Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Our Errors are Mistakes: The Media Forum' started by dirtynine, Jun 20, 2018.
Wow was that fantastic.
Two (of many) great quotes from this piece:
"Portnoy treats his own female employees like Lorenzo Lamas analyzing a model’s thigh gap using a laser pointer."
"I look forward to Portnoy reacting to this post with his patented brand of painfully contrived brashness. He’ll clumsily fisk it like a lobotomized Mike Schur."
While I don't agree with everything he wrote, there's no denying how skilled he is at writing. I wish I had a fraction of his talent.
I know his schtick wears on some, but Magary is my favorite internet writer bar none. That was straight fire (although he's preaching to the choir when it comes to me).
This article feels like the old anti-drugs ad where the father confronts his son and the kid says "I learned it by watching you." Deadspin's success (which Magary manages to reference in the article) was built on some pretty awful behavior, and Magary wasn't exactly the world's most evolved human when he was "Big Daddy Drew" over at Uproxx.
Replace "Barstool" with "Deadspin" and "Portnoy" with "Daulerio" and this quote is 100% applicable to Deadspin ~10 years ago.
I'd respect Magary's message more if he admitted that he/Deadspin built their audience exactly the same way Portnoy has.
Deadspin was started by Will Leitch though, and had a different tone. Daulerio was a stain on the site to be sure, but he's gone now and Deadspin has evolved from him, thankfully.
Barstool is still under Portnoy's purview, and it still acting the same way they always have. And Deadspin, to the best of my knowledge, never doxxed anyone or engaged in a pattern of relentless harassment of critics. (If they have, PLEASE tell me, that's an honest request).
Daulerio did some awful, terrible things, but they didn't do that. Magary is absolutely right to point out that Barstool forestalls criticism by literally ruining their targets' lives with harassment. Daulerio was a shitheel, to be sure, and Deadspin employed Greg Howard, who has had consistent rumors of harassment of women attached to his name for a long time now.
Bartsool has never acted any other way than the way Portnoy acts now. Stealing content and doxxing and harassing anyone who objects is low behavior.
PFT doesn’t count?
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I think it's fair to say that Barstool Sports is just the next step in an (d)evolution -- it's basically Sports by Brooks + Deadspin + Tucker Max with social media heft. I think ignoring Deadspin's role in that weakens Magary's message.
"We used to be shitheads, too, but at some point we grew up -- when will Barstool?" is a necessary part of a Barstool-related takedown on Deadspin.
I guess they do, but it's almost a spin-off at this point.
Regardless, there's no question that Stoolies engage in a pattern of despicable toxic behavior whenever their beloved site comes under criticism, and there's no question that Portnoy actively encourages and condones it. I'll give Katz and PFT the barest modicum of credit for once having said to their listeners not to engage in such behavior, but frankly those two guys are too financially beholden to Barstool right now to really make any changes.
Portnoy's in charge, and Portnoy's the one who WANTS this type of behavior from his followers. What a piece of shit he is.
This is fair, and I agree. A while ago Barry at Deadspin did address this in this mea culpa when some of the awful things he said got outed by Barstool. It's OK to say "I used to be a shithead. I hope I've become better."
I thought the Post ran a pretty balanced take of what deadspin was and where it's going: https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...045556-1368-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html
It includes apologies from Magary and others re: the above point and how they've attempted to rebrand the site:
And some eye rolling takes that I find deadspin falling into too often:
Hey look, Josh Kantor had a mild rebuke to Barstool for using his music without permission and here's their response:
This is what Magary's talking about: reacting to any criticism by going nuclear.
God, Greenwell is just too fucking precious:
Spare me the hipster tokenism. God that's terrible.
I'm pretty sure that Magary (or other Deadspin staff) has admitted that Deadspin wasn't a great place to be back in the day. That especially under Dauliero, they were almost just as shitty as Barstool but they've changed.
This idea that no one can cast a stone unless their record is 100% spotless is getting tiring -- and I don't mean to pick up you nattysez. But it's affecting pretty much every debate that is being waged in the last five years. And it's muddying up the debate (which is what it's intended to do) and no changes can be made.
Yeah, does Magary have to engage in self-whataboutism every time he takes down Barstool for the message to have merit? At some point it’s up to the readers to do some research for themselves/know the source of the critique, if they’re interested in the ethical purity of the author or the author’s employer on the topic.
And even if we decided he should link us to the mea culpas authored by Deadspin authorslike Petchesky to bolster his personal credibility, why does it matter that Magary is a voice of impenetrable credibility? Either what he’s saying is correct and valuable, or it’s not, or somewhere in-between.
What he’s saying about Barstool is important and isn’t said enough (the danger of normalizing/legitimizing Barstool not only exists but has been realized); pointing out that Deadspin can be shitty too is not really doing anyone a favor in that respect. Deadspin and Barstool are not apples; Deadspin is an apple and Barstool is a pineapple.
I don’t care who is shining a light on Barstool, ultimately, examining the source of the critique it’s irrelevant and, actually, uninteresting to boot.
I hear you, but:
(1) given the length and forcefulness of his screed, I think he could have spent one sentence reiterating and linking to the mea culpas for past behavior;
(2) I hate "whataboutism," but this is not the GOP digging up some 30 year-old Democratic scandal to try to take the winds from the sails of Trump criticism -- this is a guy criticizing a site without acknowledging that he and the site he's writing for have behaved very similarly in the past.
"Examining the source" is kind of what this whole subforum is about, I think, but to each his own.
Deadspin has its warts, especially those historical, but as far as I can tell they’ve never tried to cultivate acolytes in the way Barstool does. There aren’t Deadies like there are Stoolies. Instead of peddling crappy self-satisfied merch, they benignly push Amazon referral links. Deadspin’s current editorial approach is pretty high-minded - snarky, yes, but they seem to be on the progressive side of almost any issue. They frequently annoy, but rarely cross over to contemptible. As far as I’m concerned, they’re in a fair spot to offer a critique, and they happen to have a writer who can make it sting.
Side note - Miel's podcast (Punch Up the Jam) is great. Check out the PFT/Doors episode, or the one for Regulators.
In this case I don’t think it’s helpful or advisable because of how egregious Barstool’s conduct is compared to what one can generously call their ‘peers’.
Nick Cafardo and Bill Simmons weren’t/aren’t actively trying to fuck up people’s lives, spread hate, or appropriate others’ content.
I hear what you’re saying but does Alex Spier have to bring up Ron Borges or Mike Barnicle if he’s writing a story on cheating?
Would a sentence linking to an apology help? Sure. But at the same time do you think if a Stoolie sees that, his mind will change?
I would think he might want to if he's making a blanket cheating accusation of the Herald (or whichever competitor you'd prefer).
That's fair, I suppose.
I say that absolutely not in defense of Barstool, by the way.
I think you can agree that Barstool seems to act pretty shitty pretty often, and that Deadspin becoming the internet's scold (and little else) is tiring. They should just replace the whole site with a sign saying "Shame" and just list whoever they choose this week under it. They offer little else.
Ugh, I’ve never liked Greenwell and I’ve been looking for a place to get it off my chest so here’s my chance.
She appears on the Deadcast and is consistently obnoxious with some terrible takes. I recall a few food opinions that were Marchman-esque. That quote just confirms what I’ve long suspected, she’s a snotty rich kid from Berkeley who thinks she’s gangsta because she’s not from San Francisco (even though mommy and daddy’s five bedroom house PERFECTLY frames the City, and that’s why they bought it) and Berkeley is next to Oakland, so that basically makes her Too Short.
The moment that made me detest her is kinda personal and maybe a Bay Area thing - she was complaining about needing to find a new NFL team because the Raiders are leaving, the very good Dom Consentino suggests “well, why not the 49ers” and she responds with an over the top “ewww!” and takes offense that he even asked. Whereas if you actually hang around Oakland A’s fans, the majority of them are 49ers fans and hate the Raiders since they a) left, b) suck, c) ruined the Coliseum. You don’t want to be a 49er fan then fine, but when you literally take more offense over that than the idea of being a Chargers or Broncos fan, you’re cosplaying. And she ended up bandwagoning onto the LA Rams, which seems like an egregious faux pas for such an authentocrat.
In short, shut up Megan Greenwell.
He apologized (or, more accurately, owned up to it) back in 2017.
I don't think the problem with Magary is his lack of contrition or a failure to acknowledge Deadspin's shitty history. Instead its that he is wasting his talent writing hacky scolding columns that pretty much go after the same targets over and over. At this point he is essentially CHB with more virtue signaling.
Portnoys band of misogynist shitbags should be "gone after" at every opportunity. It's like ignoring David Duke or Kevin spacey if they speak in public because "we always do that."
He pretty pointedly goes after Dan Katz and PMT, which I think is pretty lame. I've been listening to them since around the same time he apologized in 2017 and haven't heard anything that crosses the line from those two. Portnoy is obviously fair game because he sucks, but PMT just seems like the normal deadspin complaints directed at Simmons and other competitors more successful than they are.
I don’t think Magary is too concerned about “going after” brands that are “more successful” than Deadspin. He’s a pretty successful guy in his own right.
And Dan Katz? This guy?
Yeah, a post from 2014. Three years removed from Magary posting headlines calling people cocksuckers and two years later he appeared on their podcast to push his book. There's no doubt both of them were assholes, but I think both have moved passed that periods of their careers.
To clarify, I think the piece was very well written and speaks more truth than not, I just don't agree with all of it.
Its worth noting that PFT refers to Magary as a friend. I am not sure what the shot at Big Cat's appearance does for Magary's evolution either. I mean, I know Katz is a heavyset ("chonky") bro-dude but even they should be spared if we are all trying to be better than going after someone's appearance and playing off of stereotypes.
That said, Portnoy and his legion of trolls are more than fair game.
I think the point of going after Katz and PFT is that they lend the air of legitimacy to Barstool and Portnoy and are often held up as the meat of Barstool's content when in fact they are the extreme outlier. And it took Katz a long time to publicly speak out and tell his listeners to stop harassing and doxxing critics. Barstool depends on PMT for a massive amount of their success; if Katz and PFT don't say anything about Portnoy's repeated shitheadedness and misogyny, it's fair to wonder if they're part of the enabling problem.
Going after Barstool for doxxing, trolling, and harassment (especially of women, of which they are grossly guilty) should ALWAYS happen. I think part of this is personal for Magary because Portnoy specifically targeted Drew's co-worker Laura Wagner with tons of really gross comments.
I don't think is true at all. Mainstream access, sure. But, given Nardini's strategy and focus, I don't think PMT leaving would cause the ship to sink.
Boy I hope we get a chance to find out.
FWIW, Laura Wagner has made a lot of this feud worse.
Her doxxing of PFTC and Deadspin's subsequent defenses of it, for instance, are questionable at best. Or going after Charlotte Wilder for appearing on a podcast with the PMT people.
Portnoy's harassment of her is far far far worse than any of the above though.
It's not worth much.
I thought she only posted his name, correct? Is that even really doxxing?
Considering the definition of dox (per Google) is "search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent", yes it was doxxing. There was clear malicious intent unless uncovering the true name of a famous blogger/podcaster who isn't in the news for, um, reasons somehow falls under valid journalistic pursuits.
Unfortunately, Eric died shortly after the article.
Thank you for your valid and necessary contribution to this thread.
His name was more or less an open secret before that article.
Then what was the point of the article? Outside of Deadspin trying to be the arbiter of the Internet.
To point out that the presence of PFT gave Barstool the veneer of legitimacy despite the continued awful behavior of both its publisher and its readers. At that point Wagner had already been subject to constant harassment and leering comments from Portnoy and his douchebag jabronis.
I never thought that PFT article was unfair at all. If Barstool and it's employees don't want to get called out for terrible behavior, they could always stop behaving terribly.
Which could have very well been accomplished without the doxxing part. Unless two wrongs make a right now.
It was as valid and necessary as the post I was responding to.
I think his response to that article shows why everything isn't entirely black and white - he publicly pushed for the whole thing to die rather than make a big deal of it.
Being anonymous while working for Shitstain, Inc. was like the Klan's accountant also wearing a hood. "But I'm only the accountant and I complied with GAAP."
Its not two wrongs.
Is that big of him, or merely avoiding the Streisand effect? By pushing for the whole thing to die he gets to sink back into his anonymity that much quicker.
Besides, Sollenberger isn't that easy to spell or remember offhand as it is.
How does this impact him and his work if it doesn't die and people start calling him Eric?
I dunno, I can't really think of a much better way to handle it. He clearly didn't want it to happen, but went out of his way to not have people get on her case as both he and Dan have consistently done since I've been listening to them.
Okay. You hate them. Nothing will change that as seen by the fact your one degree away from Godwin’s Law. I love PFT, Big Cat, and the broader PMT and legitimately look forward to their podcast every other weekday. It brings immense joy to me and, as seen by my posting, I’m not going to let others at SoSH hamper that joy. So that ship has sailed and feel free to judge me for that as I’m sure has happened.
How do you feel about famous media people that support them? This is a legit question. Obviously guys like SVP, Rusillo, Nichols, and others (ESPN and non-ESPN) are fans and advocates for what PMT does and I’m sure had, however smalll, a hand in getting them into the Mothership for that lovely week. Are they complicit in the cross burnings or are they just sitting on the sidelines as innocent bystanders?