia – it’s a relative statement) in the heart of the city, it’s Jim’s. All day. Every day.
Yeah, that was tough. It was tone deaf not in the sense that it was substantively wrong (it DID help her popularity and didn’t in fact cause her economic damages…although arguably caused emotional/special damages) but that it was overall ineffective strategy as it came across to lay folks/jurors as wrongheaded.
Yes, not trying to say the 9th is worthless. Just another example of the Founders establishing some ill-defined stuff for all of us to fight over for the rest of time.
I would argue, counselor, that it did in fact cause her economic harm. According to reports, ESPN was pushing her to get over it, and she couldn’t, and they decided to move on from her. Sure, she landed on her feet (and I don’t think she was ever actually fired, but the writing was on the wall); but she was an ESPN icon (and I don’t know how her current financial arrangement compares with what she had at ESPN).
Question: does the law view the threat of economic harm as equivalent to economic harm?
I’m not sure of the dollars to be honest. I had heard that Fox offered her a big contract (presumably more) because with Fox Sports One they were looking to taking on ESPN and were poaching the talent. I was just speaking more generally as to the idea that an attorney would and should make the argument that the damages are limited (as I think you were alluding to as well). Although you and I know that when you’re arguing against damages (as opposed to liability), it’s never good.
In the sports world (and today’s society), whether EA likes it or not, this thing actually helps her market value. Let’s be honest, with the viewers we’re talking about.
Umm, umm . . .
yeah, I think we’re going to be getting our fill of vapid filler though. in fact, we should start a national sports site called Vapid Filler, it’d probably rake in the $$$.
I 100% understand the argument for the freedom of the Internet and the ability for journalists to say or write potentially controversial things. And while I also get that there have certainly been periods in our history where we couldn’t count on courts to be unbiased about such types of issues and apply the kind of interpretation that favors justice and fairness, I think this is an issue where there has to be some standard of judgement rather than absolute freedom or absolute liability. This is how we deal with slander and libel cases, after all, and there are complex first amendment issues in play there as well.
Either “some people are interested” is sufficient to consider posting such things a to be a journalistic action or we have to have some standard of what constitutes necessary disclosure in order to report news, and what kind of damage to a private individual is acceptable for the sake of reporting what people are interested in. If Gawker knows the Hulkster is sleeping with his best friend’s wife, then I absolutely believe they have the right to print that, and even suggest they’ve seen video evidence, but where is the line at which somebody’s first amendment rights are violated in the course of offering proof of what they have reported? And existing special rules about public figures were designed to protect journalists from political retribution, not to enable celebrity smut peddlers.
I’m not entirely certain what the answer is, but I was glad when I read of the judgement. The line may be hard to define, but like Potter Stewart said, “I know it when I see it.”
Sometimes the line is hard to define, but I don’t see it in this case. That’s just me, though.
For economic, the actual damages are what matters from an employment perspective (and not just the threat that she could never work again or would work but at a lower rate). If a person was fired from a job wrongfully, for example, and that person was off work for 3 months and got a new job making $20k more in salary, then her damages would be 3 months of back pay and no award of front pay (since she mitigated). I might be off base, but I think that’s what you were asking?
Generally I’d say yeah, an actionable violation of a privacy right depends both on the degree of the intrusiveness and, as they say in the law biz, your reasonable expectation of privacy in a given situation.
If you mean potential future harm v. harm that’s already done, generally not, in this sense: Damages must be proven, not speculative. One can prove future damages, but it is obviously easier to prove existing damages – e.g., termination of existing advertisement deals – than, for example, money that you might have made. We’re painting in broad brush strokes here (he says, attempting to avoid making this a forum for lawyer shoppy talk).
DiNic’s roast pork is better than either #FeelTheBern
Couple of years ago I had an infuriating (to me) convo with a couple of young techie hipster types who could not/would not recognize concepts like copyright infringement and piracy. Made me realize they’re less selfish than I’m Jurassic Park. To them the default, inevitable and ideal state of all information is that it runs free. Screw the blood and treasure devoted to creating it. You can’t stem the sharing tide that technology creates, so why try.
OOOOOOOHHHHH! I blocked that part out. That made me uncomfortable as well. I kind of understood what he was saying, but he took it to the Nth degree where it stopped being defensible.
Basically. Verifiable, provable loss vs. something like “if i worked in a field that isn’t dependent on men viewing me as a sex object, I would have lost my job/become less marketable etc.”.