Deadspin, good for bad for journalism?

[downtown]

GQ just did an interesting write-up on one of the most controversial guys in sports and journalism, Deadspin's A.J Daulario. I can't link to the exact story, as it has a few words that wouldn't pass OT's language filter, but it's on the front page of the GQ website.

For those that don't follow sports so closely (or are unfamilar with the Gawker media network), Deadspin is perhaps the most influential sports blog, with a readership of over 2 million. The website is famous for some pretty influential investigative stories (Deadspin leaked financial documents from a few MLB teams to prove that they were gaming the revenue sharing system, which might have saved taxpayers in their town millions of dollars), as well as some outright sleazy stuff, usually having to do with ESPN Execs, professional athletes and sex.

Deadspin was the first to run the now famous Brett Farve Cell Phone saga, and has also published multiple pictures of athlete's.."members". Gawker, one of their partner sites, has published similar stories with politicians and other media members (they ran the Christine O'Donnell one night stand story).

Deadspin has some of the best investigative guys in the business, and because they aren't a zillion dollar media enterprise, they've been able to get and run stories that ESPN can't and won't. They've also shown almost no editorial oversight, and have published (in my opinion anyway), some pretty tasteless stuff, like a University of Indiana student having sex in a bathroom stall, and then refused to take it down, even after the girl and her dad begged them to do so.

Are sites like Deadspin (or gawker) good for journalism? Where is the proverbial "line" at what should be published? Should bloggers have different standards than traditional media outlets? Does that change if a blog gets to be a certain size? Should Farve have been suspended?

what do you think?

 

[Azale]

ESPN is the King of Sports Media, and if they refuse to use their monopoly for good then things like Deadspin are the result.

That is about all the opinion I can muster right now.

 

[bhsup]

They're not real journalists. They're just people with web access. That doesn't make one a journalist at all. Over time, content may prove 'gravitas' and merit a particular blogger called a journalist while others don't merit the title. Until then, they're just gossip sites, and gossip is in poor taste.

Oh, and no, people do NOT have a 'right to know' about dong shots and who is having sex in a bathroom stall. That's ridiculous and over the top.

 

[warpus]

For those that don't follow sports so closely (or are unfamilar with the Gawker media network)

Oh, I follow sports, just not the ones of North American variety (hockey excluded)

I have heard of Gawker but have never been on Deadspin, until now. It looks to me like the sports world's equivalent of a tabloid or celebrity gossip site, something tailored to the lowest common denominator.

IMO bloggers set their own standards - You can publish whatever the hell you want and if people read it.. all the power to you!

I'm not sure if it's good or bad for journalism.. something I don't have much respect for to begin with, generally..

 

[Left]

Oh, and no, people do NOT have a 'right to know' about dong shots and who is having sex in a bathroom stall. That's ridiculous and over the top.

I agree about the gossip stuff.

The hypermorality we expect from sports figures as stupid. Like Greg Oden essentially being blamed for being stolen from and victimized. Theres a good paper to be written on the sports medias reaction when confronted by black male sexuality. The mainstream outlets would probably also release that stuff in a heartbeat. Deadspin is just better at it.

But

(Deadspin leaked financial documents from a few MLB teams to prove that they were gaming the revenue sharing system

The big outlets like ESPN and SI are way too mutually dependent on the leagues to ever be able to cover this stuff. Thats why a smaller outfit is essential.