Hi folks, First Derivative here, and first off I’d like to say thank you to AJ for extending us the opportunity to talk with him about the recent uproar his ESPN postings have incited. Before we get to our chat, I’d like to point out this piece by Will Leitch, in his last week as editor of Deadspin. Read the following quotes, then think about them as it pertains to AJ after the jump. He’s going to handle questions in the comments as time permits, so please ask away.
We have one week left with this shit, and we’re seeing this fake storyline emerge — independent of that Times story — that sports blogs should strive for credibility, or mainstream recognition, or to make Bob Costas proud or something. Sports blogs are whatever the hell you want them to be. This is why they are so fun. If everyone’s supposed to pat themselves on the back for becoming “respectable,” well, shit, what’s the point?
and
Listen: We understand. It’s nice to imagine a need for a “bridge” between blogs and “MSM,” the one who can tell Los Angeles Times reporters looking for a “new” angle exactly what they wanted to hear. That, don’t worry folks, we’re “the nice bloggers,” we’re the ones who “get it.” We’re hardly of the belief McIntyre is the worst offender in this; far from it. But is that what the point of all this has been? To “grow up?” The best sports blogs are based in truth and passion, and, yeah, sometimes that truth and passion come out in profane bursts, and sometimes they involve quarterbacks doing beer bongs. So freaking what?
FD: What motivation did you have for posting the initial ESPN revelations?
Daulerio: Well, it’s a valid story, my approach was a little iffy, but at the end of the day, I didn’t like being derailed off a story. ESPN PR people have a different recollection of our conversation than I do, but that’s how it goes. I just think there are certain concessions that are made when we’ve had a year-long “relationship” and one of them was to correct me when I’m wrong (which they did) but to not acknowledge the follow-up questions as to if there is anything to this, that doesn’t sit right with me. We weren’t that off. They have to do they’re job, I’ll do mine. I guess we’ll call it a push.
FD: Why did the blogosphere react in such uproar over the incident? Personally, as I wrote, if I knew a source whom I worked with before deliberately misled me I’d take my gloves off too.
Daulerio: I have no idea. Other people have other opinions, and they offered them up, I guess. I can’t speak for those who disagreed with how I handled it.
FD: Isn’t that one of the reasons people read blogs, though – to cover the stories that MSM won’t publish for whatever reason?
Daulerio: Again, I don’t know if there’s a collective right answer for that. People read blogs for different reasons. My concern is Deadspin, first and foremost.
FD: Ok, so let’s step back and look at it from Deadspin’s point of view. When you published the stories, did you anticipate the backlash, or did it come as a surprise?
Daulerio: Total surprise. You really can’t anticipate what’s going to work and what’s not. Sure, I figured it would garner a little more interest than other posts but the backlash/interest/ coverage of it was unexpected.
FD: What part of the criticism surprised you the most?
Daulerio: I don’t know if any of it was “surprising” per se — we’re scrutinized over a lot of posts. But I was a little troubled by the notion of this somehow making it harder for other sports blogs to have success or recognition. I just found that reaction astounding. If anyone’s working with the attitude of “my god, what will the sports blogosphere think!” before they post, then you’re really selling yourself short.
FD: What motivation did you have for posting the initial ESPN revelations?
Daulerio: Well, it’s a valid story, my approach was a little iffy, but at the end of the day, I didn’t like being derailed off a story. ESPN PR people have a different recollection of our conversation than I do, but that’s how it goes. I just think there are certain concessions that are made when we’ve had a year-long “relationship” and one of them was to correct me when I’m wrong (which they did) but to not acknowledge the follow-up questions as to if there is anything to this, that doesn’t sit right with me. We weren’t that off. They have to do they’re job, I’ll do mine. I guess we’ll call it a push.
FD: Why did the blogosphere react in such uproar over the incident? Personally, as I wrote, if I knew a source with whom I had worked previously deliberately misled me, I’d take my gloves off too.
Daulerio: I have no idea. Other people have other opinions, and they offered them up, I guess. I can’t speak for those who disagreed with how I handled it.
FD: Isn’t that one of the reasons people read blogs, though – to cover the stories that MSM won’t publish for whatever reason?
Daulerio: Again, I don’t know if there’s a collective right answer for that. People read blogs for different reasons. My concern is Deadspin, first and foremost.
FD: Ok, so let’s step back and look at it from Deadspin’s point of view. When you published the stories, did you anticipate the backlash, or did it come as a surprise?
Daulerio: Total surprise. You really can’t anticipate what’s going to work and what’s not. Sure, I figured it would garner a little more interest than other posts but the backlash/interest/ coverage of it was unexpected.
FD: What part of the criticism surprised you the most?
Daulerio: I don’t know if any of it was “surprising” per se — we’re scrutinized over a lot of posts. But I was a little troubled by the notion of this somehow making it harder for other sports blogs to have success or recognition. I just found that reaction astounding. If anyone’s working with the attitude of “my god, what will the sports blogosphere think!” before they post, then you’re really selling yourself short.
FD: Is there anything about sports blogging, in general, and Deadspin, specifically, that you’d like to change?
Daulerio: Again — re: sports blogosphere — I don’t ever think about that. Like, ever. Deadspin’s constantly changing and that’s my job to change it to see what’s working, what’s not, etc. The specifics on that change weekly — sometimes daily.
FD: What do you think Deadspin does best?
Daulerio: I think we have a pretty broad mix of stuff on the site. We have a lot of flexibility. Sure, we’ve gained some notoriety over the past few months over some of the more salacious material that’s on there, but we’ve done plenty of stuff that’s a little more traditional that’s generated some attention as well. Maybe not to the degree of a Hamilton/E.A./ESPN horndoggery, but those are aberrations. We’ve just been fortunate to have certain stories reach a larger audience than others. Unfortunately, you can’t really predict which ones will do that most of the time. If that were the case, everyone would be doing it wouldn’t they? To a certain degree.
FD: When you post these salacious stories (Hamilton/ESPN), how sure do you have to be for your own legal protection?
Daulerio: The same as anyone else who publishes them? They’re sourced enough to the point where we believe them to be true. If we get our facts wrong, we correct them.
FD: Are there any aspects of Deadspin that you’d like to change?
Daulerio: Sure, I’d love a bigger budget. I’d love more staff and I’d love a bigger audience. Those are all things that will hopefully come in due time.
FD: In what direction do you want to take Deadspin in the next year?
Daulerio: I’d like to get as close as I possibly can to making the bulk of it original content. We’re never going to compete with the ESPNs, SIs, Yahoos!, Fanhouses, or SBNations of the world in sports coverage. That’s never been the goal even when Will was running it. I think we can carve out our own little section of the sports media alterniverse and continue to build that up as much as possible. But things change so rapidly — especially on the web — that it’s a little foolish for me to predict what could happen in the next month let alone a year. Who knows if I’ll even be around that long?
7 patrons like this post.
Tags: AJ Daulerio, first derivative, have at it in the comments., pub chats
Categories:
Daily Specials, Domestics, Non-Alcoholic
This entry was posted
on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm and is filed under Daily Specials, Domestics, Non-Alcoholic.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Chris Hanson's Axe
If AJ’s still around…
If no one had ever pissed you off on the more interesting story, with Steve Phillips, would you have ever released your later, (and I think I can say this is a fair evaluation) flimsier stories about those other ESPN people no one cared about? Is it fair to say that the gigantic “ESPN HORNDOGGERY WEEK” was just revenge? Do you feel like you have more, similar “dirt” on other people in other places that you would release if they ever made you mad?
Do you think that there are a lot of people who now are afraid that you might be in the position I just posited, and if you think there are, do you like/are you going for that perception?
ajd
@Chris Hanson’s Axe: Well I think the “no one cared about” point is a little off-base considering what happened in the hours/days/week after it, no? The larger message was sent and I personalized it a little bit, but there was definitely a retaliatory aspect to the whole thing. I’ve been speaking with ESPN PR for the better part of a year. It’s been, up until That Day, one that was pretty accommodating from both sides. Plenty of other journos have done far worse in terms of causing havoc for PR folks than I have. It’s they’re job to spin things one way and mine not to get spun so hard on it that I’m off of it. But it’s also not appropriate to get completely derailed on a story that we were pretty close on and, given the track record we have had in terms of making sure the stories we do break about ESPN are correct, some follow-up/heads-up that there was this growing Phillips problem on the horizon was needed. Again, they have a different side to it and a different memory of the conversation that took place back in September when I inquired about the Phillips thing, but I think any other writer (blogger, reporter, what have you) would have been pissed about the way it was handled by them. As far as the others “outed,” well those incidents are ones that have been troublesome for many ESPN employees for a long time especially when it comes down to their own personal job security. That aspect was lost in the spectacle, but there’s a legitimate argument to be made about how widespread some of these affairs in the workplace are throughout the company, top to bottom (you can say that about lots of companies, sure, but most other companies who fire their employees don’t end up as front page news for such transgressions.) If the end result of this is that people somehow feel Deadspin shouldn’t be crossed, well, it’s not the worse thing in the world. It’s hardly intentional outside of this instance, though.
Chris Hanson's Axe
I didn’t mean no one cared about the stories of those people; as you said, the pageviews show that they do. I meant that no one cared about those people until That Day.
Thank you for answering my question.
James Brown
Hey, Daulerio. I’m not exactly one of your biggest fans, but I also do respect you every now and then. So, be straight up with me on this one. What’s ESPN’s reaction been to you? Back to business or has access been closing off?
ajd
@James Brown: It’s been chilly, of course. I think the cozy relationship we’ve had throughout the past year has been permanently severed and the professional/personal (yes, that existed) between me and the PR staff is probably not going to be repaired anytime soon. However, plenty of ESPN outlets did manage to give us credit for the Donaghy story, which came soon after this whole shitshow. So, I’m pleased by that. I think ESPN has bigger problems to worry about right now than us, so it’s probably not as high a priority to keep tabs on us as one would think.
ajd
James Brown
I’d figured as such. Not to mention that in the world of ESPN, the best story is the next one that they can get us to jump on. But IMO, Donaghy story was a pretty good one. It adds to the rest of the pile that Stern has built the NBA on.
Thanks for answering.
Sculptor?!?
Okay, my turn.
AJ, do you think that had you explained/prefaced your subsequent posts (even minimally) from your point of view that the shitshow wouldn’t have been so enormous? I’m not suggesting that you were (or are ever) obligated to do so, but the primary impression from the readers (mine included, I’ll be honest) seemed to be along the lines of “he’s whining because he got scooped; get over it, people get scooped all the time”. Or put another way, if perhaps if the readers were given the information that you had a long-standing positive relationship with the ESPN PR department, the overall reaction would have been more supportive?
ajd
Totally correct on that. I think the tone and lack and perceived groundless-ness(probably not a word, but we’re all friends here) is what caught people off-guard the most. I wanted to add a sense of panic to the equation. It confused a lot of readers and turned off a lot of readers, but at the end of the day, it was fun to watch. (IMO, obviously.) Part of how I do things is theatrical. I like it that way. There’s an element of professional wrestling to how I approach blogging (as I’m sure many of you have noticed, for better or for worse). And in sticking to that WWE metaphor, we all know that even though some of the show is staged, people can still get hurt. Not saying it’s the right way or wrong way, but that’s how I handle things. It’s a risky approach, but so far it’s paid off for the site in terms of increased visibility. You have to weigh long-term v. short-term in most of these situations and I think this one will definitely pay off.
Sculptor?!?
Interesting. I’ll admit, I never looked at it from a performance art point-of-view. I am intrigued, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
And thanks again. Seriously.
Rob in WI
AJ,
Is it a sign of how mainstream (in the blogosphere anyway) Deadspin has become that the backlash from the ESPN stuff? Has it put Deadspin in the inevitable no win situation, that the site gets criticized for printing things that you (as EiC, and you as in site as a whole) were holding for confirmation, but had that kind of “news” gone to another blog or “news” source, would have been printed almost instantly?
That is, is this a case of Deadspin being punished for being what it is, something that is not quite a “traditional” blog anymore, but still not seen as a day in-day out “legitimate” newsource? (It would not be wrong to say that even avid Deadspin readers get “news” from traditional websites or sources first?)
Martin
AJ, it seemed to me that the ESPN folk took the stance of being betrayed, yet they were the ones who were dishonest about the Phillips episode in the first place. There seemed to be a “How could you do this to us?” vibe coming from them, much as there is from other mainstream corporations when found out to have been pulling shenanigans. Have you found it easier or more difficult to deal with PR depts and their spin depending on the size of the group you are dealing with? Does this incident make you want to do more investigating of ESPN and the other sporting giants in a watchdog sort of capacity, holding their feet to the fire for blatant lies and fabrications?
K-Gun
The one thing that bothered me about this was that the people in the later rumors weren’t in the public eye (well, until Horndoggery day) much, if at all. It’s one thing to publish about EA/Berman/Stu Scott/Phillips, but the VP of Marketing or whatever didn’t seem like a fair target. Granted- I understand why it was done, that I don’t have to read it, etc.- that was just what rubbed me the wrong way, who it was done to more than what was done.
ajd
@Rob in WI: Oh I think so. I think as much as Deadspin is still technically a “blog” the audience and influence it has at this point are definitely more mainstream. With that status, comes inevitable backlash, in this case from all over the place from both mainstream and blogs. I don’t think of Deadspin as a blog (partly because I hate the word so much) but more of a publication that kind of blends both traditional and non-traditional journalism/blogging techniques. I personally try to keep reinventing the format in some way just because, well, if we can, why the fuck not? This whole medium is still in its very early stages and I feel pretty comfortable (and excited) to see what can happen if you just push the button down a little harder sometimes.
ajd
@Martin: @Martin: @Martin: I think they had a right to feel that way, honestly, given the status of our relationship. And I think I had a right to my reaction given the status of our relationship. They’re both visceral reactions, so nobody’s really wrong in that sense. But, look, they came to me (and other blogs) initially and offered up comment on things and factual accuracy. I’ve been up-front about what I did since day one and have made concessions and laid off a few things I normally would have for the sake of keeping that relationship intact. There’s a give-and-take between any “source” and “reporter” and I just went a little overboard in my reaction to what I considered a total snowjob. Also, I think Deadspin’s kind of taken on that watchdog role since day one. But, no, I don’t think I’m going to make a full-time habit to find out who’s-fucking-who at every major sports media publication from now on. All I’ll say is that I barely scratched the surface when it comes to ESPN. And they know that.
James Brown
Folks, AJ is heading out for the day. However, please leave any questions for him. He’ll read overnight and check back.
Martin
@ajd: I felt the reaction you had was justified myself. The lack of respect given by ESPN and others to orgaizations they feel are “lessers” sometimes needs a major slap upside the head.
ajd
@K-Gun: And I get that as well, but the reality is, she’s got a lot of pull there and is overseeing some of the people who are getting fired for similar (or less severe indiscretions). The point of “outing” Kate Lacey was to show that, look, there are plenty of influential people who have hiring-firing power and who are integral parts of the ESPN machine that have had some pretty open affairs (with other employees, sometimes bosses, mind you) who go undisciplined. Steve Phillips had a consensual relationship with Brooke Hundley and then she went all crazy and now it’s a fire-able offense? The point was, this type of thing is going to continue to haunt them (and make them look bad) if they don’t have some clear-cut don’t-bang-your-coworkers policy so everyone can figure out where the line is. And it’s not about morality or anything like that — this is just about the biggest sports media company (owned by Disney, no less) in the world being completely absent-minded about some of their personal actions. It sucks that came out publicly but, you know, plenty of people who work there already knew about the things I wrote about and were bothered by them.
K-Gun
That’s fine- I completely understand why you did it, it just crossed a line for me. Not in a ZOMG ILL NEVER READ DEADSPIN AGAIN way, just wasn’t my favorite post(s), whatever. That said, reading the original posts wasn’t as clear about why you were doing it, so that’s mostly where I had a problem with it. Presented this way, I’m fine with.
Hopefully, none of this came across like torches and pitchforks, man- it wasn’t meant that way, at least.
F'(x)
Just putting it out there that enough people at ESPN had to write to AJ about these – its a classic dysfunctional upper management..
Pub Menu
Phoenix Pub Pages
LIVE BLOG CENTRAL
PUB FARE
Our Sponsors
Support Our SponsorsTarget of the Week
Click Here to Throw a Dart
Your Bartenders
Sculptor?!?
TheFuseProject
TwoYellows
Bouncer
The Local Curmudgeons
Old King Clancy
Rob in WI
Semper-ubi-sub-ubi
Smitty
The Notorious MOB
House Whines
Imported Whines
Special Whines
Support Our Sponsors
Listen to Pubcast 360
© 2010 The Phoenix Pub Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS). Theme by johndturner.com