Patrick Reusse: The Old Fart's Last Stand?
By Brian Lambert
I'm not sure what to take away from Patrick Reusse's Thursday column. This was the one where the old silverback reminisced about his early days at the Pi Press, where cigar chomping sports guys insulted him to his face and rookie copy editors took turns trying to patch holes in Don Riley pieces and then went on to a defense of his profession in the face of the Internet. (The stories about Riley, the Pi Press's legendary imbiber/sports writer truly are hilarious, mainly in contrast—stark contrast—to the stitched up, oh-so sober, and bloodless "professional demeanor" required of reporters by today's HR-driven management.)
My guess is that Patrick caught wind of (former Pi Presser) Buzz Bissinger blasting away at that Deadspin blogger on Bob Costas's show last week. If not, it's a hell of a coincidence. Two gnarly newspaper vets, stained past their elbows in ink and saddle sore from years of schlepping through airports and arenas, carping about the herds of smirky little blogger bastards pecking away in their mother's basement, calling athletes nasty names, and taking cheap shots at pros such as Bissinger and Reusse for being "too close" to the action.
Although my sympathies in the fight over "Who do you need more? Newspaper pros or bloggers?" are generally with Bissinger and Reusse (for the simple reason that you learn something important when you are negotiating the tricky political game of working and keeping sources with teams while simultaneously balancing credibility with readers, editors, and management), I've accepted that this game, too—sports reporting and commentary—is changing forever and that the glory days are waning for daily newspaper sports sections.
(Ex-Timberwolves beat writer Steve Aschburner, writing for MinnPost, takes his shot here.)
My basic view has been and continues to be this: As bad as things are for a paper such as the Strib, if you think of it as a diesel barge that has just rammed a bridge, the sports section will be the last thing sucking air as the props disappear below the waterline. When sports goes under, the game is over. Sports are that vital to what is left of the daily newspaper business. Papers continue to pour a disproportionate share of their diminishing resources into sports coverage because they believe if the average guy is honest in focus groups, he'll admit that the sports section is the only reason he still subscribes to the damn thing. TV gives him all the nauseating crime stories he needs to know about. Politics are on the the Internet and cable twenty-four/seven. He doesn't read the "chick stuff", and he doesn't need the paper's classifieds anymore to find a new boat trailer.
As someone who listened to endless newsroom carping about the "misplaced priorities" of sending four or five sports guys off to cover a Masters Tournament with no Minnesota golfers, an NFL playoff game without the Vikings, or—the Godzilla of misplaced priorities—the Olympics halfway around the globe, even with a handful of Minnesotans no one has ever heard of before or ever will again, I can tell you this stuff rankled every department outside sports. While news stories were covered via phone from a newsroom desk, the sports department would burn in a week at the U.S. Open what the entire A&E department would spend in a year. And that was then. Now, with traumatic "restructuring" in the wind, the cost to a local paper providing its sports writers access to any event anywhere is, as Patrick seems to be suggesting, about one short summer away from being an artifact of a bygone era, like the gin bottles in Don Riley's desk drawers.
The stressed and depleted modern newsroom is a schadenfreude-rich environment. No one thinks they're getting the resources they need to do their job the best they know how (and they're not). So they are OK-to -delighted with the thought that the sports department will soon be clipping coupons just like common folk. That's human nature.
As I say, this diminishment of sports is inevitable. The Internet competition for sports coverage and commentary is overwhelming, from ESPN alone, and then you get to the Deadspins of the world. Sports are massively over-covered, there's no question about it. But it's no coincidence that so much of the best writing in any paper comes out of the sports department. And all that pricey first-person "I am there" access has a lot to do with that.
To repeat something I say a lot, the average newspaper—and that describes the two local publications—might be a lot better off financially, by virtue of being more appealing to a younger generation of readers, if they encouraged all of their reporters to use the freedom of expression sports departments allow their writers. The irreverent, informal, humorous, theatrical—human—copy routinely produced by sports writers, such as Reusse, a bona fide old fart, is in much closer step with the modern Internet sensibility than the rest of the paper. But all the writers in the other departments are working with a lot less material.
And please, "local, local—hyper-local" coverage of high school football isn't
even close to registering on the same vicarious and authoritative level
as a by-ined story from Augusta, the Staples Center, or Beijing. What
celebrity gossip is to women, sports are to men, and there's a huge gulf between
first and third hand.
By taking the "big league feel" out of sports coverage, by taking hometown reporters and columnists off the road, by removing them from the rich loop of colleagues from other cities—whose cues and gossip are far more vital to good sports writing than a few lines of first-person cliches from the quarterback standing in a rank smelling locker room—, newspaper management is signing its own death warrant.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
God knows Reusse has standing to comment on the state of things in the newspaper business. From the sports perspective. As a 27-year employee of the Strib newsroom who left with the June, 2007 buyout as a hard-news guy, I can say that I often wondered if anybody out there really cared enough about serious news to pay the freight. We had a monopoly on want-ads, were the best buy for the retailers, and had sports coverage and entertainment listings. We never had to care whether readers actually would spend money for news. That just happened. An add-on, if you will. But we did it very well, both at the Strib and the PP, or so I would like to think. Times change. Newspapers didn't. It's not that we errored in doing hard news. But we didn't find a way to make it clear how important that is. We never found a way to distinguish ourselves from TV-lite (with a few exceptions - like Shelby 20 years ago.) Now, I fear, it's too late. Whatever happens to newspapers, there is no news operation that gives the consumer the horse-power of a big city newspaper newsroom. At a time when the world (and our beloved Twin Cities) are more complex than ever. There are now more people employed in spinning the truth than seeking it out. That doesn't bode well for a democratic society.
LAMBERT: And the demand for public relations writers is limited.
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on May 9, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I'll comment, but your post left many threads to weave--sports, newspapers, old employees reviewing their past, internet coverage, blogger coverage, TV/Cable coverage--how far do you want to go here?
Well, I'll give it 15 minutes and see if something meaningful spills out. In my humble opinion, sports are past peak, just like newspapers, just like Sid...and Reusse is seeing it and feeling it, but is too close to it to really get it.
Maybe it is just me, but I think pro sports are a shell of its glory period, which I'll say peaked about 20 years from 1960-80, and has been slowly sinking since. Sure, money is up and traditions fade slowly, but do families really follow the Twins, Vikes, Stars equivalents for 162/16/80 games like they did in say 1972? No way, would be my claim.
I see legends when I think of that era, just throw out some random names-- MaysAaronClemente, UnitasBrownNitschke, HullEspositoWorsley, even NicklausPalmerTrevino in golf, shoot, toss Shoemaker on a horse, Spitz in the pool and Heiden out skating, all raise my eyebrows over anything I see in sports today. These people were men compared to these drug-fueled primadonnas we are supposed to follow today.
Sorry, it is all too much, sports wrecked sports, maybe the way newspapers wrecked newspapers...too many ads, too many self-important special interests, and too little appreciation for the game, the fact it is just a game, and the true place it occupies in the big picture for all parties--fans, athletes, and all the hangers-on in between.
Is this too metaphysical a comment, my apologies, but I appreciate the opportunity to ponder Reusse's dilemma. My response to him is that he is shooting the messenger and not focusing on the message being sent.
LAMBERT: I hear what you're saying Mike. But I keep telling myself not to give away my complete and utter geezer-ness. As a kid I was enthralled with my sports heroes. Just like I was with my rock ' n roll heroes. As I got older their place in the great scheme of things evened out a bit. I just have less emotional involvement than before. But I think Ichiro, Derek Jeter, Tom Brady and even "straight cash, homey" would have done very well back "in the day".
Posted by: The Other Mike on May 9, 2008 at 10:57 PM
THAT'S the tone I've been seeking, my man. Well done, sir.
LAMBERT: I'm framing this.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 10, 2008 at 2:39 AM
I read Reusse (online) and left thinking his tank is nearly empty and he sees the end of the road of his career. Less an indictment of the Internet than waxing nostalgic about life when he was a rookie.
He did, though, make it sound like he expects bloggers will take over sports coverage online. I don't agree.
I've been working in online newsrooms for a dozen years now and can say this unequivocally: Without newspapers there wouldn't be news online. Just take a look at rotoworld.com, a very popular stop for fantasy sports folks. They gather info from newspapers.
By 'newspapers' I mean newsrooms. Original beat reporting is the backbone of all news online. Bloggers use it (less so now because online-only newsrooms, commentators and pundits are rising) and consumers read it.
I don't think *newsrooms* need to feel like they are going to be extinct. It's *newspapers* that are heading toward the scrap heap.
It's not *reporters* who are going to be dinosaurs it's *printing presses.*
In the end, once the bean counters hack away and the Strib is finally sold for a price that will drop jaws for how low it is, whoever buys what's left is buying the people in the newsroom, plain and simple. Maybe some sales folks, too, but mostly the newsroom.
That -- and the newspaper's brand -- is what will move online for another go round.
LAMBERT: I'm fascinated by the era of "go anywhere, anytime" local sports columnists. It was/is quite a gig. As I say, everywhere else in the paper people are counting nickels to drive to Forest Lake to check out the site of some boondoggle.
Posted by: new media guy on May 10, 2008 at 7:50 AM
When I read Patrick's column my first reaction was this was a buggy whip maker whining about the popularity of horseless carriages. Then I remembered the story the Strib broke about the DNR spending hundreds of thousands on a conference. I thought, "who is going to report on this when the newspapers are gone?" Bloggers? Well, maybe. After all it was a blogger who broke the Franken story, not the newspaper. Bloggers are breaking all sorts of political news the newspapers, and especially television are not. It will work out. The new media will find a way. Some enterprising blogger (Lambert?) will get a tip, investigate and publish online. Life, the news, and sports reporting will go on.
LAMBERT: It will work out. But it is the rare blogger who can devote his entire professional workday to his site. This one represents roughly one-third of my time and probably wouldn't exist at all if the magazine wasn't rolling it in with the cost of other duties.
Posted by: KTG on May 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Reusse got it right with the title "Who will cover?". The bloggers and sports-talkers are almost completely absent on first-person reporting. The print guys are doing all the grunt work of getting into the locker rooms and actually TALKING to the participants, and then the bloggers and talkers exploit the reporter's labor. If blogs are inane and vacuous now, what would they be like if their sources were just AP stories and press releases?
And you're right, BL, about being there is more important for sports than for politics and such. A news reporter can cover a car wreck through the phone (or as the Strib obviously does it, by lifting the details from the Highway Patrol's web site), but I don't think a sports reporter would have much luck calling Mauer's cell for a review of a key play.
LAMBERT: I'm NOT saying it is much more important for newspaper sports writers than other reporters to be on the scene. Ideally there'd be enough cash for every department to operate like sports does. (Sports obviously has the advantage of covering SCHEDULED events.) My point is that when papers who have pretty well bet the ranch on first class sports coverage start pulling back on that beat too ... well, maybe Mauer can write a daily blog.
Posted by: Pierce County Politician on May 10, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Well, Brian, 1/3 blogging, 1/3 magazine, 1/3 making buggy whips. You'll do fine.
LAMBERT: I can roof a shed in a day.
Posted by: KTG on May 10, 2008 at 9:55 AM
BL = "...not to give away my complete and utter geezer-ness. As a kid I was enthralled with my sports heroes."
It appears my comment made it seem I was just drooling on my past sport heroes, instead what I was trying to point out is how society has changed how sports is perceived (or the nature of sport changed with society perceiving it differently as a result...chicken or egg thing).
But the sports/society world has subtly changed over the past 30-40 years, with the result being complete and total over-saturation, which the result being we truly do not need reporters from our local newspaper covering any sport, partly because someone somewhere already is, but mostly even if they aren't, the over-saturated sports fan can compare easily enough yesterday's 7-3 loss to last week's 7-3 loss to last month's 7-3 loss to last year's 7-3 loss.
And, no offense to anyone's favorite sportswriter, but I'm having trouble coming up with even one who I felt wrote a 7-3 loss story that has advanced my understanding of life. So, I'll take my chances with a blogger producing at least a batting average greater than .000 even without the precious firsthand lockerroom access to get the latest sports cliches from the stars after the latest 7-3 loss.
If this comment wasn't getting so long, I'd furnish a half dozen 7-3 loss sports cliches just from memory. Does that mean I'm just getting old? I don't think so, my parents and grandparents followed their favorite teams well beyond my current age while maintaining a shred of innocence and hiding their cynicism.
Somehow, they didn't get fed up with sports, but I sure am, and not due to any local team recently, rather due to all local teams for a generation. It is not just the drugs in sports, not just the cost of a family attending a game equalling the monthly food budget, not just the silly uniform changes just to sell more swag, not just the player changes just due to money issues, not just the billion dollar stadiums being built for sports teams, not just the player strikes that kill off entire seasons...it is all of that combined and more. It that why Riley had that bottle of gin in his desk?
LAMBERT: We're on basically the same track. My diminished thrall for sports, rock and and all pop culture heroes had a lot to do with constant exposure to the cynical business side of these industries. I'm still a Twins fan, still get a big kick out of howling guitars and can enjoy a movie like, "Iron Man". Just not as blindly as when I was younger. But Reusse's point seems to be asking WHO will get the inside story of sports teams -- not just the locker room cliches -- if newspapers stop covering sports like they do. It costs serious money that almost no bloggers and very few mainstream publications can afford based on current on-line-only revenue streams. Of course, if you want to play critic, remember how completely out to lunch every well-traveled sports writer was about those Johan Santana trade rumors last winter. I know a couple papers who could have saved a small fortune by speculating about that from the comfort of the newsroom.
Posted by: The Other Mike on May 10, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Force feeding us the thug-ridden NFL / Vikings 24/365.
Ditto above the NBA. Does anyone really care?
Stanley Cup in June.
Anything WNBA.
Sid's inability to "get" anything other than stick and ball / Gopher sports.
These are not a few of my average white guy favorite things, as it concerns current sports "issues".
LAMBERT: Remind me, who many "multi-cultural" players are there in the NHL? And I don't mean Canadians and Finns.
Posted by: bertram jr on May 12, 2008 at 9:14 AM
I grew up in newspapers covering news and later covered countless sporting events for them as well.
One thing I think bloggers will run into though are professional leagues not about to hand out credentials to any schmo who put up a blog and wants to "cover" the Twins. There is an authenticity and expectation attached to people who work with legitimate news organizations or publications, and I think that there is still a big gray area with Blogs - which are legit and which are not?
So I think the Bloggers taking over the sports coverage world are a long way off still. Newspapers might die as we know them but maybe more papers or sports publications will use their name cred and "revinent" themselves as completely online publications like MinnPost or something else.
Like an earlier poster said, reporters aren't going anywhere. it's just the look of the vehicle used to deliver their stories that is changing.
And the new media world order with sports - and everything else you cover - is multi-faceted now. You can't just write stories, you need to take along your Flash player and digital camera too. Reporters who want to survive and not end up being dinasours like Sid and Reusse better figure out you have to cover your beat in a way where you get multi-media stories out of it - print, video, photos, audio, etc. That's the nature of feeding the Internet beast. Everything is customized to the specific user and linked to audio/video/text/etc.
That's where I see it heading anyway, and maybe my generation is a dying breed in that I still like to have an actual newspaper on the table while I eat my oatmeal every morning.
Now, though, I find myself eating in front of the computer as I scan stories/etc.
Anyway good piece - enjoy the Blog very much too.
LAMBERT: Thanks. Your points about the credibility -- or lack thereof of blogs -- is entirely valid. The average ex-newspaper writer's ego is in for a hit as soon as their last name is no longer "Star Tribune". If you're not known for doing a PR job on your beat, you quickly find a whole range of people who are happy to ignore you. But under the current financial structure, sports writers may very well be going away. You can't the number of websites paying middle class salaries on one hand. Too many former colleagues are hyping frozen burritos and chain restaurants instead of digging up the truth on city hall and corporate malfeasance.
Posted by: John Nemo on May 12, 2008 at 9:54 AM
If anyone bothers to read my blog, they will clearly see I'm not a threat to mainstream journalism. Content is still king (or queen, if you will); subject matter presented in factual, creative, or irreverent ways will always attract eyeballs. Content creators may not get paid as much in the future, but who's fault is that? I personally would lay more blame at the feet of industry leaders and capitalists who were slow to change, greedy, arrogant, and pretty damn cozy with the franchises they were supposed to be reporting on. That as much as any computer I hack away on in my basement in my underwear (my mother is dead, and didn't leave me her house) helped to create the void that's now being partially filled by upstarts like me.
It seems like you, Brian, and Britt Robson have found niches in this new reality. Britt's Timberwolves commentary is often brilliant--even if he still worships KG too much. What's missing is the solid business model that pays well enough to reward quality professionals, and attract a new generation of reporters.
I wonder if anyone in the "old guard" bitched about Reusse years ago when he decided to branch out into the new format called talk radio. Maybe that's when this slippery slope all began.
LAMBERT: That lack of a "solid business model" isn't just a problem, it's a bitch.
Peter Weinhold writes at http://www.canishoopus.com/.
Posted by: Peter Weinhold on May 12, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Lambert,
Were you turned down for a job at the Star Tribune at one point? You remind me of Lou Dobb's and his stupid obsession with illegal immigrants. We get it - people hate print! Wait a minute, you write for a magazine. Scratch that. How are sales for your $5 magazine now that I am paying $60 for gas and $4 for MILK? Your circulation increasing over the last 5 years?
It is a NEWSPAPER. It will be here - either online or print - for years to come (I'd hate to think of getting my news through bloggers). It is going through financial difficulty which it is addressing through this Blackstone group.
You get all your input from pissed off blogging ex-Stribbies who need to get a life too. Bloggers remind me of two losers in High School who sat around during lunch period eating Tator Tots and making wise cracks about people as they sat down for lunch.
TRY ANOTHER TOPIC!!!!!!!
LAMBERT: You might try re-reading whatever it is you thought you read.
Posted by: Boondoggle on May 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Mr. Lambert,
Bloggers like yourself are feeding off the old business model. Where are the economics for you to continue once magazines, television, newspaper and radio go down with the dinosaurs?
No one in their right mind will go to college to study to become a 'new world journalist' if it doesn't pay the bills. Your are being subsidized by old media (magazines). Pat Reusse is merely pointing out you guys have it easy. Your future is one of a bunch of bloggers with agendas.
A terrifying thought.
LAMBERT: Did you miss the part where I'm not really disagreeing with Reusse?
Posted by: Jezibel on May 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I think the Strib sports staff will be just fine when the doors close. Rumor has it that Sid has offered each columnist a caretaker position at any of his many SIDAL apartment buildings, with the beat reporters jobs handling the maintenance. Natural selection will be preserved, and Sid will be boating on Medicine Lake.
LAMBERT: A year from now most anyone on the staff will grab at Sid's very generous offer.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on May 12, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Mr. Lambert,
I work at an advertising agency in Minneapolis, and have access to the MplsSt.Paul magazines own media kits. I believe there is reason to believe you yourself are on a sinking ship.
Circulation for MplsSt.Paul Magazine (numbers are from your own company):
2005: 79,699 (includes both single copy and home delivered)
2006: 79,114 (a 1% decrease)
2007: 74,475 (ouch! 6% decrease)
Weren't you stating the Star Tribune is losing relevancy with a 7% decrease in circulation?
It is a battle between old media and new media. Pat Reusse is correct when he said what will be left on the internet are just a bunch of bitter fools with agendas.
LAMBERT: I gather someone has hit the "agenda" button. But I think maybe before you blow a gasket you might want to read what I've been writing. The Strib and every other publication's circulation decline is one problem. But in their case it is greatly magnified by an ownership business plan -- burdened with massive debt, which we here are not -- that requires them to lay-off writers and reduce content (something we are also not doing) in order to maintain debt service. (Likewise). Other than those piddly details. Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing. Apples to acorns. But being in the ad game I certainly didn't have to explain any of this to you, did I?
Posted by: Advarman on May 12, 2008 at 2:02 PM
God knows your mag is still serving up the heaping doses of breathless "fashion" coverage....we're knee deep in recession here!
And I get it, white teeth are GREAT!
LAMBERT: The "R" word! Tsk, tsk. Haven't you heard? That's another one of those America-hating liberal myths.
Posted by: bertram jr on May 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Mr. Lambert,
I didn't realize I had an agenda. I am 32, read newspapers online during the week and get the Sunday Strib. I have no agenda other than to point out that ALL old media will be facing what the Strib is in the not too distant future.
Are you saying the magazine industry is doing well? Have you seen a recent US NEWS & WORLD REPORT or TIME? They are thinner and smaller than before. TIME had massive layoffs as a result last year. You cannot seriously believe that with declining circulation your magazine will not be looking at cuts to stay in business?
AVISTA (and newspapers in general) were unexpectedly hit with the decline of two large classified advertisers - transportation and real estate. If either were advertising the amount that they had in the past the debt would not be an issue, and there would be no layoffs. But that is not the case. I doubt the Publisher Chris Hart is gleefully firing people at the Strib just to increase profits.
Blackstone has been hired to review the process and come up with a sound business plan to address the new realities. We will see if they can pull it off. Your corporate owners may be calling them sooner than you think.
Good luck!
LAMBERT: My mistake. I thought YOU wrote, "Pat Reusse is correct when he said what will be left on the internet are just a bunch of bitter fools with agendas." Or were you referring to yourself?
I don't know what to say about your confidence in the beneficence of the Blackstone Group. But it is breathtaking. As for the Avista folks, they made their play with all the indicators you're referring to pointing in the same grim direction ... and still leveraged the deal. It was a scheme for a bygone era. Poor homework on someone's part.
Posted by: Advarman on May 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I don't know what it means, but the fact that I was scrolling through the Strib's website this afternoon and noticed that Deja Vu had an ad for "entertainers" in the jobs section has to mean something and I don't think it's good.
Think about what might be worse. The fact that the Vu has to advertise for "talent" or the the Strib is so desperate for advertising dollars that they don't care about who is on their site anymore and the types of business appearing. Neither paints a picture of a healthy business scene.
At leaat we live in interesting times.
LAMBERT: God help us if Reusse resorts to stripping.
Posted by: Danny B. on May 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM
BL = "...Reusse's point seems to be asking WHO will get the inside story of sports teams ..."
Succinctly, my point is 'gratefully, no one will be'...and that might finally bring back some of the innocence in sports that people like you and me lost when sports over-saturation overtook us.
Then, I can't help but shake my head at Advarman and his not-so-hidden agenda. My advice to him (does that make me Advicerman? ;)) is--
--It is a 'comment' when it is offered as an opinion; it is an 'agenda' when it is offered as a wordy fist down people's throats.
To regular Lambert readers, we have come to know Brian is well-aware of the current dynamics of print, both newspapers and magazines--whether employers past, present, or future (I can see it in his sunglasses--honest, take a look!). This extends to and does not exclude their declining sales numbers and more importantly their declining ADVERTISING sales numbers, none of which he has tried to hide behind or from. So I recommend you hop off the high horse on your next comment.
As for a suggested comment that might actually illuminate the thread here--
--Advarman, why do your peers spend more money on multi-millionaire athletes (say Tiger Woods) to convince people to buy (say Buicks)...is there really an ROI on that? Wouldn't at least a race car driver actually have more cred and probably sell more cars?
--Or, why do your peers NOT spend more Ad money on news websites and bloggers where the ROI can be accurately measured down a button click (fuzzy cred ROI math not needed)?
LAMBERT: Is there any science at all to celebrity endorsements?
Posted by: The Other Mike on May 12, 2008 at 5:04 PM
This can't be good news for Adverman. If there are no ads, then where's the need to hire advermen? What's the new media, YouTube, Craig'sList?
I've never read an ad on anything on the web. It's all just annoying "schwee." They are by the nature of the format the height, or, nadir, of annoying. They slide into my view and I instantly click to get rif of them. I pay no attention to what they say. As Lambert rightly points out, there is an entirely different aesthetic to magazine advertising that I will look at. So I think there is a distinction with a difference. As for celebrity endorsements, well, I imagine they're a great thing for celebrities.
LAMBERT: I'm trying to think of someone on whose word I'd buy a car, or a washing machine. Will Ferrell? Bono? Tila Tecquila?
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 12, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Oh, please, if Susan Sarandon told you to buy a used Pinto with a leaky gas tank, you'd be so in that driver's seat...of the Pinto, I mean.
LAMBERT: She's the exception that proves the rule.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 12, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Noam Chomsky? Michael Moore?
Posted by: 108 on May 13, 2008 at 12:11 AM
You're about to buy a "President" on far less.
Posted by: bertram jr on May 13, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Re: Deja Vu advertising for talent - they are a legitimate (tax paying) business, targeting, I presume, heterosexual customers.
Their "talent" is not blatantly paraded weekly in the Sunday Entertainment section, as is a certain homosexual agenda column.
So what is really more "appropriate" in the end?
LAMBERT: I'm going to have to start restricting you to one Claude and Rick reference per day.
Posted by: bertram jr on May 13, 2008 at 9:21 AM
I don't know about 108. But I know Bertram, Jr. voted for George W. Bush twice and continues to defend his utterly failed presidency. So, I'd put a sock in it when it comes to lashing out at the credulity of others.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on May 13, 2008 at 10:17 AM
==And, no offense to anyone's favorite sportswriter, but I'm having trouble coming up with even one who I felt wrote a 7-3 loss story that has advanced my understanding of life.==
Hell, I'm happy if it advances my understanding of baseball. In that vein, Hal McCoy of the Dayton Daily News and Tom Powers, Phil Miller and Kelsie Smith of the Pi Press know how to analyze a game, and a person's attitude -- enough to give me a few hints about life, and how to tag out a runner caught between second and third.
LAMBERT: How did the Kansas City Star come up with -- and hold on to -- TWO writers the caliber of Joe Posnanski and Jason Whitlock? Damn, that is good stuff.
Posted by: Hal Davis on May 28, 2008 at 6:45 PM