Real reporters don't. Real reporters stand by their stories and point out the sources they used, and their formula for stories is (typically): "X happened, and it happened because of Y, based on the evidence." "Sports Journalists" usually start with a conclusion and work backwards, selectively filling in the evidence that fits their conclusions.Fuck the whole concept of "integrity" in this context. It's an attempt at a high-falutin' sounding distraction.
Anytime a reporter gets his skill or work as a reporter questioned, the reporter claims its an attack on his "integrity." Its as though, in their minds, the only allowable criticisms are for spelling and grammar. Any other target -- laziness, agendas, maintaining access uber alles, only having JP Ricciardi on the Rolodex -- aren't criticisms of their journalistic skills, they say, but are instead something much more grave.
Real reporters don't. Real reporters stand by their stories and point out the sources they used, and their formula for stories is (typically): "X happened, and it happened because of Y, based on the evidence." "Sports Journalists" usually start with a conclusion and work backwards, selectively filling in the evidence that fits their conclusions.
It works in the same way that pseudo science "works."
"Noah's flood was real!"
"That's bullshit. There's no way to explain the geological makeup of earth if that was the case."
"How dare you! Just look at the bathtub rings in the Grand Canyon! Clearly, this is the work of a giant flood!"
"Bill Belichick is a cheater, he deflated balls!"
"That's bullshit. There's no evidence to suggest he knew about, much less ordered, any supposed ball deflation."
"How dare you! He is an obsessive micro-manager and knows everything that goes on!"
As such, the only way to approach guys like this is to just refuse to credit them with the same respect that actual journalists deserve. They are not journalists in any real sense. They are charlatans.
Wow, that's really pathetic feigned ignorance there. I counted four times that Brady referred to the situation as ongoing. There's no way Klosterman doesn't know exactly what's going on here and there's no way that his editor doesn't realize it either. Yet rather than print the obvious conclusion, that Brady has been advised by legal counsel to not discuss it, he instead concludes that Brady is a liar who doesn't want to repeat his lies.http://www.gq.com/story/tom-brady-chuck-klosterman-gq-man-of-the-year-2015
I find it hard to believe that Klosterman doesn't realize that Brady has been advised to not discuss anything about the case while the appeal is still pending.
First, how do you push the limits of everything and do the Patriots even do that on a minority of things? And second, pushing the limits is not how they dominate. That's just stupid.The Patriots are the Raiders of now, despite the fact that the Raiders still exist. They push the limits of everything, and that’s how they dominate.
Wow. I knew none of that.Klosterman is not an idiot. He knew that Brady saying "I can't answer that" or "I won't answer that again" was not only a possibility, it was the likely scenario going into that interview. He also had to have known that his follow up questions would have received responses that ranged from the empty to the vaguely hostile to the boringly pleasant (I mean, "Do you think Belichick threw you under the bus?" Really?).
Klosterman was going to run with his meta commentary on Brady's "cheating" no matter what Brady said. He was a horrible, horrible, choice for an interviewer, because Klosterman's not interested in the subject of his story, per se. He's more interested in backing up some eye-rollingly obvious "twist" that he's going to present about the person
His recent interviews with Taylor Swift and Jimmy Page have similar overtones; he manufactures a tension that is somehow evidence of an inherent paradox between who the person seems to be and who the person really is. "Swift seems to be overly calculating, which makes her unknowable, and that's what makes her interesting!" "Page is hiding the very things that people want to know; why doesn't he want to answer questions about Alistair Crowley?" "Tom Brady is perfect; even when he's cheating, but he can't admit it, because then he wouldn't be 'perfect'!"
Or, Chuck, it could be that you're just the 50th interview this year and famous people are sick of talking about this stuff, no matter how fascinating it seems to you.
Yes. It was the same in the LCD Soundsystem documentary and his "I always think bands are remembered for their greatest strengths but DEFINED by their greatest mistakes" nonsense. Klosterman has always defined that space as your smart, stoned friend - he's usually interesting to talk to, but you know half of what he says it complete bullshit.Klosterman is not an idiot. He knew that Brady saying "I can't answer that" or "I won't answer that again" was not only a possibility, it was the likely scenario going into that interview. He also had to have known that his follow up questions would have received responses that ranged from the empty to the vaguely hostile to the boringly pleasant (I mean, "Do you think Belichick threw you under the bus?" Really?).
Klosterman was going to run with his meta commentary on Brady's "cheating" no matter what Brady said. He was a horrible, horrible, choice for an interviewer, because Klosterman's not interested in the subject of his story, per se. He's more interested in backing up some eye-rollingly obvious "twist" that he's going to present about the person
His recent interviews with Taylor Swift and Jimmy Page have similar overtones; he manufactures a tension that is somehow evidence of an inherent paradox between who the person seems to be and who the person really is. "Swift seems to be overly calculating, which makes her unknowable, and that's what makes her interesting!" "Page is hiding the very things that people want to know; why doesn't he want to answer questions about Alistair Crowley?" "Tom Brady is perfect; even when he's cheating, but he can't admit it, because then he wouldn't be 'perfect'!"
Or, Chuck, it could be that you're just the 50th interview this year and famous people are sick of talking about this stuff, no matter how fascinating it seems to you.
Big difference between you can ask whatever you want and you can expect an answer on whatever you want. It's apparently not uncommon for an exclusive interview with some celebrity to be preconditioned on not asking about the divorce, or the break-up, or to only ask an agreed upon question on some other touchy subject. I assume Brady's people said "ask what you want but my guy really can't say more about his ongoing legal case"Klosterman is claiming Brady's people said "everything was on the table" (i.e., he could ask anything he wanted).
From the little I know about magazine printing this seems implausible. It's not like they just slap someone on the cover last second.Klosterman's podcast with Simmons makes me want to throw my computer through the window. He says every 5 minutes that he was totally OK with Brady answering questions "no," then spends the rest of the podcast whining about him saying "no." He's mainly upset because (i) Brady didn't do what Klosterman assumed he was going to do and (ii) Brady's people seem to have tricked GQ into making him the cover boy while promising that Brady would agree to a complete in-person interview, and then Brady didn't do it.
P.S. Simmons, as you'd expect, rolls over for Klosterman and doesn't call him out at all.
It's the opposite -- he's saying (without knowing it for sure) that Brady's people locked up the cover based on a promise to do a thorough in-person interview, then changed the interview plans once the photos had been taken and the cover spot was locked up.From the little I know about magazine printing this seems implausible. It's not like they just slap someone on the cover last second.
I think this is right after listening to the podcast. Or as themuddychicken said upthread there was a lot of "feigned ignorance". He described how the interview was put together that GQ had a "wrangler" to get Brady for the interview. I wouldn't be surprised if Brady said he could "ask anything but I can't answer x or y because of the appeal" and Chuck intentionally saw it as "ask anything" so he could frame the piece around that.Klosterman is not an idiot. He knew that Brady saying "I can't answer that" or "I won't answer that again" was not only a possibility, it was the likely scenario going into that interview. He also had to have known that his follow up questions would have received responses that ranged from the empty to the vaguely hostile to the boringly pleasant (I mean, "Do you think Belichick threw you under the bus?" Really?).
Klosterman was going to run with his meta commentary on Brady's "cheating" no matter what Brady said. He was a horrible, horrible, choice for an interviewer, because Klosterman's not interested in the subject of his story, per se. He's more interested in backing up some eye-rollingly obvious "twist" that he's going to present about the person
His recent interviews with Taylor Swift and Jimmy Page have similar overtones; he manufactures a tension that is somehow evidence of an inherent paradox between who the person seems to be and who the person really is. "Swift seems to be overly calculating, which makes her unknowable, and that's what makes her interesting!" "Page is hiding the very things that people want to know; why doesn't he want to answer questions about Alistair Crowley?" "Tom Brady is perfect; even when he's cheating, but he can't admit it, because then he wouldn't be 'perfect'!"
Or, Chuck, it could be that you're just the 50th interview this year and famous people are sick of talking about this stuff, no matter how fascinating it seems to you.
Right, and what I'm saying is that if GQ felt aggrieved of misled, they likely would have had plenty of time and opportunity to change the cover. It's not like anyone outside the magazine and Brady's camp expected him to be on that cover of that issue before it hit the stands.It's the opposite -- he's saying (without knowing it for sure) that Brady's people locked up the cover based on a promise to do a thorough in-person interview, then changed the interview plans once the photos had been taken and the cover spot was locked up.
Thank you. He and Franzen should be put in a burlap sack and forced to fight to death. With the winner being shot.Someone should break this out in the Media Thread as "I can't believe anyone actually likes to read Chuck Klosterman"
Even if Brady is more guarded than his folks had led GQ to believe GQ probably doesn't give a fuck. This interview is going to get six bajillion hits.Right, and what I'm saying is that if GQ felt aggrieved of misled, they likely would have had plenty of time and opportunity to change the cover. It's not like anyone outside the magazine and Brady's camp expected him to be on that cover of that issue before it hit the stands.
Think about it, Conde Nast is not going to antagonize Gisele.Even if Brady is more guarded than his folks had led GQ to believe GQ probably doesn't give a fuck. This interview is going to get six bajillion hits.
It would be interesting to know what GQ does if someone really does burn them. The number one thing you can do is make the guy look like a schmuck (which may be what Klosterman is trying to do). Do you throw in a bunch of anti brady rips in random Conde Naste magazines? Do a piece on some 20 year old women being a smarter nicer Gisele--and one who's not married to an old cheater? Disinvite them from the met costume gala?
That's my pointThink about it, Conde Nast is not going to antagonize Gisele.
Dude, I think they just did.Think about it, Conde Nast is not going to antagonize Gisele.
Athens had Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle; we got Klosterman, Gladwell, and Simmons.Yes. It was the same in the LCD Soundsystem documentary and his "I always think bands are remembered for their greatest strengths but DEFINED by their greatest mistakes" nonsense. Klosterman has always defined that space as your smart, stoned friend - he's usually interesting to talk to, but you know half of what he says it complete bullshit.
Any way we can stuff Eggers, Safran Foer, and Ben Lerner into that sack, too?Thank you. He and Franzen should be put in a burlap sack and forced to fight to death. With the winner being shot.
We're going to need a bigger sack.Any way we can stuff Eggers, Safran Foer, and Ben Lerner into that sack, too?
We're going to need a bigger sack.
I don't know from personal experience but all evidence suggests that money, fame, and a lifestyle that involving banging supermodels are all fucking awesome that doing things--like being on the cover go GQ- to get you more money, fame and supermodels is a damn good use of time.Klosterman is a bloviating, self-impressed hack whose writing is grossly overrated. And his whining regarding Brady's lack of forthcoming-ness on the deflate gate questions is laughably contemptible. But I have to say, Brady has brought most of this little soap opera on himself. Why in the fuck would he need to be on yet another magazine cover, including agreeing to a feature article interview, with the appeal still pending? The minimalist approach to press availability he has been mostly employing since all this bullshit hit the fan has been absolutely the right approach. Why deviate from it?
Any theories on why the Brady camp changed from a face to face interview to an over the phone? Klosterman used the term "weird" to describe their explanation. You'd think if it was a timing issue, he could've just said that.
While Florio would probably be the best person to conduct an no limits interview given his legal background, I seriously doubt that Brady ever gives any sort of in depth interview about DFG ever.Florio with an uncouth implicit begging/demand that eventually Brady sit with one of his "impartial" and "knowledgable" brethren and answer any all questions re Deflategate.
And who might this be? The late Dick Schaap would have been great. Who is out there that isn't attached to either ESPN, NFLNetwork, or local media source (whether that be a Boston-area or elsewhere) who has not only the required level of football knowledge but also some sense of gravitas/journalistic bona fides/whatever that would create the tone you are seeking?Still, when the litigation is finally over, Brady needs to sit down for a frank, candid interview — not with Jim Gray or a co-worker at the Patriots or Bill Simmons or a mainstream, non-football journalist who doesn’t fully appreciate the entire range of facts and nuances of the case but someone who would be able to ask meaningful questions with probing follow-ups in order to get to the one thing that has remained elusive since the AFC title game: The truth.
That was Florio's implicit plea for him to be the choice IMHO.And who might this be? The late Dick Schaap would have been great. Who is out there that isn't attached to either ESPN, NFLNetwork, or local media source (whether that be a Boston-area or elsewhere) who has not only the required level of football knowledge but also some sense of gravitas/journalistic bona fides/whatever that would create the tone you are seeking?
Meh, think he's got of all those things in abundance. Doubt one more GQ cover is going to matter much. I'd kind of enjoy it if he took the BB approach to the rest of his career: do the league-mandated bare minimum press, and middle finger the rest of the media/publicity/stardom machine.I don't know from personal experience but all evidence suggests that money, fame, and a lifestyle that involving banging supermodels are all fucking awesome that doing things--like being on the cover go GQ- to get you more money, fame and supermodels is a damn good use of time.
Bryant Gumbel.And who might this be? The late Dick Schaap would have been great. Who is out there that isn't attached to either ESPN, NFLNetwork, or local media source (whether that be a Boston-area or elsewhere) who has not only the required level of football knowledge but also some sense of gravitas/journalistic bona fides/whatever that would create the tone you are seeking?