Sports blogs, ESPN, and why I like Deadspin’s 'horndoggery' series

I’m writing a series of blog posts about what’s next for sports blogging (read my introduction). As a reminder, these are my own personal opinions, not necessarily those of my employer Yardbarker. I’m going to tackle the ESPN topic now because it relates to the current controversy over Deadspin’s "horndoggery" posts.

A couple of years ago there were a lot of conversations about “blogs versus mainstream media.” This paradigm is no longer relevant, and perhaps never was. First of all, the terminology is pretty muddy. Taken literally, “blog” is just a platform or medium, like “newspaper column” or “radio show” or “Twitter feed.” However, the term “blogger” was also sometimes used to refer to a certain type of content-producing person, stereotypically someone without access who is not formally trained in journalism. Neither of these meanings is really useful anymore when you can have longtime newspapermen writing online weblog entries and “blogger types” getting paid to write for “mainstream” outlets like Yahoo Sports, and blogs like Deadspin getting more readership than many newspapers. For the most part, traditional media outlets (even ESPN) have started to embrace blogging in both the platform meaning and sometimes the person meaning. There’s no longer a clear “us versus them” or if there is, I don’t know who’s who.

That said, ESPN does still pose a unique challenge to anyone in non-ESPN sports media just because of its breadth and size. ESPN is pretty dominant in many areas of TV, radio, and web. As the leader, ESPN is in a strong position to compete in any space it decides to enter. We’re seeing their entry into local web programming and a Twitter-like platform now and they could potentially enter any number of other areas. So if you’re a non-ESPN content producer, you’ll always have to worry that ESPN will swoop in to your niche and compete with you.

Competition is always a challenge in any industry, of course. But ESPN’s dominance across various media makes it all that much harder for you to build your own brand. A successful online content producer like Perez Hilton has grown his brand and influence through radio and TV appearances on prominent entertainment programs that are happy to get his content. A sports Perez would need to appear on ESPN television and radio programs – but ESPN probably doesn’t want to lend shine to someone working in a space ESPN might potentially want to enter. That’s not to say that it’s impossible to create something of value outside of ESPN, it’s just perhaps more challenging than in some other verticals.
 [UPDATE: see Dan Shanoff's post about Bill Simmons and ESPN for some discussion of this.]

One of the most successful sports blogs that has been able to create value without ESPN’s direct help is Deadspin (I say “direct” help because Deadspin gets a lot of material out of covering and criticizing ESPN). There was a lot of history between the two properties that led up to the current controversy, but the short story is that on Wednesday, Deadspin editor A.J. Daulerio posted a series of “rumors” about the sexual affairs of some ESPN employees. ESPN issued a statement calling Deadspin “despicable.”



I like what Deadspin did. That’s not to say that I necessarily like the content, or that I would choose to publish it on my own blog. But it was a ballsy move that paid off with traffic and may continue to help Deadspin’s notoriety. I was surprised that sports bloggers seemed overwhelmingly outraged about the move. There were three general reasons:

1) Some bloggers said that Daulerio “crossed the line.” He may have crossed your line, but if there is a single definitive line, it’s the legal one; and my unofficial legal opinion is that Deadspin did no wrong (FanHouse’s Clay Travis seems to agree). I respect if you’re the type of blogger who would never publish that kind of content for moral reasons, or to avoid getting a certain reputation. But if Deadspin is comfortable with publishing it, they should go for it.

2) Some bloggers argued that Deadspin has affected the reputation of all blogs. This is probably true. Those who are not familiar with online sports content lump all blogs together, and since Deadspin is one of the most prominent sports blogs, its actions will affect the reputation of all blogs. But that doesn’t mean it’s Deadspin’s responsibility to uphold any particular reputation – Deadspin doesn’t owe anything to any other blog. Deadspin has created this position of influence for itself partly because it is a compelling site that posts content like this. If bloggers don’t like the nature of what Deadspin is doing and how it reflects on blogs, then it’s their job to build a site that wields as much influence as Deadspin, and it’s their job to educate people about why their content is valuable and different from Deadspin’s. Note, I’m not saying that bloggers shouldn’t work together to elevate sports blogging in the minds of the uninformed. Quite the opposite, I think we need to work together (as I will be writing in future posts). But I don’t think agreeing on the placement of “the line” for content is necessary or beneficial. Deadspin is carving a certain niche, and you can carve yours.

3) Finally, I’ve heard some people complain that Deadspin has gotten away from its roots. To be honest, I’m not a longtime Deadspin reader, so I’m not sure what those roots are. But no content producer should be criticized for adapting and changing its model for success. If you’re wistful for the old content, then seek it out somewhere else or create it yourself. 



To reiterate, I don’t necessarily like the content Deadspin posted. But I respect their decision to publish it, and from the outside, it seems to me like it was a smart business move. It may indeed set some other blogs back, but that’s what competitors do sometimes. Instead of complaining about it, those blogs should get busy trying to step their game up in whatever manner they see fit.

To conclude, I’ll try to tie all of this together. We’re in a new media landscape where lines are blurred, but ESPN remains a big challenge to content producers trying to build their brand. Deadspin has achieved quite a bit of success, in part by creating unique content critical of ESPN that ESPN would never want to create itself. The sex scandal content published on Wednesday seems like it will benefit Deadspin. If other blogs feel they’ve been hurt, then it’s their responsibility to do something about that. Alternatively, they might want to consider taking a page from Deadspin’s book (more on that later).

I welcome your comments or emails.

UPDATE: Sports by Brooks has posted a memo from Gawker (Deadspin's parent company) urging editors to move quickly with stories. Whether or not Daulerio was motivated by this memo doesn't change my opinion about the situation. If anything, it's refreshing to see that Gawker is trying hard to be successful with a certain style of publishing. Some might find that style unsavory, but it seems to be successful for them, so it makes sense for them to pursue it.

UPDATE2: Unrelated to the Wednesday posts, Deadspin is being sued by Sean Salisbury. I don't know a lot about the situation, but from reading the reporter's account of it, it doesn't seem like much of a case to me. And Deadspin can probably get free legal help to get this dismissed.

Add Comment

• pistolpete said 25 days ago

  Great post. The thing about this move by Deadspin that people seem to be missing is that it's drawing attention to sports blogs, which is both positive and negative for other blogs, but mostly positive. In a sports media environment that's dominated by ESPN, the only way for blogs to get the attention of the masses is to develop a reputation for publishing content that ESPN doesn't publish. The horndoggery series is the ultimate example of this, and therefore the ultimate opportunity.
  
  I doubt anyone who becomes familiar with Deadspin via these recent posts will walk away believing that ALL the blog does is publish raunchy stories about ESPN employees. But they WILL walk away believing that Deadspin is doing something original that ESPN is not. That's a reputation that can last, and bloggers who complain about Deadspin giving them a bad name should also recognize the value of Deadspin's efforts to differentiate itself -- and by extension all sports blogs -- from the rest of sports media, the most homogenous of any category of modern media.
  
  It might not have been the move I would have made, but it was the right KIND of move.

  Reply

  
• BigLeagueScrew said 24 days ago

  People are acting like this was some planned "strategy." In reality, Daulerio has clearly stated he was sitting on this info until ESPN stonewalled him on Phillips. It was a kneejerk reaction that was so extreme it created a ripple effect. He did it because nobody else could publish this YET and somebody probably would have in the FUTURE. Just like the Phillips story. It was retaliatory -- not innovative. What's different about (sports) blogging today that wasn't true on Monday? Deadspin gets tips and Deadspin gets hits... we already knew that.

  Reply

  
  • AlanaG replied 24 days ago

    Thanks for the comment, good points. I know people say that this was a kneejerk "retaliatory" action. Whatever Daulerio's personal motivations were, even if you find them unsavory, I still think he knew that this would be good for Deadspin's business, and I don't think Deadspin deserves the criticism it's getting. As you say, Deadspin gets tips and hits -- and wouldn't a lot of other blogs wish to have that? Perhaps it's Deadspin's history of publishing like this that has created its success.
• Funkymoses said 24 days ago

  That's very Ayn Rand of you. Reason #4, and the main one I'm outraged: Deadspin plastered details of a non-public figure's sex life all over the internet, and those details consisted of "is screwing someone at ESPN." That's not newsworthy, nor was that news even given a cursory check. That's unethical. There's more to life than "good for business," isn't there? Set aside whether it's good for bad for blogs: is it good for bad for Random ESPN VP who's done nothing wrong?

  Reply

  
  • AlanaG replied 24 days ago

    Thanks for the comment. You're right that it can be bad for some of the people involved who have personal aspects of their lives thrust into the spotlight. Our law protects people against violations of their privacy/reputation to a certain extent -- beyond that, some people may get burned. I'm not sure if I would publish content like this myself because of moral concerns, but I make no judgments about someone who would. My post is not about the morality of the decision to publish content like this. If you want to say that Daulerio is an unsavory character or that his bosses at Gawker are, that's a different issue. The bottom line is that it's successful content and it was a good business decision to publish it. If you think it's wrong, perhaps you need to complain to the millions of people clicking on it.
• SportzAssassin said 21 days ago

  Great post, Alana. As someone who is an ol' skool blogger (I think beginning in 2004 qualifies as that), the whole blog vs MSM battle has been both interesting and confusing. As you said, the line has been blurred since MSM have their own "bloggers" and several high profile "blogs" now employ experienced professional journalists. Still, the fact that a bunch of basement living tools could affect the way big time media outlets output information is quite amazing. You know me, and I'm one of those people who doesn't like the salacious side of sports blogging. I don't care who the players are nailing, what drugs they do or what they do after hours. I really don't care. But, as you said, there is a place for that and Deadspin has done a great job at playing that role. The fact that they are the biggest blog shows that there are people who want to read it. All of us with blogs or who work for blogs have the ability to convey sports in any manner they chose. There is a place for all of it and the more the merrier.

  Reply