история

May 03, 2008

When Sons Become Fathers

                Nixonkennedy_3

Is it fitting or ironic that most of us saw the great Bissinger/Leitch newspaper bout of 2008 on a cable tv show streamed through a blog discovered by clicking through a metablog?  It brings to mind the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate.  It was the first televised presidential debate.  Nixon sweated.  Kennedy glowed.  As prominently reported, most listening to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won.  While those watching on television saw Kennedy as the victor.  And so it was that Bissinger's rants and raves played perfectly into the contagion of the viral video while Leitch could maintain his composure, winking and nodding to the internet-savvy who obviously knew the difference between a comment and a post.  Bissinger relied on long quotations, effective only in a read medium. 

Bissinger's anger, when edited and shaped for the page, might read salient and convincing.  Case in point, the NYT coverage of the segment:

“I think blogs are dedicated to cruelty, they’re dedicated to dishonesty, they’re dedicated to speed,” Bissinger said. He cast a wide net of derision over virtually all blogs as responsible for the dumbing down of society; he arrived with a folder from which he read offensive stuff from Deadspin as if he were an incensed prosecutor, and he used profanity to decry the vulgar sins of blogging.

Angry? Yes.  Passionate?  Yes.  Unhinged?  Not so much.  Oh, but not on my computer screen.  Oh no.  Streaming makes him look like he's got a bout of the crazies.Strangebedfellows

It was a sad alliance.  Costas the screen star and Bissinger the print loyalist.   Was it not so long ago that tv clip highlights were pushing next-day write-ups to extinction?  Strange times bring strange cred-fellows.

Yet the truly stirring irony came from both Bissinger and Costas' professed newspaper idols: Ernie Pyle, W.C, Heinz and Woodward and Bernstein.  To a man, these journalists were not members of the newspaper establishment, but pioneers attempting to push the boundaries of coverage.  Pyle famously embedded himself with soldiers in World War II, shunting the traditionally omniscient newsman's voice for the "folksy" tenor of the countryboy soldier.  Heinz crusaded for "New Journalism," the young rebels' covenant to pull back the curtain from reporting and place the writer and all his troubled perspective in full view.  Woodward and Bernstein made their names not writing on their beat, but doggedly uncovering the Watergate cover-up often deemed too controversial by their managing editors.  These news rebels, these print cowboys inspired Bissinger and Costas and Wilbon and Kornheiser's generations.  The mythology of the chain-smoking, hung-over newspaper/trouble-maker so defies the establishment ethos that Bissinger et al tout.  It has left most of the blogosphere in shock at its transparent contradictions.

And that is a shame.  Because the debate is worth having.  As odious as Bissinger and Costas' respective styles appear, their message is age-old.  It is a generational battle that once seemingly won by the youth will be revived by their sons and daughters.  And yet who is the winner?  No doubt the blogosphere is here to stay.  But so are its discontents.  Two and a half decades ago, a battle was waged between Jesse Helms and Robert Maplethorpe.  Jessehelms The cultural left leapt to the aid of Maplethorpe and his anal art, Sally Mann and her naked family, and Andres Serrano and his Piss Christ.  And who won?  Helms would be excoriated in history books.  Legislation went no where.  Yet, meanwhile, the excesses of Maplethorpe, Serrano, and Mann lost their appeal.  The art world grew bored of shock-art and moved on as well.  Just so, the excited glee of athlete embarrassments will dull.  It will not lose its audience, simply the front page as more professional bloggers will rise to the top.

When Costas said, "the real problem is the tone of gratuitous potshots and mean-spirited abuse," the interesting effect was that most bloggers agreed.  I have read few facile calls about freedom of speech and corporate censorship that was so indicative of the Helms/Maplethorpe debates.  Instead, this surprisingly moderate young generation argued that the blogosphere is a meritocracy, that the writing is strong, and the writers educated.

One day Will Leitch will reminisce about the cowboy days of the early blogospheres when hard work and talent was rewarded in the Wild West meritocracy of the first years of the blog.  And no doubt his heir apparent will mention how much crap was out there and how long it took to load those videos.

And one more note, if you haven't read Bissinger's recent NYT op-ed, it's a real good read.

 

March 06, 2008

The Jordan Blame

Michaeldrawin A couple of weeks ago, ESPNtheMAGAZINE published a piece by Michael Jordan in which he discussed the state of the Lig.  Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the article was how little buzz it induced.  If I didn't still get the Mag in the mail from some BestBuy purchase years ago, I would not have heard of the article at all. 

Alas, the lack of interest is understandable.  The article amounted to little more than a patchwork of simple and unsubstantiated platitudes.  One MJ quote, however, stuck in my craw:

"David Stern hates when I say this, but in some ways he created his own problem.  Look at the way the league markets its players.  When I came in, they marketed the athletes themselves, how they performed, what they accomplished...Don't take guys and force them into our mold."

What? I can't say I fully follow his argument, but Stern "created his own problem" by relying too heavily on Jordan's image...? Excuse me? MJ, I thought you and Stern were brahs...

Et Tu Brute?

Now, I read this two weeks ago and beyond being riled by MJ's on-going tour-de-self-righteousness, I wasn't going to post about it.  As regular readers of the phdrib probably recognize, I try to minimize my masturbatory exercises in celeb-vilification.  Really, how satisfying is it to win a one-way game of got-ya?

Then, I caught ESPN's videomentary on the history of the Air Jordan.  Like MJ's article, there was nothing particular new about the piece.  ESPN did a solid job outlining the cultural shockwave of the AJ as well as it's unfortunate aftershocks.  On February 14, 1990, Sports Illustrated led with a cover story titled, "Senseless: In America's Cities, Kids Are Killing Kids Over Sneakers and Other Sports Apparel Favored by Drug Dealers; Who's to Blame?" 

In the article, Rick Telander and Mirko Ilic reported on a spate of AJ murders,

"For 15-year-old Michael Eugene Thomas, it definitely was the shoes. A ninth-grader at Meade Senior High School in Anne Arundel County, Md., Thomas was found strangled on May 2, 1989. Charged with first-degree murder was James David Martin, 17, a basketball buddy who allegedly took Thomas's two-week-old Air Jordan basketball shoes and left Thomas's barefoot body in the woods near school."

ESPN's recent retelling covered the issue of AJ-crime, but omitted what was one of the central question posed at the time.  Nike, the mega-faceless conglomerate had contributed to the problem.  But how much was Jordan to blame?  Had he not colluded in the creation of the Air Jordan?  It's hard to imagine he could have foreseen the violence.  But once prices skyrocketed to triple digits, did he not have a responsibility to put his foot down, remove his name from the product, and take a stand? 

At the time, MJ expressed great sadness and feelings of guilt.

Bobbyfreshjordanboriginal1"I can't believe it," Jordan says in a low voice. "Choked to death. By his friend." He sighs deeply. Sweat trickles down one temple...Jordan sits up straight in his chair. It's time for practice to start. "I'd rather eliminate the product [the shoes] than know drug dealers are providing the funds that pay me," he says.

And then...he did nothing.

Spike Lee directed seven of the AJ commercials.  Today, he recounts the story of the AJ like a wizened professor emeritus.  He told ESPN, "We have problems because people do what they need to do to get the money, or steal that stuff which is being hawked at them."  He discussed the scandal as a dispassionate observer, as I would the discovery of Emelda Marcos' shoe collection.

Yet at the time, Spike did not enjoy such amnesty.  The New York Post's Phil Mushnick, in an article titled "SHADDUP, I'M SELLIN' OUT..SHADDUP," ripped Spike for colluding in the Nike revolution.  As SI reported, Lee hit Mushnick back with a charge of "thinly veiled racism." Sigh.

Eighteen years later the debate over inner-city poverty and crime has shifted.  The likes of Cosby, Kenny and Chuck, Whitlock, and Obama have called for self-examination on the question of, as ESPN puts it, "hip hop's swaggering materialism."  But somehow, Michael Jordan's name never surfaces in the debate.

The game has moved on and, as many of us believe, is hitting a new Renaissance.  As we look back to the last Golden Age, let's not forget it's troubles.  Let's remember it for what it was: both fantastic and unsettling.  Michael Jordan, the lead actor, employed his superhuman skills for pure self-aggrandizement.  Compare him to figures like Oprah, Bill Gates, or Magic Johnson...

I re-raise the question of Jordan's culpability not to bury the man nor to associate him with murders, but to re-evaluate his legacy.  Stand up, MJ.  Take a stand.  Instead of dumping on Stern's stewardship of the game, how about a little self-examination?  Are we really to believe that you had no input in the triumph of your spirit?  Let's give Nike some credit, sure Stern and NBC/ABC/ESPN hyped up the games and the stars like never before, but Michael...hell, you're Michael f-ing Jordan. 

February 24, 2008

Nepravda, Kristofer Swamiovitch

The Berman videos have re-caught the eye of the blogosphere.  God bless Deadspin, we can still see the archival footage.

Now, Mr. Berman responds.  He tells the Miami Herald,

''It's almost as if what we would fight against as a country--the Soviets spying--it's almost like that's what everyone is doing,'' Berman said by phone Wednesday. "What's said in the huddle, which is what I did, should be in the huddle."

Now. Now. Maybe we shouldn’t take you too seriously, Mr. Berman. Maybe we should just assume your metaphors are so “poetic” that they need not be analyzed. And yet, as a US-Soviet historian, let me fill you in on what would have happened in the USSR.

Here’s a break-down of the likely aftermath.  It's cause I feel for ya Chris, you're startin to sound like Dick Nixon.  God-damn that freedom of the press:

Soviet_leaders_timeline

Under Josef Stalin (~1927–1953), you would have proven yourself unreliable and an embarrassment to the Party. In order to usher you neatly out of public view, a show trial would have ensued. You would have been summarily executed or sent to a gulag.

Under Nikita Khrushchev (~1953-1964), you would have merely enjoyed a show trial, lost your job, your Party membership, any future career, and would have lived out your days in humiliation, hunger and poverty.

Brezhnev_2KhrushchevUnder Leonid Brezhnev (1964–1982), you may have been purged. Yet given your good-soldier history, you probably would have been given the option to publicly condemn yourself, continue your career while always knowing you were a tip-toe away from losing everything.

Under Yuri Andropov or Konstantin Chernenko (1982–1985), probably very similar to the Brezhnev era. Perhaps you would have been selected to write a “History of the Greatness of the Soviet Union and Its People Through Sport.” You could trade in a few of your dissident friends and live a happy and successful life.

Under Mikhail Gorbachev (1985-1991), it’s very uncertain what would have happened in a time of such flux, reform, and regression.  Long before, you probably would have become associated with one of the warring factions on the Central Committee. I would guess you would have been on the anti-perestroika side. And, we can probably guess, you would have made a few enemies. Soviet_leaders

I’m thinking a spat of negative editorials against you and a quiet discharge from your job. I’m thinking maybe a move back to your home town and a fortune made from the black-marketing of your wonder drug:  Deux Deux Deuxs.

February 16, 2008

Devean, Yes you can!

A Short History of F-ing the Man:

Mount_masada

Samson

Lenin

Huey_long

Norma_rae

Woodwardbernstein

Solidarity

Devean_george


Way to read the fine print Cuban.

sideclicks

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

roar