Attention sports columnists: there is actually a rather large gray area that exists between being a homer and being a douche bag.
I understand that there are few things that are more annoying than the columnist or broadcaster who always makes excuses for the home team, never offer critical analysis, and wear their hearts on their sleeves when writing/talking about their teams. That being said, one of the few things that is more obnoxious than a homer is a columnist who is a douche bag.
These columnists are ones that consistently undermine the efforts of the team they cover by criticizing every single move, constantly whine, and are excessively negative. While these writers claim that they are merely being objective, their agenda is exactly the same as that of homers, but in the form of negativity instead of extreme optimism.
For example, last week in the Chicago Sun-Times, Jay Mariotti wrote, "Can we agree it's the worst job in baseball, worse than cleaning slimy dugout floors or discarding used steroids syringes? Just because the Cubs have a managerial opening doesn't mean anyone wants the job."
The manager of the Cubs is the worst job in baseball? Really? For me, being the manager of the Cubs seems like one of the best jobs in baseball because the fanbase is passionate, the city of Chicago is beautiful during the summer, and the culture of losing has been so far ingrained in the culture of the Cubs that you are a victim of the system if you lose but are a colossal hero if you ever win the World Series. Despite the fact that the Cubs have been uncompetitive for the last few seasons, no one would argue that the Cubs have less of a chance to win the World Series next year than the Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays, Nationals, or Orioles. The managerial job of the Cubs is a job with extremely high upside and relatively little downside, yet Mariotti exaggerates the downside of the position by saying that "the grief, the boos, the hassles, [and]the abuse" come with the job.
Columnists like Mariotti, the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy, every columnist at the New York Times and Daily News, and Jeff Jacobs of the Hartford Courant almost never have anything positive to say, do not give credit where it is due, and seek to undermine the home team's efforts while defending themselves because they aren't homers. What they do not understand is that it is possible to be critical when it is necessary while not being a douche bag 100% of the time. Michael Wilbon does this very well. This week, he correctly notes that the "Redskins are the most disappointing team in the NFL after the first third of the season," but then goes on to offer solutions instead of grossly exaggerating the team's problems and giving them no chance to succeed.
My biggest problem with the douche bag columnists is that I do not understand what their point is. Why undermine the team that most of their readers root for? One of the reasons that newspaper sports sections are a dying breed is that readers have moved on to the internet for their sportswriting where people like Bill Simmons and sites like Deadspin offer legitimate sports coverage without a selfish, negative agenda. While extremist negative columnists may sell more papers in the short run, they just piss people off in the long run.
I understand that there are few things that are more annoying than the columnist or broadcaster who always makes excuses for the home team, never offer critical analysis, and wear their hearts on their sleeves when writing/talking about their teams. That being said, one of the few things that is more obnoxious than a homer is a columnist who is a douche bag.
These columnists are ones that consistently undermine the efforts of the team they cover by criticizing every single move, constantly whine, and are excessively negative. While these writers claim that they are merely being objective, their agenda is exactly the same as that of homers, but in the form of negativity instead of extreme optimism.
For example, last week in the Chicago Sun-Times, Jay Mariotti wrote, "Can we agree it's the worst job in baseball, worse than cleaning slimy dugout floors or discarding used steroids syringes? Just because the Cubs have a managerial opening doesn't mean anyone wants the job."
The manager of the Cubs is the worst job in baseball? Really? For me, being the manager of the Cubs seems like one of the best jobs in baseball because the fanbase is passionate, the city of Chicago is beautiful during the summer, and the culture of losing has been so far ingrained in the culture of the Cubs that you are a victim of the system if you lose but are a colossal hero if you ever win the World Series. Despite the fact that the Cubs have been uncompetitive for the last few seasons, no one would argue that the Cubs have less of a chance to win the World Series next year than the Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays, Nationals, or Orioles. The managerial job of the Cubs is a job with extremely high upside and relatively little downside, yet Mariotti exaggerates the downside of the position by saying that "the grief, the boos, the hassles, [and]the abuse" come with the job.
Columnists like Mariotti, the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy, every columnist at the New York Times and Daily News, and Jeff Jacobs of the Hartford Courant almost never have anything positive to say, do not give credit where it is due, and seek to undermine the home team's efforts while defending themselves because they aren't homers. What they do not understand is that it is possible to be critical when it is necessary while not being a douche bag 100% of the time. Michael Wilbon does this very well. This week, he correctly notes that the "Redskins are the most disappointing team in the NFL after the first third of the season," but then goes on to offer solutions instead of grossly exaggerating the team's problems and giving them no chance to succeed.
My biggest problem with the douche bag columnists is that I do not understand what their point is. Why undermine the team that most of their readers root for? One of the reasons that newspaper sports sections are a dying breed is that readers have moved on to the internet for their sportswriting where people like Bill Simmons and sites like Deadspin offer legitimate sports coverage without a selfish, negative agenda. While extremist negative columnists may sell more papers in the short run, they just piss people off in the long run.
posted by ryan glasspiegel at 12:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home