Thank goodness the producers of “OJ: Made in America” didn’t stick to sports. We’d have missed out on one of the most powerful documentaries about race in America ever made. Likewise with the author of “The Bronx is Burning” and many other books that examine the intersection between sports, politics, and culture. “Stick to sports” is why Colin Kaepernick is out of a job while replacement quarterbacks who couldn’t carry his gym bag are starting in the NFL.
105
The underlying debate of how far outside the lines to take sports coverage — absent Wall Street intrigue — has been with us since the 1960s when a band of socially conscious sportswriters including Len Schecter, Vic Ziegel and Larry Merchant of the New York Post, Stan Isaacs and George Vecsey of Newsday, Jerry Izenberg of the Newark Star-Ledger and Stan Hochman of the Philadelphia Inquirer broke free from game coverage. Dick Young of the Daily News (whose right-wing views often permeated his copy) attacked them and legendary columnist Jimmy Cannon labeled them "Chipmunks" ∏— a title they adopted with honor. Of course Cannon might hav
This is an OLD story that has been written about every generation of media company. New buyer comes in. Imposes changes. Staff throws tantrum. Everybody quits full of high dudgeon. Editor writes caustic first-person account. Publication eventually finds its footing -- often by adopting the very ideas that the angry staffers were pushing in the first place.
What is the underlying problem? Impatience, selfish pride, and an inability to mediate or manage upward. Yes, it's maddening that the suzerains know less than the serfs. But what is the goal? What is the end game? To get the bosses to come around -- even if that means making them think all the smart ideas are their ideas. (Hence managing upward.) Instead, we have a wider gulf and a far lousier likely outcome for the publication.
There is NEVER any point in picking a fight with the publisher. (See: Abrams, Jill.) But diplomacy and finesse, alas, are not the American way.
3
They bought the company. They can do whatever they want. I'm guessing you were paid handsomely when they did buy it.
If the demand for what had been written on Deadspin in the past is as high as you say, then you should not have any issue starting your own site and attracting readers.
Count it as a blessing. Sharpen your corner, your pencil and spit out the bitter pill puree it appears you have swallowed and move forward!
5
And now the PE firm is left holding nothing. Do we see where this country has been heading?
Deadspin was a must read everyday for me. Now it's just nothing and needs to be deleted from my favorites list.
1
Finance capital is a plague.
Societal crisis in journalism? You are talking about sports. About boys that won't grow up. Who really cares about sports anymore?
3
Then you should be a political reporter not a sports reporter.
5
We need more political commentary ? This is a stupid and self-serving piece. I should be concerned about a writer for a fringe website who decided he didn't want to do the job he was hired to do ? Another sad story from a whining reporter.
6
The underlying debate of how far outside the lines to take sports coverage — absent Wall Street intrigue — has been with us since the 1960s when a band of socially conscious sportswriters including Len Schecter, Vic Ziegel and Larry Merchant of the New York Post, Stan Isaacs and George Vecsey of Newsday, Jerry Izenberg of the Newark Star-Ledger and Stan Hochman of the Philadelphia Inquirer broke free from game coverage. Dick Young of the Daily News (whose right-wing views often permeated his copy) attacked them and legendary columnist Jimmy Cannon labeled them "Chipmunks" ∏— a title they adopted with honor. Of course Cannon might have been the original Chipmunk given his famous lead: "Joe Louis is a credit to his race — the human race."
But note how progressives' desire to mix sports and politics goes only in one direction. Do you think any progressives, tuning into a game after a long day at work, want do hear the announcer talk about how great Trump is, or how great the economy is under Trump? Of course not. They only want to mix news with sports if it furthers their own political agenda.
8
@RP. You seem to not get it. If a player walked up and said Trump was the greatest theyd report that. This aint brain surgery.
Your employer gets to dictate what is published, they own the company. You own your journalistic integrity and standards, but ultimately the paper it's printed on (digitally) is theirs. Attacking them outright like this because you disagree with the direction they wanted to take it is highly unprofessional in my opinion and if I were a future employer you bet this would weigh heavily on my decision to hire. If you want to publish your way, start your own place.
65
Remind me, if I ever forget, not to ever read any media you happen to own. Until then, bravo/a to journalism’s writers with integrity. It’s a bumpy ride but if you care about the world we all live in, it’s the only way to fly.
96
@David This wouldn't even be the first time a Gawker-sphere writer bit the hand that fed them. They've pretty much had nothing but scorn for EVERY person that tried to run their little webspace.
The amount of leash they got to publicly complain about their bosses is something 90% of the working class would LOVE to have.
17
@David and it's perfectly fine for them to explain to the world why they believe the new owners decision is 100% wrong. Publicly disagreeing politely because you believe their decision is wrong is the essence of essential meaningful public discourse.
73
According to some, sports DOES take place in a vacuum, and hence, its value. Schiller posited that a game is something that is taken with utmost seriousness within the confines of a playing field, and means nothing outside of it.
2
Gawker / GMG was profitable and self sustaining for many years, and has always had the same voice - speak truth to power. If not for the Hulk Hogan article it would still be what it always was.
The people who bought it this time bought it specifically for the traffic it already had and are trying to remake it into a bland sports content mill. Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated badly on how determined the staff and the readers of Deadspin were to keep its original structure & voice.
RIP Deadspin. You will be missed.
3
"....this was most likely their plan. It’s the private equity model: Purchase an asset, strip it of everything of value, then turn around and sell the brand to someone else before they realize that what made the brand valuable in the first place."
That doesn't make any sense, since the owners can't strip non sports reporting in the sense of taking it themselves. They can't "sell off" future reporting. Maybe if all the good writers had been offered transfers to other publications, maybe.
More likely, your new bosses disagreed on the course of the company, and even if they misplaced where the profit is, it was an honest business error. Employees pay for those like the owners.
The one factor that can't be easily dismissed is that in today's world the line between what's considered sports reporting and hard news has been blurred time and time again, as it should be. Had the Ray Rice/Greg Hardy/Josh Brown/Warriors Decline WH Invitation and other situations come up under the current ownership of Deadspin they would have been ignored to the detriment of not only Deadspin's readers but to the site itself. Should Deadspin have ignored Trump being booed at the World Series because it wasn't a "true" sports story? The new owners of SI promised a toned down swimsuit issue, but then the reality of 800,000 newsstand sales kicked in and sanity prevailed. The point is that Deadspin, if not already deader then Elvis, soon will be because there aren't many readers solely interested in box scores. Deadspin may have been, according to some, overly irreverent, but its reporting of everything even remotely sports related made it a viable and important source of news. Yes, owners decide policy, and they're already paying for their decisions with a watered down site that's hardly worth a second glance.
2
Back in Canada prominent hockey commentator Don Cherry in the the last couple days was fired for questioning the patriotism of millions of new Canadians. He claimed they were not as appreciative of the Canadian military as regular Canadians. He will not apologize for his egregious insult to so many new Canadians and certainly should have been fired.
Welcome to M&A and business in general. When leadership changes, strategy does too.
1
Colin Kaepernick can express himself by refusing to stand for the national anthem at sporting events, a time-honored tradition in the United States, and it’s considered free speech.
Don Cherry complains about newcomers to Canada not wearing a poppy to honor our war-dead, a complaint he has leveled many times in the past when complacent Canadians fail to wear a poppy leading up to November 11th and one he reiterated Saturday against downtown Torontonians (some of whom are white, new to Canada and not wearing a poppy), and he gets canned on Remembrance Day for insensitivity toward new Canadians. The white guilt industry is not above arbitrariness.
3
Mr. Petchesky,
It sounds like you need to open your own site which you can use to look at sports through the socio-political lens you prefer.
To quote Nike: just do it. Get on with it.
And remember that when writers in your employ refuse to focus on sports in the way that you, as owner your site, prefer, you have as much right to fire them as the corporation which fired you. No need to imagine yourself some principled hero.
6
Never heard of deadspin until these articles
We now only have 8,473 sports web sites left to choose from...
8
Gorgeous article.
Barry, if you are reading the comments: Why don’t you and the rest of the ex-Deadspin staff start your own site? Can it really be that hard? Pool your resources. Work on the cheap for awhile until you get the ads rolling in, which you no doubt believe will happen with all due speed. Strike now, when the iron is hot, and while so much media attention is being paid to Deadspin’s demise. It ain’t gonna last forever. If you and your former work mates feel this strongly, then put your money and your sweat into building your own media company. Sounds simple enough, the way you all keep explaining it. Right? Right?
3
Jim Spanfeller is engaging in censorship to protect the team owners and other vested 1% interests in mass spectator sports. Let’s hope Spanfeller gets the John Oliver treatment he deserves.
5
Deadspin was a good website.
3
Unbiased title: ‘I was fired for not doing my job’
9
This is the kind of editorial I expect to read in the NYTimes. Impassioned, informed and enlightening. Give Petchesky a job, pronto!
4
Home run!!!
2
Please PLEASE if you all manage to find funding for a new site, take me with you. Deadspin is my life. Well, was. Now I have no life.
3
Barry didn't mention Barstool Sports at any point. Interesting.
2
Barry, let us know where you end up; I've quit visiting Deadspin.
4
No, no you were not Barry. You were fired for not doing what your company wanted you to do. I could not just start writing about politics at my job, be warned by my bosses not to do that, keep doing it, and expect to keep my job. You're playing the victim card here when you should have either listened to your bosses' orders, or if you felt that strongly about it, quit.
10
People get their sports news from Deadspin??
3
p,s. I am sorry you got fired from a job you loved and were good at.
As a longtime fan of Deadspin, I've been more than a little confused by the sudden implosion. Here's my question: From everything I've read, the new owners' "stick to sports" mandate regarded as fair game ANYTHING related to sports and sports culture, including all the topics listed in the third paragraph of this article — labor issues, drug issues, racism, Trump getting booed in every stadium, etc.
"Where such subjects touch on sports, they are fair game for Deadspin," as the infamous memo read.
It sounds like what they didn't want was content that had NOTHING to do with sports. If that's the case, this piece is more than a little disingenuous, and leaves me to wonder if the principle on which the staff walked out of the internet's best sports site was really worth it.
7
Deadspin should have been allowed to continue to be what it was. No one was forced to read it. No one was forced to buy the site either. But there should be sites that stick to sports, where we can escape the mostly-bad news.
I am amazed at all the commenters here who are derisive of Deadspin and Mr. Petchesky. I thought Deadspin was hilarious but highly accurate and mostly spot on. I will very much miss you and your fellow writers Mr. Petchesky and thank all of you for your excellent articles. I learned a lot by reading Deadspin and will miss it. It's a shame and a sad commentary on our present divisive society, as half the commentators here are snarky, dismissive and critical of Deadspin and the other half loved it. Sigh
3
I've not read Deadspin, before or after the mass resignations. I am a major baseball fan and very concerned about both on-field and off-field issues involving baseball in America. I think one can learn much about American life by studying baseball in all aspects. And, like others have expressed here, the ESPN'ing of baseball and sports plus obscene money has had a major negative impact on all of sports.
That said, it IS their site. The owners own it. It is their call, therefore, to determine the direction of their property whether we worker bees like it or not. If they run it into the ground taking fees and profits along the way, we cannot say much. If they somehow increase traffic and revenue and also take fees and profits along the way, again we have nothing to say.
So while we bemoan the loss of great journalism in America, probing - long form - meaningful - inciteful, other than starting one's own publication where writers and thinkers can give proper exposition to the stories that need to be told, the reality of most, but clearly not all, journalism today is the short-form, dumbed-down, aggregated mass (or mess) that is on offer.
1
Okay, Deadspin is dead. Let's not build it up too much beyond what it was--a snarky location that delved into politics and social commentary using sports as the backdrop but also covering sports with some depth and subtlety. But it was not a pantheon of excellent sports journalism and social coverage. Did it matter? Yes. It pushed stories out there and that was a good thing. As for the new owners, cowards all, they never should have gotten in the business of journalism without understanding that journalism always seeks to break things apart to examine their worth. It does this through brilliant reporting and writing often but also through schlock and snark. If you can't take this heat, don't buy the kitchen and ask the chefs to cook with electric.
2
First, the claim made here that the new ownership was telling Deadspin's staff to report only on box scores just isn't consistent with what I've read. In an e-mail to staff the new owners said that articles about, for example, Trump being booed at the World Series (i.e., the intersection of sports and politics) were totally fine. The author also fails to mention that after the owners made this seemingly sensible request to stick mostly to sports on a (yes) sports blog, the staff responded in a patently middle school way, by posting stories about dogs or whatever and tagging them "stick to sports." So I'm very suspicious that this op-ed does not accurately convey the situation.
But beyond that: wow, the sanctimony. How many former Deadspin staff are going to take to the NYT to offer their own "hot takes" about how journalism is being quashed by private equity, etc. To be clear: Deadspin was hardly valuable journalism. It was, again, a sports blog, part of that Gawker group. Like Gawker it specialized in snark. Did Deadspin have some good writers? Yes. Did it occasionally run good pieces. Sure. But for me, it had become mostly just run-on, snark-filled musing: crusading journalism this was not.
4
My friends and I enjoy deadspin for the same reason we enjoy the Dan Lebatard Show. There is more to sports than just scores and injury news, and Deadspin provided that with loads of humor. It was finally a publication written from the perspective of a normal sports fan. The articles were well written and the writers very talented (miss ya Roth and Drew).
If you are confused as to why deadspin doesn't stick to sports then (gong noise) "You don't get the show"
2
mr. Petchesky , the idea that you know what's best for the success of the business you work for, that the employees that will replace you won't do as good a job, that ownership is misguided, greedy , out of touch, and wrong. is as old a sentiment as the employee owner dynamic.
you have no power in this circumstance and have likely made yourself a less desirable hire moving forward in your career by making this all public.
sports is not everything and everything is not sports.
4
I never heard of Deadspin because I've always been involved in participant sports - softball and soccer, running and now swimming - as well as supporting my son in his sports and arts choices.
So what is the problem? Barry and the "entire staff" have a sure-fire recipe to set up their own publication. Just change the name!
I'll check it out, for sure. Barry lives up to his standards and courageously speaks his mind. The next Howard Cosell?
2
Personally don't care about the "humanizing" or "political" aspects of sports. I care about on-field performance period. If I want editorializing, I can always log into the execrable content of Disney / ESPN. Sounds like Petchesky was fired for cause. Good riddance
4
Barry, to be fair, you did work at a sports website and while many people love some good political commentary, if I wanted to read about Trump I would just go to the Times. Sometimes you have to think about things from your bosses' point of view. There is a market for great sports commentary, but the market for political commentary is already very saturated.
3
Of course, sports is a key component of the economic, sociological, and political whole of the US. To treat this system other than as a sophisticated and interconnected series of ecological-like niches filled by universities, cities, teams, and individuals is to seriously shortchange this sophistication.
Two very simple ideas from physics help in understanding this micro and macro ecosystem;
1) In the universe, closed systems require large amounts of energy to maintain themselves from atrophy. And,
2) The definition of kinetic energy is:
[KE = 1/2mv**2] where m = mass and v**2 = velocity squared.
As football players increase their mass and speed, their collisions are more energetic and injury-- especially concussion-- prone. Why would a university sponsor a sport with a good probability that some players may have reduced intelligence after playing it the most vigorously?
2) As the average major league baseball fastball pitch nears 95 miles per hour, many batters seem to go to increasing lengths to protect themselves with larger helmets and added padding, from errant pitches. Again, KE = 1/2mv**2, and a 100 mph fastball has 23.5% more energy, that must be "conserved," than a 90 mph fastball. Since: the mass of the baseball doesn't change: (100**2 - 90**2)/90**2 =
((10,000 - 8,100)/8,100) = 1,900/8,100 = .235 or 23.5%.
Like many factors, the survival of sports and athletes cannot defy simple physics.
[11/12/2019 Tues. 9:55 am Greenville NC]
Many folks turn to sports to get away from politics. I do. Who are you to force feed them the same garbage from which they are trying to escape?
As an employee, you are obligated to follow the guidelines set by the people who sign your pay check. If you don’t want to abide by the rules then start your own enterprise.
2
Sport is not a world on his own. Sport is a reflection of the society in which it is perform. The Olympics especially since the 1936 Berlin's game is dominated by politics. Just watch a NFL game, you have national anthem, salute to the troops,.. The taxpayers provided free stadiums to professional sports including NFL, NBA and NHL . You find the same problem in sport than in society, drugs, Jim Crow's policies before 1947 in baseball, illegal gambling, the NBA bowing to China,... Those subjects desserve to be told. Unless you want your magazine to become a propaganda tool glorifying the sport world and therefore get big advertisement contracts.
1
Stephen Colbert could probably use a couple of writers. So can all the other Late Night Shows. Want to get paid for expressing your political views? Want sympathy when someone refuses to coddle you for wanting to get paid for expressing your political views? So what?
1
The gawker media angle is missing from this article. Not to mention Mr. Petchsky history of telling rape jokes as well as his involvement and comments he made in regards to to the rap video that was posted to deadspin
Also this all can be blamed on peter thiel
Under Mr.denton none of this would have happened
1
I was a daily reader of Deadspin precisely because it was wide-ranging, irreverent and unafraid. This particular takeover is stupid; the larger trend is very disturbing.
4
Deadspin was part of my morning reading after the NYT and LA Times -- I saved the best for last. Deadspin and its writers didn't insult readers with click-bait headlines and "articles" (i.e., HuffPo, Slate, et al.). Good luck to you and your colleagues, we all hope to read your work again very soon.
5
Deadspin was great.
5
Stick to the knitting. When people watch sports, they come neither for knees nor poticial grandstanding by players and commentators. Deadspin is dead right.
When your newspaper is about reporting sports, please stick to that.
I can get my politics, reviews and general news elsewhere, but if I was looking for sports, I would go to a sports related page.
This editor thought he would grab an existing product and change it to fit his own hip vision of the world.
There are already magazines for hipsters who hate sports, that’s where they go for snippy comments that condescend at sports fans.
Good riddance. And hope the magazine revives, with a focus on sports.
3
Bravo for this act of mass bravery! If only Republicans in congress were so brave! Deadspin was 5% name and 95% talent. Why can't that departed talent pick up and do Deadspin without the name? It would leave Great Hill with an empty wrapper of a name, which they deserve for their colossal mismanagement of and poor understanding of talent.
2
"Stick to sports" has to be understood as "don't be political" when, say, talking about professional athlete Kurt Suzuki wearing a MAGA cap while serving as a representative of the World Series winning franchise counts as not "sticking to sports." The problem here is that this assumes that an outlet covering this event without mentioning the fact that a player wore an explicitly political hat while meeting the most powerful politician in the world is somehow an apolitical choice of reporting on an apolitical event.
Mandating that journalists (or anyone) "stick to sports" is obviously political; it couldn't be otherwise when both sports and journalism are political by their very nature. Delineating between "politics" and not "politics" is quite possibly the most significant political decision a media outlet can make. And of course private equity vampires draw the line between "politics" and "not politics" wherever the object of journalistic interrogation threatens their material interests.
Deadspin was one of the few wide-reaching sites on the internet that understood all of this and seeing it killed out of spite should disturb everyone. Long live Deadspin. The internet is an even worse place without it.
3
I agree with much of what you say, but have to admit that part of the attraction of sports for me is the ability to escape the demoralizing reality of daily life...I haven't reconciled those two views yet.
1
Sorry for the job loss. However, we need look no further than the a few line down to learn the reason: Private Equity. To the writer and to its readers it's a periodical that covers the sports world.
To the PE firm it's a source of revenue and only a source of revenue. If your sports 'widget' doesn't meet the specs as detailed by the AI and algorithm out it goes. Pulitzer Prize? Hah. 2 points up is what counts and I don't mean NBA.
In a decade or perhaps two, some brave soul will choose a business model that includes ethical standards and a good product created by well compensated and valued employees, maybe even profit sharing. It will be Trending, Ground Breaking and a Smash----memes everywhere. Hailed as innovative, forward looking, humane, even revolutionary.
Until then, no one has a job or any guarantees. We have gigs, placements, not careers.
If the money guys had their way, we'd be living in huts behind the headquarters and doffin' our hats when the swells came by. "Mornin' Squire."
@jb Yeah, except Deadspin was profitable. Its coverage drew enough readers that it made money despite the Facebook-Google duopoly on advertising. It was killed out of spite, not business calculations.
3
Sports in a vacuum may occasionally yield a rare human interest story or a stellar underdog story which may be a compelling read. Aside from these exceptions, at the core, is a game which has been played thousands of times by countless individuals. There is a sense of nostalgia and innocence in not taking the game itself too seriously, which is why I watch sporting events on mute.
The real intrigue occurs outside the game. Events which profoundly impact the sports make for critical reading because of the lasting impact that such events have on the dynamics of that games that I love so much.
1
This scenario gets played out a lot in business. Venture capitalists buy a viable company, with little or no concern for the culture of the business they're acquiring. Their research consists of looking at the bottom line and seeing some sort of opportunity, with no time devoted to understanding what the company or its people care about. When you see a quick turnaround after a deal and the subsequent liquidation of a business, it's a good possibility that this type of due diligence just wasn't done.
I'd like to encourage Petchesky and his fellow journalists to think about starting Deadspin 2.0, where the full breadth of topics and conversations related to sports can continue.
4
Some of us may like the lack of political discourse when we want to focus on sports. I remember seeing an interview with Rafael Nadal and he was asked after a match what he thought of a particular issue (Catalonia's independence). My reaction was "Spare us from the politics....ask him about tennis!" As I recall Rafa blew off the question.
2
For several years, I would browse Deadspin a few times a day, but now my productivity has increased since it shutdown. I miss the humor in the articles and all of the amazing comments. The comments really made me laugh out loud. The people reading Deadspin were there because they wanted to read a different brand of other sports news that the large sports media giants didn't cover. They were the voice of rude humor in sports and I'll miss the site very much. I still follow a lot of the writers on twitter, but it's just not the same.
Let's remember some guys shall we?
7
My son's (non-sports) company was bought by hedge-fund operators. They cut all overtime and DEMAND that the employees produce as much as they did when overtime was allowed. Employees are leaving left and right. The ones who remain are being treated like slaves. How can they expect o produce when the hedge fund managers won't replace employees who are no longer there? They tried to outsource to employees in other countries, who weren't qualified to do the jobs, then blamed the ones who trained them. Yes, I understand: The company owners call the shots. However, how can they expect miracles? They're only in it for the bucks. Soon they'll have no one, just like what happened at Deadspin. And, I'll add, I'm a huge sports fan. I read and subscribe to the Athletic daily. I liked Deadspin (it's ironic that spellcheck keeps changing it to "Deadpan"). Wake up, hedge fund managers.
6
Make your own media company and write whatever you like. Boom.
7
The editor always has editorial control. It’s very simple.
2
Dear NYTimes:
Hire Deadspin's 6 best writers.
Thanks.
11
Private equity is very adept at ruining otherwise successful businesses with financial chicanery. Toys R Us didn’t go out of business because people stopped buying toys there. It went out of business because its private equity masters saddled it with billions in debt and bled it to death with “management” fees. As for Deadspin, it was a good site. Drew wrote a great advice column and the long form stories were really interesting. I don’t know what the current ownership’s business model is, without good content you won’t have traffic. With a business like Toys the PE vampires could leverage it up with loans and then buy back stock leaving the company sitting on the debt service (all the while paying big fees for the privilege of such great advice). They may not have been good at the retail business, but they were good at the finance business. The PE angle for sucking the money out of Deadspin isn’t as obvious, but I’m sure there is some angle.
55
I don’t even really like sports, but I can hardly miss that sports are an integral aspect of our culture, and I appreciate the love many of my friends and family have for games and their players. My son introduced me to Deadspin, and the quality of the writing I found there blew me away. Some of the best writing I have come across.
And importantly, and as usual, this essay is about much more than sports. It is about everything.
Money is destroying what is deeply good in life, while literally destroying the planet. And this exact moment taken as a snapshot of what’s wrong with big media shows more of the same —- read the NYT Picks comments (the default) compared to the Reader Picks ones!
4
It's impossible to get around the fact that Petchesky is sympathetic to most commentators not because he wanted to go beyond sports, but because he was doing so from the left. If he were conservative, these same supporters would be gunning for his job. The same is true of athletes; all of this goes out the window if they deviate from "stick to sports" in the wrong way.
5
The fight we face is frequently an existential one. Pre-modern thinking says tradition and culture are preeminent with the “religious” leaders telling us what to, right or wrong: “the new owners establish what they want the business to be about.” Modern thinking says that right or wrong is established through facts, an analysis of evidence. Post-Modern thinking says that its all frequently subjective and therefore equally valid.
The US Constitution was built on a complex approach that merges modern & post-modern thinking. They present the values our country was founded upon, and then, how these organizations are supposed to debate, moderate and hold the others accountable.
If one is inclined to one of these existential approaches, the others seem insane, inappropriate, wrong on a fundamental, existential level: we feel as if we are existentially threatened.
This is why conservatives and liberals can arrive at a point where they feel the other side is obviously wrong, even immoral. Even the Humanity of someone arguing from a different existential position is questioned because, “how can you even think this way?!”
A fair media that focuses on facts, evidence and truth, no matter where that leads, IF they have journalistic integrity, it is what is really going on.
And there is a lot of people who feel that truth or evidence has nothing to do with it, your side must win at any cost !
The foundations of journalism are at stake, even the foundations of our country.
1
No one cares. Absolutely no one. Don’t like it, quit. Go somewhere else. But please stop taking about it. Dead spin was sports. It got away from it and the boss wanted to return to it. End of story.
7
This is truly hilarious. These writers want to be viewed as progressive and woke, even though to this day they still think they were treated unfairly for posting a private sex tape. They stabbed Jenn Sterger in the back and denied her her agency, then they had the gall to criticize her as only being able to get work because of her looks. They were more than happy to build their audience by acting like frat boys, then started criticizing other sites that were becoming successful with the same strategy. And Barry Petchesky was there all throughout.
6
"We refused to “stick to sports,” because we know that sports is everything, and everything is sports." Say what? Sounds like someone wants to be considered a "serious"journalist.
It's sports. Lots of people love it. That doesn't mean it's important in the grand scheme of things.
Sports coverage has been ruined by the constant intrusion of all the shenanigans that go on outside the arena.Sports is supposed to be a joy to watch and read about. It is no longer.
The owners have every right to want you to "stick to sports," Mr. Petchesky. You don't like it, become an owner yourself. Or you want to cover issues that REALLY matter? Get out of sports. The world will live without Deadspin.
7
Another example of inmates deciding to run the asylum and failing in their quest.
10
There is not a tremendously high barrier to entry for web publishing. Sounds like you have the personnel and the vision to do it again.
2
Nice future-beat-sweetener, Barry.
And hopefully it will be sweet -- the great former-writers of Deadspin deserve it.
Gee!! You went to work for a company. The company set a policy. You didn’t like the policy. But, instead of simply resigning, like people have done since time immemorial, you decided your feelings were more important than anything else. You were fired for violating company policy. I know it’s hard to believe, but the world doesn’t always follow your feelings. Too bad.
7
Just a little journalistic nitpick, and sorry to be annoying - but when he writes “This is the first time that I’m speaking up about my firing” does that not include the full hour he (and Megan and Tom) spent talking publicly about it to Stefan Fatsis on the Hang Up and Listen podcast on Nov 4th, a week before this Op-Ed went up? (That episode, by the way, is a great listen for more context on all this...)
2
awesome read.
This is an old issue that has played out in so many areas wherever $ is involved. Remember FM radio before corporate consolidation neutered it? Oldies radio with Cousin Brucie killing freeform with DJ personalities? The end of stations like WNEW in NY, with Scott Munie, Alison Steele, the night bird, yielding to Classic Rock. MTV with VJ's?. So it goes.
I personally read Deadspin for the sports and I go to Springsteen for the music. In neither do I go for their political analysis . Unfortunately, if you don’t mirror the politics of the entertainer you may be in for at least one disappointment. But, in the entertainer case, they are the owner and editor-in-Chief....so if they want to add their meaningless opinion to their show, it is their right. In your case, you were asked to do something and refused, your opinion equally doesn’t matter; but in this case you have no rights. You should’ve listened.
5
I wonder how long it will take for the new owners to rebrand their acquisition "Spundead"?
1
Barry et al, thanks for the blogs. They were good blogs.
2
I’m just trying to imagine all the things I’ve done at work that I didn’t want to do or didn’t agree with.
The Nytimes didn’t beg me to write an article about what I did or didn’t do to earn a paycheck at a company I didn’t own.
5
Thank you for calling out the private equity raping and pillaging of all things they touch.
Keep reporting and writing. We’ll follow.
1
You might be right but it's not relevant. The people who write the checks make the decisions, just as you would if it was reversed and your editor insisted he/she would only stick to sports and you insisted otherwise.
6
You were fired for not doing the job you were hired to do. Start your own deadspin if you are so passionate about the art form.
9
Why buy Deadspin, only to destroy it?
1
Why is it either/or? Isn’t there room for sports as entertainment and sports as cultural artifact? The complaint here is about the sudden transformation of the culture of Deadspin. It’s not really about the world of sports which I would guess thinks little of Deadspin if it thinks of it at all. But, then, I’m an outlier who watches sports with the mute button on because I don’t want disembodied voices disrupting my enjoyment of the game.
2
You, sir, will be fine because you are an amazing write, a consummate analyst, and a brave truth-teller. I hope the opportunity to lead a publication as you wish comes to you and soon.
Mostly I'm surprised to read this in the NYT, a publication whose primary mission is to keep the oligarchy fully entrenched.
1
I miss Deadspin (and Splinter, a sister site which was erased from existence a few weeks earlier). Deadspin was funny, clever, insightful at times -- and the comment section was all of those things if not more. It was a real community and I'm certain it was profitable. Like Floydbot says, it's hard not to think that the choice to shut it down was politically motivated. Like the person in the library who hides the library books opposed to their views or Republican redistricting, folks will justify their undemocratic behavior by citing the free market. I hope I live to see the day that making money can no longer be used as a justification for fascism. Here's to Barry et al. starting up a new Deadspin.
7
owners charge exorbitant prices without
doing anything to substantially improving
their rosters, only to line their own pockets.
Deadspin would have nothing to do with
any of this.I will miss their truth telling.
corporate interests are ruining serious
journalism, both sports and politics.
2
I miss Deadspin (and Splinter, a sister site which was erased from existence a few weeks earlier). Deadspin was funny, clever, insightful at times -- and the comment section was all of those things if not more. It was a real community and I'm certain it was profitable. Like Floydbot says, it's hard not to think that the choice to shut it down was politically motivated. Like the person in the library who hides the library books opposed to their views or Republican redistricting, folks will justify their undemocratic behavior by citing the free market. I hope I live to see the day that making money can no longer be used as a justification for fascism. Here's to Barry et al. starting up a new Deadspin.
1
We covered this in my media class today. Students, the majority of whom were not familiar with Deadspin, were caught between the notion that a purchaser of site such as Deadspin should not have an editorial say and the fact that Deadspin's writers and editors know/knew what makes the site tick (I also pointed about that Jeff Bezos has by all accounts stayed away from the Post's editorial decisions, though legacy outlets might well be different from more guerrilla-like operations (if Deadspin, which as been around for a goodly number of years, can be considered upstart or guerrilla). One thing seemed uniformly true: they all agreed that Gawker, Deadspin's previous owner, should not publish just to publish, that there must be some controlling public purpose. IN other words, Deadspin/Gawker/Jezebel should bend toward the NYT and not TMZ.
One day Q anon will cover the spread. Or at least that’s what I hear they, will , maybe, I guess.
"Stick to sports" will be easier with no actual writers. The Sports Bots can take over, and just auto-report the scores in happy sports-speak generated by a computer loaded with verbs like "squeaked by" "crushed" "dominated" and phrases like "narrow escape" and "moiderized." OK, the last is Bugs Bunny, but load into the auto-writer and you'll see it.
Why use writers if writers bring judgement to the game? Or nuance, or talent?
We are losing our edge in this country, and in no small part because we keep getting engulfed by private equity firms and giant monopolized corporations. Everything stops having difference and flavor; we don't end up with a vanilla product - that has too much taste - we end up with everything tasting beige.
Hopefully the writers at from Deadspin find a new outlet to communicate in full color and full flavor. And hopefully they will find an audience that cares.
2
I totally agree Barry. Sports is more than scores, and the social aspect is way more interesting. Sounds like you have a team ready to go— why not start a new site and write what you want? Non-competes?
1
I hate sports culture in general. For me, it's far too often about women being denied opportunities and coverage, out-of-control jerks doing whatever they want even though there are thousands of kids out there who could take their place given an opportunity, and far-too-expensive ticket prices.
Yet I regularly visited Deadspin. The articles were really interesting. I found myself reading about sports and loving it. I remember that the staff once took over running of the sister "Jezebel" website aimed at women for a day. They were hilarious. Good natured, intelligent people who were able to relate to anyone.
I won't be going back. Good on the staff for standing up for quality.
2
I am waiting for the headline - “Impossible Burger workforce’s quits because Plant Rights are being violated”. Employers have the right to set standards for behavior and their product. Employees have the right to leave. Whining is not a right.
5
I will always miss Gawker. I was never a big reader of Deadspin, but I would link to some Deadspin stuff from Gawker. I hope that Peter Thiel, or however he spells his name, is proud of his destruction. What a great achievement by a poor rich man who takes himself too seriously.
1
Jim Spanfeller and the private equity firm that hired him are unquestionably expressing their political views. It doesn't require an understanding of quantum physics to understand whose politics they are about. It's also prima facie evidence of the ugly right-wing racist culture that blackballed Colin Kapernick.
Ultimately, this is more evidence of private equity industry abuse of the companies they know nothing about, do not care about, and ultimately flip or asset strip. A reckoning is coming, just as Doc Holliday said.
1
Are you being honest here? Are those really the kinds of posts that precipitated this? Because the fact is, there were numerous times Deadspin did political commentary that remotely had anything to do with sports, and you know it. There were and are plenty of sites covering politics. When people go to a sports site, they want to read about sports.
4
I'm surprised you were fired; I would have quit, if I was unwilling to do the job my employer told me to do.
2
Sometimes when you demand "my way or the highway", you have to hit the highway..Thankfully writers don't have tenure, or a strong union...So if the author has a talent and a good following, he should be able to find an employer to his liking.
3
It is a sports website, right?
So... should talk about sports and not all the silly drama surrounding sports such as what one can see on ESPN.
2
I've left jobs for less.
You're new bosses obviously see things differently. Ten years is a good run anywhere these days. Consider yourself lucky, lick your wounds and move on. Maybe with those other people that followed you out the door you can start something that will bury Deadspin.
You may also want to take into account that some of that new ownership is tied some people way up the food chain in the world you were reporting on and they don't like that.
There is this interesting and toxic convergence in news media between control of the news narrative and collective ownership or between profit and politics.
Like the Communist countries of recent past and the nationalistic regimes of the present (Hungary, Poland, Russia, PRC, etc) there is this attempt to suppress or to simply censor reporting or editorial content.
Deadspin had this problem but it was a result of undue influence of owners, who were allegedly more interested in money than politics, however, if America should experience more of this problem, as already demonstrated in the case of Fox News and it's owner Rupert Murdoch and Russia's Prigozhin, I would expect an ever increasing chaos that could change the world that we think we know. The worst combination imaginable is when money and politics are combined, such as has happened in the Citizen's United ruling in America.
This is not change that anyone could believe in or desire unless they plave profit above all else.
I would very much like to know where the Deadspin writers end up, so that we are able to follow their writing. While probably unrealistic, it would be wonderful if they could launch a new forum of their own, to compete with the (now) bland shell of a publication they were forced from.
1
It’s not your company, you worked for them. If you didn’t like the company’s policy, you should have resigned and not wait to be fired, but then you wouldn’t be a martyr, right?
4
What happened to Toys r’ Us is way way worse for society...
1
“ It’s the private equity model: Purchase an asset, strip it of everything of value, then turn around and sell the brand to someone else before they realize that what made the brand valuable in the first place has been lost and can never be recovered (the low-quality, un-bylined articles sweatily posted to the site after the mass resignations bear this out).”
The author postulates the real value of Deadspin is in the nature of the writing. How can the new owners strip that out and monetize it ? It walked out the door.
Why can’t future buyers value the changed company ?
What am I missing ?
1
Years ago, there was a fabulous little chain of burger shacks around here called Hot and Now. They had a Wednesday Night Special where they sold 39¢ hamburgers and 49¢ cheeseburgers. The ex and I used to buy them by the sackful for a cheap night out. The line, on those nights, used to be a nightmare, down the block.
Then they were bought out.
And closed.
We learned later that they had been bought by the local Burger King franchisee. They had been eating BK's LUNCH in the market! McDonalds was doing okay, what with their good fries and heavy national advertising and the Play Place, but BK could not survive cheap burgers. So BK bought them and shut them down. Money talked. It was anti-competitive... but it was just a small city burger joint.
The moral of this story is when you do something better than others, and your voice is unique... you are always a target for take over and slaughter. Sometimes, the slaughter is THE POINT.
Journalism is being hollowed out in every way, everywhere. The previous owners of Deadspin obviously didn't care who they were selling to OR WHY. They simply saw the color of the money and took it. They didn't care what was going to happen afterwards.
Good job for walking. All of you. Cheers.
1
I enjoy sports coverage—however, when the writer says...
“...it’s the opioid epidemic roiling N.F.L. locker rooms at least as hard as anywhere in Appalachia...”
perhaps he does need to take some time off to consider if, just maybe, he has a somewhat skewed perspective and sense of importance.
2
The people who are here to criticize Mr. Petchesky for "attacking his boss" or for not "doing what he was hired to do" were obviously not Deadspin readers. Which is fine. This editorial is clearly more than just (righteous, wholly justified) griping, though. He's talking about a major threat to free, interesting public discourse, one that all digital and print journalists, regardless of subject or political slant, are going to have to reckon with. These are terrifying times for writers. I'm so thankful to Mr. Petchesky and the Deadspin crew for giving us decent hardworkin folk some yuks before the journalist apocalypse.
3
Deadspin was hardly the voice of the underdog/disadvantaged, hard working Joe. It was a site that was an elitist bully that gleefully took glee in wrecking people’s’ lives with half-truths and innuendo. In the end, the bully got what it deserved.
5
G/O Media bought Deadspin and told the author they wanted to go in a different strategic direction. He didn’t like it, nor did the staff, so he was fired and some of them left. Maybe G/O Media will be proven wrong. But they put out the money and bought the company, not him. It the author wanted to make those decisions, he should have raised money and bought the company himself. Then he could have written whatever stories he wanted. This is a non-story; dog bites man.
3
Democracy mixed with capitalism means that money and power usually end up winning over quality and talent, as well as fairness and justice. In other words, those with the dollar and the big office will defeat those with the little office (or none at all) and the creativity.
The lowest common denominator proves successful here -- we are seeing it in many big-money projects in many media/entertainment projects. At least we retain the freedoms to write -- and read -- about the consequences. At least for now.
I will miss Deadspin. I read it for 14 years, enjoyed it through ups and downs, and appreciated that it didn't 'stick to sports'. Thanks.
3
"Sports does not exist in a vacuum."
We're still debating this?
Didn't Howard Cosell make this become the accepted wisdom, a long time ago?
Re "The new owners come in, slash staff and costs and turn a once-proud publication into a content mill churning out bland and unimportant stories that no one wants or needs to read."
I was a daily newspaper journalist for 20 years. There were many unsettling signposts along the way to destruction, but the day a fake-grinning corporate hack (I would say "suit," but it happened to be a woman) showed up to give us a pep talk about "content," I knew we were doomed.
It was the first time I'd heard that word used to describe what I'd always thought of as journalism, an important part of American democracy (flaws and all). Turning journalism (and everything else) into a commodity has not turned out well for us.
Content. I can still barely stand to utter the word without gagging.
4
Thank you and your colleagues for sticking to your journalistic principles. We need more social context about sports and the influences they have on society, especially the pathologies they help cause or contribute to.
4
I only care about what happens inside the lines while the clock is running. I could not care any less what players, owners , fans and media pundits think about their own sports or what they opine about the world at-large. I am not interested in the micced-up player or the post game press conference. I am happy to read a recap of a match, a season. To enjoy a portrayal of a player or a team in good prose. Even to examine occasionally the jockeying of draft picks, trades and contracts. I don’t care what the players do to show off in the end zone. I don’t care about their hair or tattoos. Watching them walk into the stadium pre-game with their sartorial flare and headphones is dull television. I do respect a good portion of play-by-play commentary but I can do without the plethora of supposedly meaningful statistics ( which in reality are just proving the mettle of database computing ). The game, honestly and hard fought, is my sole passion.
6
I think sports writing may in fact be something other than journalism.
Of the 800-plus Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism awarded since the early 1900’s, only three were awarded to sports writers (in the Commentary category), the last in 1990.
Further, of the 31 past and current categories within the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism sports writing is not included.
4
@Mon Ray... that might be a reflection of the bias that the Pulitzer Prize judges have against sportswriters and sports journalism. One need only view one episode of HBO’s “Real Sports” to see how compelling a good ‘sports’ story can be.
The beauty of sports is that sports are interesting but absolutely do not matter. Therefore, sports can serve as an initial, non-threatening step in conversation and community building. To try to make sports matter robs them of the best thing about them.
10
I have covered sports professionally since 1995 - everything from the smallest detail of a contest, to the big picture. All of it is rewarding to me. While there needs to be people who put sports in a cultural context, the notion "stick to sports" is a vast field to explore. Ultimately, it's the owner who decides. I could "stick to sports" for the paycheck, and then cover other aspects with a private blog. Who says you need to get paid for what you enjoy doing anyway?
5
Money buys ignoring the Constitution ? No, an owner does not get to make his own laws.
I don’t follow sports (except when they intersect with politics, which as you said, they often do) but this article was beautifully written, and told an important, undervalued and tragic story, that has become all too familiar. It made me angry, and it made me cry, and it made me want to fight to keep journalism alive. Thank you.
11
I agree with the owner. I'm a sports fan and have been for decades. I used to watch pregame shows, post-game shows, halftime shows and anything else that would give me a sports fix to tide me over until the next game, but not anymore. Ever since Fox Sports bought the rights to NFC football games and changed the way sports shows are conducted, I found myself increasingly feeling like it was less fun and more a test of my patience to have to stomach some of the personalities voicing their various opinions, kind of like Charles Barkley conveying before a 2017 NBA Playoff audience on the TNT pre-game show, that "...black people don't play chess, we play checkers and dominos...". He repeated his ignorant assertion for emphasis. And this content drift isn't just confine to sports venues. When watching CNN years ago, the weather man, of all people, conveyed his feelings about the re-branding of a NASCAR event once known as the Winston Cup. We simply don't need to be hearing personal wrongheaded and/or divisive commentary when we simply want to hear the X's and O's. If I want to hear unbridled ignorance and divisiveness, I'll tune into Fox News.
6
@David But the point of the editorial is that Deadspin was never just about sports. Why buy an apple when what you want is an orange? To fundamentally change the nature of a property makes no sense when that thing you desire already exists elsewhere.
3
Reading the below statement made me realize how self important and ignorant the writers at Deadspin must have been. People follow sports to get lost in entertainment for a few hours at a time, not to think about how the game and players fit into a political narrative. If this guy thought differently at any level then he deserves to have lost his job (voluntary or involuntary).
"We wanted to show the world the reality of sports, to help readers and players alike understand the labor issues, the politics, the issues of race and class that don’t materially change when the power dynamic is owner/player."
9
To Barry and those that made Deadspin, thank you for all that you gave me for the better part of a decade. I was surprised with the emotion I felt reading of the demise of the closest thing to an online community I had ever been a part of - even one of which I never commented, a voyeur I suppose. The ending was about the site's relation to sports, I guess, but sport was just the prism Deadspin looked through to talk about what was going on in the world. I wish I could say this was just a fundamental misunderstanding of those that purchased Deadspin, but that would imply that an attempt to understand Deadspin was undertaken. It feels as though another billionaire has chosen to take a part of my world and kill it off for no reason, for no greater motivation. We are told that as hard as it is, there are two sides of equal measure and validity, that we need to come together to find the middle and hear each other out. I don't see that world, Jim Spanfeller has since walked away from his role in the future of Deadspin, and now we are all left with less. Deadspin, I will miss you.
9
The mixture of on-and off-field news the writer describes sounds like what most readers want, so someone else will probably realize the opportunity that exists now and create a new Deadspin with plenty of non-game news.
What Americans cannot stand is a steady ratatat of progressive politics with their sports, as we have seen done so goofily on ESPN and other places in the last 5 years.
It got to the point that ESPN and NBC News had a few political officers who were only there to work politics into the sports being discussed.
I don't know if ESPN has stopped bleeding subscribers/viewers yet or not.
3
@L osservatore That may be so and that type of coverage is widely available. However, the most popular posts on Deadspin were those that did not deal with sports.
4
Not sure what sports you watch but the games I see contain a steady drumbeat of old fashioned flag waving. And then they cut to the commercials, where the brainless “patriotism” ratchets up a notch.
@Wayne
So what if non-sports articles were the popular?
The most popular posts on Gawker Media were ones that got them sued and resulted in the break-up of the media company.
Chasing after edgy "popularity" is what made them think it was a good idea to publish stuff like:
- a Hulk Hogan sex tape of him cheating
- video of the sexual assault of a not-famous woman in a bar
- the "tell-all" of a man who allegedly had slept with Christine O'Donnell, a Republican who was campaigning at the time for Joe Biden's seat.
- "outing" of Peter Thiel as gay. Even if he is gay, that's his personal business and the least newsworthy thing about him
- soliciting drug dealers for video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack when a picture was already public and there was no doubt that he had a drug problem.
If that's the kind of juvenile and craven editorial decision-making you want to make, establish your own media firm where you can put your own money on the line.
Thankfully, not every media owner is as small-minded as the Oxford-educated Nick Denton, who clearly didn't learn much of anything.
Thank you for speaking out about this. It truly is a disservice to society. Looking forward to hearing more from you, Barry. Be strong.
8
I grew up with a rabid sports-fan family, but I was the outsider, content with my books. I privately thought sports was 'low-brow', but that changed as I got older. A big part of that was a really smart boyfriend who lived for sports. He introduced me to Deadspin, and that led me to Jezebel, The Root, and Splinter (RIPtoo). Even though the boyfriend is now history, my appreciation of sports has only grown.
The point Petchesky makes that sports does not exist in a vacuum is exactly why it was arrogant of me to dismiss sports and its engaged fans, and why Deadspin mattered.
Thank you Deadspin, you made all the difference. Sports writing will be forever indebted.
190
@r2w I think sports writing may in fact be something other than journalism.
Of the 800-plus Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism awarded since the early 1900’s, only three were awarded to sports writers (in the Commentary category), the last in 1990.
Further, of the 31 past and current categories within the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism sports writing is not included.
2
@r2w, @Mon Ray
Mon Ray, I confess I immediately found your first sentence to be confounding, but wonder if I am misreading it. This article appeared in the NYT, which I assume passes as a Journalistic Institution since it has won Pulitzers. The NYT has a sports section but by the Pulitzer-logic the people who work there aren't journalists because the Pulitzer doesn't have a category for "sports writing"?
I also wonder how it is my friend George Dohrmann won a Pulitzer in 2000 for writing about the University of Minnesota Basketball Program. He spent years at SI and now works, I believe, at The Athletic. I suspect he'll be surprised to hear he's not a journalist (unless he actually is, because he won a Pulitzer?) This gets very confusing very fast. It reminds me of the debates around whether photography could ever rightfully be considered art.
4
I would suggest that the majority of readers here who are criticizing Mr. Petchesky have never read Deadspin.
I have been reading Deadspin since 2006. Since the early days of Will Leitch, his site never "stuck to sports." If it had, it would not have developed and expanded its large, loud and loyal following. If it had, it would not have attracted stellar writers like Drew Magary and Diana Moskovitz. If it had, it would have been afraid to call out the idiocracy, no matter where it resided.
I, for one, already miss Deadspin. I hope Mr. Petchesky and his fellow Deadspinners can find the magic somewhere else.
19
@Renee The professional faces challenges these days that never existed before.
The Deadspin writers knew they had a corner on a certain take on sports and players.
But when do you value that special character of the product so much that you are unwilling to cut your efforts down to only doing what they new employers want?
Actual journalists have a similar quandary at the East-Coast progressive media now.
There are real news seekers who work at CNN, the NY Times, the AmazonPrime WaPo, etc.
But those thoroughly politicized outlets now place politics FAR above whatever news is actually carried at those outlets.
At what point do the formerly independent writers finally give up and look for a job REALLY writing about just the news?
Will they blush years from now admitting that, yes, they wrote at the NY Times during the ersatz war on President Trump depite the amazing economy and jobs growth?
He who pays the piper calls the tune. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Add other unpleasant truths to taste.
I've always felt that a professional is somebody who, after you hire them, tells you why they're not going to do the job you hired them to do.
37
@Daedalus Content is king. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I've always felt that a professional is one who does their job with honesty and integrity.
13
@Daedalus: Been there; done that. A professional is one who convinces the boss that strictly doing as told, without offering some novelty, would not be working in the boss's best interest. That is the difference between hiring imaginative humans and programming robots.
15
@Daedalus And he who calls the wrong tune, paid the piper for nothing. Sometimes, there's a good reason why they aren't going to do the job you hired them to do - and I for one want to know when there is.
When I took my car in to have a scrape along the door taken care of, what I asked them to do was (in my own layman terms) repair the door as best they could and repaint it. They had a better idea - find an identical door with an identical paint job (sans the damage) from a junkyard, and replace mine for about half the cost of the labor (and apparently expensive paint) needed to fix it instead.
Funny, that. Someone making their living by doing a thing, knew more about doing it well (and cost-effectively) than the person prepared to pay them to do it a certain way. Go figure.
There's a reason venture capitalists acquire successful companies instead of starting their own from scratch, and why they don't usually maintain their stake and continue running them for profit for years afterwards: they aren't any good at it.
15
Deadspin was one of the few websites I would visit several times a day. It was irreverent, funny and had many exceptional writers. That "smart money" didn't (or couldn't be bothered to) understand the loyalty of its readers is an incredible indictment of the for-profit model of media ownership generally and online media specifically.
197
@Elias Please provide examples of non-profit media and online nonprofit media that are successful in drawing large numbers of viewers/readers. (And I don’t mean NPR and PBS, etc., with their government/taxpayer subsidies and their endless fund drives for donor dollars.)
“Loyalty of readers” does not pay the rent and salaries. Someone has to invest in quality journalism—look no further than this article, which appears in the profit-making NYT.
@Elias
Isn't your comment magnifying one instance/mistake into an alleged "incredible indictment" of the for-profit model? How about the many times the for-profit model apparently works well? NY Times, CNN, Washington Post, Politico, etc... Maybe for-profit models aren't a terrible thing. Maybe the new deadspin owners just screwed up.
@Mon Ray Pro Publica comes to mind
1
Deadspin jumped the shark years ago. Stick to sports?! They covered everything BUT sports. And in a tone that had grown so snarky you couldn't get through it to even see what a given story was about. About a year ago, a friend and I tried to answer the question, "What IS Deadspin?" and could come to no clear answer.
I bemoan the loss of the great writing at the old SI (which took years to die a slow and grisly death) and at many of the major newspapers. It breaks my heart that the days of great sports writing at the NYT, the Boston Globe, the LA Times and other papers are, like those at SI, long gone. (I personally blame ESPN and the cult of talking-heads-on-TV shows but that's another issue.) However, good sports writing can still be found. I have had no qualms about paying for The Athletic. It's informative, well written and manages to cover the off-field issues quite adeptly -- with none of the ain't-we-hip snarkiness of Deadspin.
59
@The Old Sports Editor, As Mr. Petchesky will tell you, sticking to sports is not sticking to sports.
Ignoring the politics is in effect taking a position. To hide the tale of the oppressed is to carry the water of the oppressor.
The humanity of athletics tells the most compelling stories. We can all read a box score; we don't need more romanticisation of gladiators. We need perspective, the inside story, to call out greed and cowardice and hypocrisy.
As for the snark, that's humor or a point of view, and I found it so refreshing and funny and necessary compared with the straight coverage elsewhere that for the past decade -- despite having grown up with an SI subscription, an ESPN addiction and a 10-year career as a sports writer -- if I was going to read a sports story, it was going to be on Deadspin.
39
@The Old Sports Editor
Oh, SI made my weekends growing up, and George Vecsey, here, carried me for years as an adult. Totally agree with your point.
@The Old Sports Editor " It breaks my heart that the days of great sports writing at the NYT, the Boston Globe, the LA Times and other papers are, like those at SI, long gone."
I haven't followed sports in several decades, but occasionally I'll read a sports article in the NYT. I generally find them to be outstanding.
4
It's only been a couple of weeks, but oh how I miss Deadspin. This was a wonderful capsule of the whole affair, but the last paragraph really said it all. If we keep talking about this and keep it in the news maybe, just maybe, we might discourage the next round of private equity stupidity.
Thank you Barry, and thanks to all the Deadspin writers.
94
I don't come to the NYT for sports, and I certainly don't read Deadspin, ESPN, or The Bleacher Report for politics. Sorry, but like everyone else there's only so much I can handle and need a mental break. Sport is it for me and I'm thankful that the new editors will stick to sports.
34
There are hundreds of sites where you can get information only about sports; the great thing about Deadspin was that IF you wanted the broader view, you could visit Deadspin to find it. No one made people read Deadspin, but people did anyway because it was great. What’s frustrating to the ex-staff and readers is that there was no reason to change things, yet the management did so anyway. Now the site is gone, the writers that we loved are scattered around the internet, and we have lost the camaraderie that we all felt a part of.
25
@Esteban Pablo, It's that kind of attitude that allows dictators to seize control and democracies to die.
3
WRT the acquisition and stripping of Deadspin: - -- There is the Icahn model of acquisition, which is pretty much what Petchesky describes. Starting in the late '70s and accelerating, this has led to the death of many famous US brands.
-- There is also the Buffett model where fundamentally sound, well-managed companies are taken over and given access to capital, product and personnel opportunities that allow them to flourish. This is what made us great ...
61
Deadspin was a great community of writers and readers that I truly enjoyed being a part of for many years. It’s unfortunate that it is over. Perhaps, maybe in the near future, the band will reunite on another stage and recapture the old magic. Perhaps that’s just wishful thinking and I just miss my friends.
75
The only sport I care about and follow is baseball, but I looked in on Deadspin just about every day. Literally the last reason I would go there was for scores. It was just a great site for journalism and opinion and humor. This whole sorry episode is so depressing. It’s the kind of story that of all media outlets would be best covered by Deadspin.
86
"Sports" can drop dead. Especially "professional" sports. I wouldn't miss anything but the boring "interviews" and the endless claims of "History!" no longer providing space for wasted brain time to millions and millions and millions as year after year of can't-tell-them-apart-"seasons" roll by to infinity. Knock it off.. Read a book. Go to church. Teach a kid how to fix a bike. Call your mother. Stop wasting your time and mine on other people's hurt feelings (We wuz robbed!" "You? What did you ever have in this, really?" and "amazing" paychecks for, yeah, playing children's games as grown men and women. Ick. Makes me sick... "What else can we do for the kids?" "See above about books, bikes, phone calls... Try some hikes, time at the park, playing cards after dinner." First, of course, turn off the TV and radio... And, unplug the computer.... Grow up. You don't need Deadspin, etc. to provide soap opera and "fan"-ta-see all your life. Not really. "Sports" is the vacuum. Don't get sucked in.
4
"... the notion that sports should or even can be covered merely by box scores and transaction wires is absurd."
Well, not absurd. It's just not as entertaining, or it's just about as entertaining as reading the data page in the sports section. & since it's about the dollar bill, & entertainment makes dollar bills, lot of them ... you can see where this is going.
1
I'm so tired of politics seeping into everything I read, everything I watch, everything I listen to. Believe it or not, I don't need every bit of information I consume (especially when it involves entertainment, like sports or movies) spun into some tirade against political opinions the author disagrees with.
10
Mr. Petchesky fell into the same trap that many of his generation fall into.
They forget that they are EMPLOYEES.
No private enterprise is a democracy.
11
Hmmmm, at my union job when a terrible decision is made by management or something that is not working but should the cries from us will match the level of egregiousness, to which things almost always go our way. (Contract negotiations are a whole nother matter.) Obviously, management doesn’t happen in a vacuum like you claim—employees have an obligation, and should have the right, to petition for themselves to the betterment of their jobs, which, ultimately, is better for the bottom line (happy employees make for happy customers).
7
@Graywolf
No. He showed that he is much more than an employee. He is a human being of integrity. That's worth more than any job, and it takes far more courage. If more "employees" let go of their fear and acted based on their consciences instead, our world would be a better place.
16
@Graywolf That's not the point he's making.
Mr. Petchesky has some interesting ideas about what consumers want. Instead of whining (and, yes, that’s what he’s doing here) he should raise the capital and start his own e-media site and make a few million bucks, at which time he can tell his employees what topics to cover on his website.
13
@Conservative Democrat : Mr King has some interesting ideas about what non-white folks want. Instead of whining he should raise and army of people, rewrite the constitution and make his own government. Then we can tell his personal mini country people who not to discriminate against.
As Mr Chomsky would say, "The activist are the people whose efforts you enjoy today".
I know I'm in the minority here but I'm not completely convinced. From what I read, the word from the boss was "stick to sports" with an elaboration from the boss that, well, anything would count if a sports angle could be reasonably drawn (and, as you say, just about anything can be seen to have a sports angle). Sorry, I think the writers here overreacted. Now, if a story had been killed because it was making a particular political point, you'd have me clamoring. But that apparently didn't happen (it does happen at every publication in America, though). I realize Deadspin had columns that really did have nothing to do with sports - the thing about the best dogs, etc. were really not about sports in any way at all - and, to be sure, those columns were often entertaining and showed (as the statistical analysis undertaken did) that they drew as many readers did as the sports stuff did. But seriously, those weren't about sports - in any way. I mean, the thing about the best bears? Again, I think the writers overreacted - not surprisingly given their righteousness (be honest) - and now they'll have to go and start a whole new blog. It'd be more interesting if you told us how that was coming along. Any takers yet? I can't believe, for a second, you're just throwing in the towel or giving up when it's 4th and 16 with 0:11 on the clock.
6
@Joe The article literally states that two important stories weren't covered because, according to the new ownership's definition, they weren't "sticking to sports." If ownership is trying to change the website in a way that both significantly alters the site's voice and would eliminate some of their highest-traffic articles, they have every right to walk out because of mismanagement.
2
@Alcibiades This is incorrect - if you're referring to the stories about the racist chants at Italian soccer matches and the Washington Capitals' catcher Kurt Suzuki wearing a MAGA hat at the White House. Those stories weren't covered because Deadspin's writers had all quit - no one said they could not write those stories - period! There's no way, as another commenter has noted, that the new rule of "stick to sports" would have ruled out covering those stories. I think what happened here was someone tried to set some rules because the site was full of explicitly non-sports stories (go look if you don't believe that; funnily enough one of the former writers said as much, indicating they were sympathetic to the management guy telling them the rule - why would they be sympathetic if they really saw it as censorship? Very fishy!). The non-sports stuff was fine with me - I loved looking at the Concourse just to read what amounted to a 5-minute rant that one would occasionally hear at Tomkins Square Park. I seriously think these writers realized the gravy train was up - no more phoning it in with crazy rants. And - seriously - I think they overreacted. They threw out a great site because they could not discipline themselves. I doubt they will start a new sports site for the simple reason that they are all over the place and no one can fashion any kind of discipline. But I am hopeful. It's sad they gave up over such a ridiculous non-issue.
1
Political issues related to sports will be of less importance to the average fan in the age of legal sports betting. As more states jump aboard the sports betting bandwagon, fewer fans will care about what goes on off the field.
Can the Patriots cover a 10 point spread ? Questions like that will be the fan focus. Get used to it.
5
@Dan M why would the existence of stat coverage for sports bettors eliminate the human interest and constructed narratives that have driven sportswriting for the last 100 years? There are already stat heavy reference sites and betting analysis blogs that do well, I don't really see how it's an either or? I understand that most sports media will probably increase their coverage, or include a betting column, but I highly doubt places like the ringer and SB Nation will jettison writers like Shea Serrano and Jay Concepcion just to squeeze more betting analysis out.
3
Meh. It's called private enterprise. The new owners, may, or may not get their money back. Don't be so sure they will make a profit. In the meantime, stop whining and start your own sports news site. If your right, I'm sure you will do very well and be able to laugh at your former employers.
13
@John C. I agree, if the owners of the business want to run it into the ground, so be it. It's their asset not ours or yours. Your asset is your work product, which you can take somewhere / anywhere, where you will shine. And to be sure your writing is worth reading. Im a fan of both viewpoints.
6
@John C. The literal business model for private equity journalism is to intentionally degrade the product faster than advertisers can bail and profiting off of the difference. They never intended to "get their money back," they intended to run the enterprise into the ground while showing short-term profits. They would do very well if they started their own sports news site.
3
@John C. I hope they don't get their money back. I hope they end up destitute on the street, begging for quarters, and that no one gives them a dime. It would be just deserts for these private equity vultures.
Every reference in the article about sports is actually about spectator sports. Spectator sports have practically nothing to do with real sports.
5
I quit paying attention to MLB when juiced players hitting home runs out of miniature ball parks were making a mockery of the game's history. (5'10'', 175 lb. Willie Mays use to hit over 50 home runs playing in Candlestick Park).
Had no idea that Suzuki wore a MAGA hat, to the embarrassment and shame of each and every Japanese American.
In any event, nice to see that fascistic propagandists have made major inroads into every last corner of the American media land scape.
Am now going to pour myself a scotch and make it a triple. Will sober up when this lunacy ends.
12
Deadspin used to be one of the great modern websites. During its heyday, it contained relatively balanced, but always insightful takes on sports and sports-related topics. Sometimes, it veered into pure pop culture, but it was generally fresh and fun.
But over the last few years, it took a swift and sure dive into the abyss. The staff and media have taken the position that new ownership cared only about clicks and not content. What is ironic about that is late-stage Deadspin was purely about getting the clicks. The quality of writing and editing rapidly declined, and the takes were ridiculous, often hypocritical and laughable. I often wondered if the editors were actually “anti-geniuses” in coming up with such terrible content to generate hate clicks. Other staffers had no business writing about certain sports to which they were assigned. At some point, the site got stale, as if it were being maintained by a bunch of whiny teenagers who actually didn’t care for sports and just wanted to write about whatever was on their minds. The site kept a couple of fantastic writers who put out great product until the last days, but in general, I would argue that the site’s demise had more to do with the production of tired, predictable nonsense than anything regarding this dispute about “stick to sports.”
If anything, Deadspin’s mandate should have been “stick to well written and interesting posts.”
24
After reading some of the comments here,the United States is in bigger trouble than even trump's election had me believing it was. I suppose all these No Fun League fans ,who never complain about how a sixty minute game takes three hours to play, are the same geniuses who complain about a baseball game being too long . (Baseball has no clock) The games could use more players like Kaepernick and Sean Doolittle,who also supports union labor. A couple of guys kneeling on the sideline has,literally,no effect on the games. Just the psyches of the overly sensitive rich guys in the stands are impacted.
20
Could it really just be about silencing these voices? If this site was often about exposing the underside of sports culture, maybe the monied class would prefer it to lose its platform.
17
I agree with the people that told you to stick to sports.
Sports are a release, and you don't have to turn them into another battleground.
We have enough of those already.
And you also need to learn to do what your bosses tell you to do.
17
Deadspin’s model was built on not sticking to sports. If that wasn’t what the private equity firm wanted then the should have gone after another entity. He’s absolutely right in his observations. Hopefully he will soon be active, along with the rest of the former Deadspin staff, and come back to bury the current, useless version of the site.
15
@Larry Thiel That's a poor message...when your bosses tell you to do something that will harm the company, you tell the bosses that they are wrong, especially when you have the numbers to prove it. A good employee tries to save a bad boss from himself, and that's not altruism...that's self-preservation. I don't know about you, but I haven't had a ton of bosses who are big on taking accountability on themselves. Chances are, a boss that tells you to do something that will harm the business is going to blame you when it harms the business anyway, so why wouldn't you at least note your objection? Sure, you may lose your job, but you'll probably lose your job when the business goes down anyway, and the difference is you'll have your integrity.
17
@Larry Thiel
This “just follow orders” mindset you propose caused gave rise to much of the political situation you lament.
By the way, any relation to Peter Thiel, who bankrupted Deadspin’s former partner site, Gawker? That would explain quite a bit.
I do not see what the problem is here exactly. You refused to follow your employer's directions – you got fired. Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Welcome to the real world. You are now free to find yourself another employer who would let you do whatever you want at work to you mutual satisfaction and observe how Deadspin is kicking itself for letting go such an invaluable employee. Is is a win–win, no?
25
I never heard of Deadspin until the publicity about employees quitting made the news. Perhaps that is because I am near 70. However, I have been a long time subscriber to Sport Illustrated. In my opinion the prime reason for that magazine's readership has been is shift away from sports competitions to focus on sports politics! And of course that meant only a liberal viewpoint was presented! That is not why I bought a sports magazine!
9
SI’s readership decline has nothing to do with their editorial stance. The model has changed. Almost all of the old line magazines have either gone away or seen a massive reduction in their subscription bases, whatever their editorial stances may be.
10
@Donna Gray On the other hand....
If their political viewpoint had been more conservative, you'd have been very happy with that "sports" magazine.
While it certainly is disheartening to read what has happened to Deadspin- the coverage of this unfortunate event has by and large been dictated by the white men who had enough privilege to quit a full time media job in a media climate that has been disastrous, especially for women and poc who very rarely ever even got the opportunity for staff or leadership roles before we were all fired in rounds of layoffs. This has been happening for a a few LONG YEARS and it’s been happening to women and people of color first - but as soon as it happens to a bunch of white guys who write about sport it gets the attention it deserves.
8
If there was a more diverse staff than Deadspin’s, I’d love to see it. Barry was acting Editor in Chief because his former boss and Editor in Chief, Megan Greenwell, quit in protest over all of this two months ago. There were numerous women and minorities on the Deadspin staff, which is part of what made it great.
1
Sure let's stick to sports.
Knick fans: How about that James Dolan?
Met fans: Love the Wilpons?
Jet fans: The Johnson family?
Want to go outside New York?
Redskin fans: Dan Snyder?
Cowboy fans: What has Jerry Jones done since Jimmy Johnson left?
Deadspin is dead. Done in by incompetent ownership. That is sports.
13
One of the great things about sports commentary for me is the expertise of the commentators. I noticed this years ago when I began comparing the sports pages of the NYT and the LA Times. The writing was superb. Best of all was the sense that the writers had spent their entire lives thinking about sports. In the arts, however, it was often the case that plays were being reviewed by people with just a few years' experience attending theatre. There was little perspective. Sports commentary is rich with anecdote, history, passion, while I have found political commentary to be superficial, and increasingly hysterical. I love that a Boston Red Sox fan can praise a great play from an opponent from the love of the sport, suddenly it is baseball that is loved even more than the favorite team. Not so in politics so it is jarring to hear our favorite sports experts suddenly descend to making idiotic statements. Suddenly thoughtful commentary is replaced by virtue signaling, posing, grandstanding and mindless conformity. It is in short childish, while sports commentary is so refreshingly deep and honest and real.
23
@David
Amen. An eloquent summary of the issue, made better by my Bosox fanaticism. Thanks for writing this.
5
@David
There's plenty of political commentary to be had in the sports business, but no one touches it, not even Mr. Petchesky.
For example: domestic violence charges of its players, corrupt team owners, corrupt college sports departments, exploitation of college players at the expense of their academics, etc.
Funny how you won't find many articles about those wet blanket topics.
I read Deadspin for close to a decade - and I came largely for the non-sports articles. When the new ownership came in, the number of non-sports articles reduced significantly, and my readership reduced correspondingly. Apparently that wasn't enough for the new ownership...
20
Why not just get the old gang back together, and start up a fresh blog? You've got the talent and the fanbase, people will follow you.
Keep costs low by working from home. Mix up blog posts with podcasts or YouTube videos. Generate revenue with merchandise, ads, and subscriptions (like Patreon).
There's a path forward, it's just not the same path old media took.
14
With all due respect to those who say that sports shouldn't be politicized, take another look at the photograph accompanying this article.
We sing the national anthem before each game, dutifully standing and covering our hearts with our hands and taking off our hats. Woe be to you if you take a knee in the bleacher seats at Yankee Stadium.
We accept as "normal" when our flag is trotted out in totally inappropriate ways (Our flag should never be displayed like this (flat and restrained), and cutting it up like this is unthinkable. I think they had to make Florida longer just to fit in the 13th stripe).
It is impossible to separate sports from politics, and while I never read it (not a sports fan), its demise is a loss. Imagine Deadspin commenting on the 1936 Olympics?
30
I will miss Deadspin. Sports is one of the last remaining common threads that connect us as Americans. Fans in Buffalo, Houston, and Yes, even San Francisco, can agree that management is crazy and the trade our team just made will pull us out of our slump.
Sports was never just about sports. Look at the teams. They're multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and are starting to break down gender walls as well. Deadspin broke important stories and created a smart, supportive (and sarcastic) community.
Personally, I'm saddened that I won't have a place to gloat when the Warriors squeak out a 50-win season, make the 8th seed, and shock the world by returning to their 6th consecutive final.
Thanks for all the stories, Barry!
26
Mr. Petchesky, you are free to write whatever you want to write but not if your employer says that it is not what they want. You can try and stand on any moral ground you want but they are paying you to write per their guidelines. If ownership changes and the direction changes that is well within their rights to change direction. You then have to decide if you want to stay or go but if you stay and you continue to not follow their rules then of course you will get fired.
Suggest you start up your own magazine if you do not want to play by others rules.
49
@DC As yes, a defense of "the beatings will continue until morale improves", a well-proven and unmpeachable strategy for management-labor disputes.
119
@DC He wrote what he wanted to write and we just read it.
28
@DC except that the Deadspin staff had the right to editorial freedom guaranteed in their Collective Bargaining agreement, which you’d know were you not a mere apologist for awful management.
69
I don't understand. No voices were silenced, the writers who used to write for Deadspin are free to write for other publications - this letter being testament to that fact. Is Mr. Petchesky implying that if George Soros were to instantly fund he and his colleagues, that somehow private equity would step in to silence them again?
It's a terrible shame to lose Deadspin as we knew it, but who in society has some moral or societal obligation to fund publishing what he wishes to publish? If Deadspin's voice was valuable, then should there not be a way to build a business model that is self sustaining?
Yes, Mr. Petchesky is correct when he says that we need that sports/culture perspective, but who does he suggest pay for it?
22
@ImagineMoments If you read some of the posts on Deadspin the past month or two, it's pretty clear they were not really free to write whatever they wanted. Barry was fired over it, the writers walked out after that. That sounds like silencing to me and is at best micromanaging by ownership that has little to no experience running a company like Deadspin. And Deaspin's model was profitable. If it wasn't profitable, it would have died just like all the other media sites instead of purchased.
43
@ImagineMoments Deadspin was profitable. That's addressed in the opinion piece. It had its highest traffic ever this year. This was not a matter of a new owner trying to fix a failing business.
But you kind of gave away where you're coming from with the Soros comment.
35
@ImagineMoments It was profitable as is. It paid for itself. Can you read words?
22
Check out The Athletic, they cover all aspects of sports.
Just stick to sports! It is just escapism and no more.
7
@Henry Actually, one way or another, it's a livelihood for tens of thousands of people,
@Henry I mean, there are plenty of websites for you to get that content. Why is that the only thing that is acceptable? Nobody made you read Deadspin. Nobody makes me read the gushing profiles of athletes on ESPN. There was clearly a market for the content on Deadspin, as evidenced by its profitability. Why is all sports media required to only be done a certain way?
The use of sports to deliver military propaganda has reached a sickening level. NFL coaches dressed in military garb this weekend is stark proof of that. The obligatory “vet coming home and surprising his family” that is seen at any sporting event may seem heartwarming but it is really for the purpose of desensitizing Americans to the horrors our military is inflicting around the world. There should be more reporting on this instead of less. It is known that the US government through its military branches pays pro sports organizers to relate their propaganda during sporting events. Ultimately you end up with majority right wing crowds such as the NFL in person attendance fan base that will boo a Colin Kapernick for simply kneeling for human rights.
30
@Cliff It was even worse when I was a kid. They took ball players like DiMaggio and put them in the military...with very different helmets.
1
"Stick to Sports" unless you want to alienate your audience and destroy your business.
A successful businesses must satisfy their customer's needs which does not include being subjected to strongly partisan diatribes.
5
Deadspin was successful exactly because they did not stick to sports. The new model is dead on the vine. It is now worth less than it was two weeks ago, and, hopefully, will be drummed out of existence. Unfortunately, as with the type of vulture PE company the purchased Deadspin, they’ve likely already had Deadspin take out a loan, paid themselves back whatever they invested in the company, along with tidy profits, and will end up stiffing the banks with any losses when they close up shop, lay everyone off, and move on to their next victims.
3
@jck Then why was Deadspin profitable? And I, for one, enjoyed the "partisan diatribes"
Why is it that conservatives love the free market until it becomes apparent that there is a market for something other than a conservative viewpoint?
7
@jck However ... are you leaving because of this?
1
I was a religious Deadspin reader and particularly enjoyed Barry's articles and weekly mailbag. However, I take umbrage with the characterization that private equity's "plan" in this case (or many other cases, as is so often portrayed by the media) was to purchase the underlying business, mine it for cash and assets and then get out before the ship sank, in total disregard of the employees or spirit of the journalistic product. No equity buyer would, within a year of buying the company, intentionally take steps to cause everything that has happened - with the loss of viewership and associated ad dollars, I imagine Great Hill is in a massively tough spot at the moment. To compare what happened with Deadspin to Toys 'R Us however, which was forced to borrow massive amounts of debt to dividend cash up to its PE owners, its not a fair comparison at all. I rather believe that this is an example of extreme mismanagement and failure of the new owners (and new management) to appreciate that the value of what they purchased in Deadspin could not merely be reduced to and driven by quantitative business KPIs like page views ad ad spend.
5
Great Hill has likely already taken a loan on Deadspin’s value, paid themselves back with a heavy profit, and are now charging a heavy “management” fee. There are good PE companies, those that see a company they want to invest in and work to make it successful, with the intention of keeping the company and earning profits as the company’s outlooks improve. However, these PE groups are rare these days. Most are vultures looking not to help a company succeed and grow, but rather to turn a profit as quickly as possible.
1
I can only imagine if Branch Rickey had simply "stuck to sports."
4
@Ben I might agree with you, but then there would be 2 old people not being understood by most readers today.
Heard anything lately from Boudreau and Reese?
This cri de cœur about Deadspin formerly known as Deadspin makes me wonder what could be next on the agenda of these private equity geniuses. Perhaps they'll acquire The Onion and then demand "From now on, just the bare facts."
5
@Mike T Not sure if you’re joking, but they do actually own the Onion now, along with the whole stable of Gawker Media properties. To be fair though, the Onion became a zombie shadow of itself a long time ago, well before private equity got hold of them.
4
Who's gonna tell him
Rock on. I’ve been a fan of Deadspin (and the dearly departed Gawker) for a long time, and toy department or not I can’t recall an exercise of journalistic principle as vital as what these folks have done over the last few weeks. If only the White House press corps had half the spine of this bunch.
4
"Spoiled millionaires playing children's games" is about right. No one else should care.
Sad to see Deadspin go. I agree with all of the laments for its departure. And I agree with some of the analysis here as to why it was intellectually gutted by G/O media. I hope that Petchesky and the other staffers go on to do great sports writing elsewhere.
As for those commenters who seem to think that other sports (and sports journalism) are politics free, think again. Avoiding controversial topics out of fear of driving away advertisers or fans is a political decision. Commenters such as Don Cherry, who finally got canned after years of offensive and stupid commentary that had little to do with hockey, regularly peppered their commentary with politics. And sites like Barstool Sports, the embodiment of the worse of troglodytic sports "journalism," are full of politics. ESPN is just a spineless mess, good for scores and little more.
Politics has always been part of sports journalism, full stop. The question is if the politics are part of the story as necessary context or explanation, or if they are inserted into it to score cheap points or avoided altogether out of a sense of falsely defined objectivity. Deadspin mostly fit into the first category, as Grantland. The second category encompasses most of sports journalism. Sad.
4
With what’s going on in the world right now, I can’t take the urgent tone of this article seriously.
1
@Bob Then you didn't spend much time at Deadspin, which covered what is going on in the world right now.
Capitalism is a force of destruction in the world and has absolutely crippled strong journalism. We are really seeing first hand how poor of an economic system this really is.
4
One thing (of many) that I will miss on Deadspin is their exposure of billionaire team owners and their cynical way of holding team fans hostage while they extort the taxpayers into funding their billion dollar stadiums. Some of these taxpayer funded deals are made in non-public meetings, under cover of subterfuge in order to ram them through before the public knows what hit them. Of course the "economic stimulation" of the neighborhoods and other touted public benefits rarely are ever realized. The rich sure get richer from these deals, though...you can bank on that! At taxpayer expense!! Deadspin was a pillar in exposing these shameful scams for what they were / are.
To those whining that they don't want to read about politics in their precious auto or video game websites and magazines, good for them! There are plenty of those types of sites already in existence for them to enjoy, sans politics. That is not and never was the Deadspin mission and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. If you didn't like Deadspin, fine. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for those of us that loved it.
11
I've read multiple articles about the trashing of Deadspin by its new owners, which convince me that those owners follow an abuser's playbook: set impossible and self-contradictory expectations, lie, gaslight, harass, and repeat until staff are so demoralized that they quit.
Abuse is driven by entitlement. Private equity vulture capitalists know exactly what they are doing. Their mission is to maintain a parasitic existence by pillaging healthy enterprises, while silencing those who speak up about their depredations.
6
"We’re always interested in speaking with CEOs from companies that match our investment criteria. We encourage you to get in touch with your Great Hill Partners contact directly. You can find a complete list of our investment professionals on our Team page."
That's capitalism!
1
Without context, sports is just a bunch of people kicking or throwing a ball around in a field.
4
I take small comfort in seeing the idiocy of rich people buying a property they didn't understand, forcing their own vision on it, and watching it go from profitable and influential to worthless and laughed at in mere months. A case study in the making. Ah well.
1
I wonder if the author realizes how much he has hurt Jim Spanfeller and GO Media's feelings? What Petchesky writes here is going to make it very difficult for people who like sports, or are ethical or even just want to make money to work with Deadspin. So people who didn't walk out, will lose their jobs. A huge investment...Tanked! And then these hedge fund gamesters after playing with with their toys, will write off the debacle like General Donald Haig at the Somme: "A day of mostly downs."
1
Hockey Night In Canada's Don Cherry just joined the club too!
Fired because he vocalized an opinion outside of sports that violated the sanitary safe space of some.
1
This Opinion piece seems profoundly misleading. Patchesky that the Deadspin writers refused to "stick to sports", but then lists a half dozen stories they supposedly were not able to cover that ALL had to do with sports: the N.B.A. kowtowing to China, sports' shadow justice systems, opiods in the NFL, racist Italian soccer fans, a Nationals' player's MAGA hat. Every single one of those stories is sports-related, and they all would have been permitted by the new owner's rule that Deadspin's stories need at least some relationship to sports (per Marc Tracy's report in the Times on October 31).
What Patchesky and the other former Deadspin writers are actually complaining about is that they weren't permitted to write articles that have NOTHING to do with sports. And, in particular, that they weren't permitted to write non-sports stories critical of their new owners. Not that they wouldn't be permitted to write the types of stories he lists in the Opinion piece.
Frankly, Patchesky comes off as a primadonna - if he isn't permitted to write about every single thing that pops into his mind regardless of topic, he's quitting and going home. I doubt that's how things work at the New York Times or, really, any other major media publication.
I am personally a consumer of basically every sports-related media there is: ESPN, The Athletic, SI, WFAN, SBNation, Barstool, the Times sports section, everything. Patechsky's piece confirms why Deadspin was no contender to any of them.
11
This isn’t about media. Or sports. It’s about the corporatizion of America. Vote WARREN.
3
Well, it could be the "private equity model" just as said, and that is probably true.
Yet, it could be some rich old boys who didn't like what you were saying at times, so they bought you and shut you up.
Sort of like a SLAPP suit, but tastier to some folks with money to burn and people to please.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
1
i just like stats and highlights.
1
Stick it to them Barry - Start up a rival outlet from the ashes of the former Deadspin, and bury the old with something new and even better. Good luck, and don't let small minded management get in your way !
1
The author seems to be confusing his hobbies for his job.
~ "Making money is a hobby that will complement any other hobbies you have, beautifully."
1
I'm desperately following everyone's twitter feeds to know where the Pirate Bay style mirror site is...or the gofundme or something....you need to get the band back together!
2
Sounds like the Putin Play book. Putin did not just come in with armed thugs to take over the Russian Media (in the beginning) he had his friendly oligarchs buy them out. They then installed state supporting sycophant media (Tumps version is OAN)
If you want to start a new boradcast outlet you would not get license approvals because that is controlled by the state.
It's been said that reglion is the opioid of the masses but its been replaced in the US by organized national sports. Lets not let the reality of whats going on in America affect our sports fans. Its clear that Sports is being used as a tool of the state...I say Boooooo
1
I really miss Deadspin. The writers will all hopefully land elsewhere and I'll read their work wherever they go, but one thing we won't get back was the sharp, incisive, and funny commentariat. Such a waste, killed by idiots who didn't understand why Deadspin was special.
Deadspin forever.
2
This article is a bunch of dribble. Owners have every right to demand their employees stay on script.
I run a clinic. If my employees decided they were going to go protest for universal healthcare during clinic hours, I'd fire them. They can do that on their own time.
If Mr Petchesky wants to run a hybrid sports/political commentary site, he has every rite to start his own company. Trying to force his employer to accept whatever he wants to write about is garbage.
1
Suppose you instructed all of your clinic employees to offer prenatal counseling to everyone who came into your clinic, regardless of whether they were a woman, man, child; even if they were 80 years old and needing a hearing aid. If the employees refused, you’re within your rights as the owner to fire them, right? But that doesn’t make your management style worth anything, and they’d be well within their rights to write an article discussing how a once great clinic fell apart because the management team made terrible decisions.
2
Private equity = "Purchase an asset, strip it of everything of value, then turn around and sell the brand to someone else before they realize that what made the brand valuable in the first place has been lost and can never be recovered..."
.
Sorry to say (and I'm not a private equity fan), but if that's the level of understanding you carry about a topic when you venture outside of sports, maybe they have a point...
1
This is what happens when "private equity" gets involved--the whole business model, as Barry Petchesky summarizes, is to break down a "valuable" property or resource into parts and sell it for profit, regardless of what made that property of resource "valuable" in the first place. Private equity is particularly clueless about property that is valuable due to possession of knowledge or communications talent.
It's hardly surprising that the ultimatum to "stick to sports" happened after such a takeover--the bean-counters fundamentally want not only to avoid controversy but also have the ability to characterize a business' "assets" simply to its potential buyers.
Journalistic-type businesses, in particular, have become much too vulnerable to the private equity model and mindset, and many might want to consider going the non-profit route to protect against more such takeovers.
3
What the writer fails to mention is the rampant censorship in the sports world. Because everyone is a brand in a multi-billion dollar business, the larger outlets duck and weave around uncomfortable stories for the most part, lest their contracts or access be threatened.
Making hard-hitting television about sports is nearly impossible. At $25,000 per minute for archive — also subject to league approvals — exposing anything that is wrong in these worlds is extremely difficult.
That’s why the demise of Deadspin is a great loss to us all. To carve out the niche they did was impressive, and will never be replaced in the same way again.
17
If a website or publication is dedicated to sports, then it seems reasonable to expect it to stick to the subject. Sports may be, or should be, a refuge from politics. Yes, there have been political protests at times in sports, so it's fine to report on them in context. But if you want to be a political commentator, don't work for a sports site.
People get this very wrong idea that free speech applies to companies, businesses, etc. It doesn't. It applies to public places. Businesses can fire people for being controversial. Take a look at Don Cherry, sometimes funny hockey commentator, but often an acerbic right-winger. Just got fired for finally crossing the line. Maybe he'll go work for Breitbart.
12
You may be confusing individual games with "sports". Yes, we watch games to take our mind off things, but the industry is deeply political.
If you think politics in sports is someone protesting, then you're thinking of politics *in an individual game*.
But there is no politics without sports, no sports without politics. You can't have the US Army spending billions on promotion through the NFL and say its just a game. You can't have debates about paying collegiate athletes and say its just a game.
Just watch the recaps if all you care about is the game, but the world is poorer for one less outlet that understood that sports is a living breathing part of society and politics, and can't be parceled off.
55
@Umberto And yet, the stories that had the greatest readership on Deadspin were the non-sports stories, or those intersecting sports with politics or other things.
It doesn't make business sense for a new owner to cut those, or to change the way a successful site covers things.
19
@Umberto it seems insane to purchase a profitable sports website whose popularity was driven by its deployment of the ways in sports interacts with politics and culture, and then to eviscerate that defining feature. there are plenty of websites that do stick exclusively to sports, so it's not clear to me why deadspin should have to also.
5
There is a lot of integrity going into the volume of your decision. Still...
There’s this nagging issue.
While the holistic approach to world-views is necessary for improvement and sustainability, a measured approach is needed to move the needle.
Currently, corporations operate by the snatch and grab principle. Take the lowest, easiest part of the business view on market deliverables, charge as much as possible, and somehow sweep the rest under the rug.
That culture is countered by the ethical martyr taking a stand and dying on principle. It’s a losing battle and that war is lost.
We must begin automating parts of our governance and free press, and allow - even compel - consumers to do some of their own civic thinking. It seems the idea of developing real tools for the majority of individuals to do that is also buried under the rug.
2
So sorry to see the demise of Deadspin. I read it because it made sport relevant to what was happening in the larger world. I liked it for it's cheek, it's bravery, and an encompassing understanding of sport.
21
I wonder how the new Deadspin would cover the recent cancellation and re-scheduling of the Clasico between Barcelona and Real Madrid (one of the globe's biggest games) without mentioning the Catalonian independence movement.
20
@Stomper
The article will probably just say “El Clasico was canceled and rescheduled” and be flanked by multiple autoplay ads for vacation packages to Madrid and Barcelona.
2
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the author. Sports is NOT everything, and everything is NOT sports. I subscribe to a couple of auto magazines and a couple of guitar magazines. When I read the auto magazines it's to see reviews of different cars (and particularly sports cars I can only dream of owning). When I read my guitar magazines it's for guitar reviews, stories of how different bands came to be, their musical approaches, and interactions between the band members over time.
I don't read car magazines to hear about the dispute between California and the Trump administrations over CAFE standards. I don't read guitar magazines to suffer the (often incoherent) political meanderings of this or that drug-addled musician.
This is a case of the inmates wanting to run the asylum and getting their comeuppance, as they should have. Deadspin used to be a great "sports" site, but it had evolved into little more like a slightly-sports inflected version of HuffPo.
26
@Stratman Yes, but you would read a guitar magazine that mentions how rosewood, a longtime material prized by guitar makers, isn't available because of import regulations (2017). These issues don't exist in a bubble.
35
@Stratman - Then Deadspin wasn't for you, and that's fine. It was never meant to be all things to all people. As a former reader of Deadspin (they lost me when the staff left, I refuse to read the content farm currently masquerading as Deadspin), I really enjoyed the broad, funny, well written mix of content. A lot of Deadspin revolved around sports, but wasn't limited to it. And the comments were always hilarious. It's a real loss to those who appreciated Deadspin's particular voice.
51
@Jon G. Uh, no I don't read a guitar magazine to discover the restrictions on rosewood (CITES has been around for decades), MUCH LESS the politics of CITES.
5
I sympathize but I don't understand -- how is the buyers' strategy supposed to work? If the site content is no good anymore, why would anyone buy it from them? And what other valuable asset have they sold off?
14
@Jon Because they slashed the costs to nothing leaving the new owner to get a deal and the previous owners that slashed the place3 to make more profit.
3
@Jon The idea is to turn it into a content mill. Quantity over quality. Churn out a high volume of short, low-quality pieces - just interesting enough to get people to click on them so that they are served an ad. It's just like the disposable click-bait littering your social media feeds.
The bet these folks are making is that this model - content mills putting out volumes of the same content - is more lucrative than what Deadspin was doing (which was costlier). If they're correct, they sell the brand to the next sucker.
For what it's worth, I think they're wrong. For two reasons: Such a strategy requires them to essentially turn the site - which had a distinct culture and readership - into one of the throngs of content mills putting out the same type and quality of content. I think this will cheapen the brand and drain it of its cache a lot faster than the new owners think.
And secondly, as someone who has worked in media, including a lot of digital media, for quite some time, there is one fast and hard rule that never fails: none of these people know what they're doing. Google "digital media pivot to video" if you want to find out more about how these folks just chase the newest "growth strategy" like lemmings, and then move on the next one once that one fails. Private equity vulturism is currently the one in vogue.
@Jon
It wasn't supposed to work out the way it did. The writers were supposed to be compliant, and generate less controversial content, allowing a potential future purchaser to predict the value of the asset. The writers and editors just refused to play along.
2
It’s too late to separate sports from politics.
Here in Chi-town the Cubs owner, Ricketts ,
just hosted a big fundraiser for Trump at Trump Tower. The Cubs have been dearly loved losers for many decades, until recently. Now that they seem capable of winning in any given season, they’ve lost much fan support due to the politics of the owner. Supporting Trump must be perceived as a losing strategy because the people want to save our democracy. That’s more important than winning a ballgame.
27
@RjW And yet with few exceptions, ESPN does an excellent job of separating the two.
3
@Stratman If you like a constant stream of tables of talking heads yammering the same old cliches and tired "insightful analysis" we hear every season, then yes, ESPN is doing a great job.
20
@Ben Hopper I wasn't referring to WATCHING ESPN talking heads, but rather about reading the news, stats, analysis, etc.
Good writing is good writing, whether it’s found at Deadspin or at another journalistic outlet. Unfortunately, most people aren’t willing to pay for good writing.
12
@Aaron VanAlstine This wasn't about good writing: it was about content and subject matter. A good writer expositing the laws of quantum theory has no more business writing for a site like Deadspin than does one who insists on focusing on politics at the expense of sports.
Nothing upsets me more than when an outlet that normally covers sports, video games, technology, music and other specialties, starts getting into politics.
I specifically go to these places to NOT read politics. I can’t have politics in my life at every waking moment. It’s not the most important thing in my life, or your life. The people who say it is important profit from it through ads, books, subscription sales, and are just as guilty at profiteering than any other capitalist.
19
@Kevin - I look for places to take a break from politics as well. Its bad enough that every journalist/news outlet just keeps repeating the same story everyone else on the same station has already reported on, no, we have to have it everywhere - even Dancing With the Stars.
@Kevin Then you are fortunate (some might say privileged) enough that you can simply turn off politics like you can turn off a faucet. Simply following the links that Mr. Petchesky included in his piece would tell you how wrongheaded you are. How do you separate politics from marijuana policies in sports leagues? If Deadspin hadn't written about Donald Sterling, who would have? If you want a summary of strikes and balls, there are all kinds of places to get that.
2
@Kevin I understand your feeling, but you're missing the larger point. No one who read Deadspin thought Deadspin was ESPN. They don't publish box scores and recaps of Division 2 football games—they do "Journalism about Sports." To purchase Deadspin and then try and turn it into the sports section of your local paper is ignorance personified.
Deadspin not only contained great sports writing, it contained great writing. That it understood that sports and politics were inseparable only made it all the better.
54
Yes this is so true. I read Deadspin when I soured on ESPN and the constant subliminal involvement with betting through their partnership with Caesar's. There are a lot of smart people in the field.
6
the private equity model: Purchase an asset, strip it of everything of value, then turn around and sell the brand to someone else before they realize that what made the brand valuable in the first place has been lost and can never be recovered.
What assets besides its staff did private equity strip away from Deadspin? Were there real estate holdings, residuals, or what? More likely this sounds like an investor who simply needed a loss to show against earnings, in the same way landlords will leave commercial property vacant for years despite the evident loss of income and serious blight this practice leaves on urban neighbourhoods - Deadspin and it's writers were likely just collateral damage.
10
@Leigh This may not be an "asset," but Great Hills had a huge advertising deal in the works that hinged on Deadspin's large and devoted community of readers visiting the site multiple times a day. The abuse of the editors and writers happened, they all quit, the deal was cancelled, and readers left. Perhaps the "asset" they stripped was the community of devoted readers.
21
@Leigh The asset in question was the readership and the good will that the name had built up over 15 years. Joke's on them though, because now both of those are gone.
6
@Evan
Of course if people are retuning to the site daily then there's something there that they want. Stripping magazine of that "something", the coverage people want, may backfire. At least that is what I and others are hoping for. It would be nice if these jerks lost their shirts.
I feel like one thing Patchesky is saying here is to claim that the only possible way to cover sports is the Deadspin way. I don't agree, there are many options. But Deadspin's way was distinctive, thought provoking, valuable, and profitable. I was an avid reader, and will miss its critical thinking and irreverence. I share his bewilderment at why anyone who fundamentally didn't like their approach would buy it and demand they change it. It's a short list of profitable online journalism companies. Deadspin was one, it is laughably terrible management incompetence to buy a proven golden goose like that one, only to immediately run it into the ground by demanding departure from the very thing that made it successful.
21
Sports are and have always been distraction from more odious areas like politics, which so many people either do not care about or believe they cannot change. The author evidently wants to be able to discuss politics and sports blending them together based upon his own vagaries. It matters little whether the reader was interested. This approach is not novel and in fact volumes of articles have correctly pointed out that ESPN over several years lost millions of viewers, not to mention tens of millions in ad revenue, because they decided that instead of covering sports they wanted to politicize sports and dictate the conversation. Deadspin although always more of a niche publication had more leeway than ESPN, but the problem is Joe Sixpack long ago believed his distraction had been perverted into activism. In most cases he neither cared about this activism, nor did he buy into the millionaire players class was being discriminated against by the billionaire owners.
9
@aristotle There should always be a place for niche publications. Business culture today seems compelled to make all things for all people, but with that philosophy we as a society will lose perspectives (in journalism specifically) that ask uncomfortable, sometimes rude questions. They were doing fine in terms of page views, and they should absolutely have been allowed to continue as they were.
16
@aristotle It is evident from your comments that you never visited the site, and barely have a working knowledge of what it is. "It matters little whether the reader was interested," the reader WAS interested. Deadspin wasn't acquired because they had lagging readership.
@aristotle Joe Six-Pack doesn't want a respite from politics when they watch sports so much as they want to guarantee the exclusion of politics *they don't like.* They have no problem with military flyovers, gigantic flags, three national anthem, demanding players "respect" the anthem, 7th inning military salutes, God Bless America, and on and on.
Those things are all extremely, explicitly political, but that doesn't bother them. They want their bubbles to be all-encompasing
The very concept of covering sport has some inherent frivolity to it--which makes wanting fan-dom to be an escape somewhat understandable. By which I mean: Of course who, say, wins the World Series, is not as important as who wins the presidency. But trivial or not, if the middle of the Fall Classic is not a good time to talk about baseball, when is?
Yet, the reality of the stick to sports crowd is that it often actually means "don't challenge me"/"stick to opinions I like."
The real tragedy of that mindset is that it is reductive. People, athletes included, are more complex than a nameplate on the back of a jersey and a logo on the front. It's why the measure of Jackie Robinson and Roberto Clemente is more than their career stats, and why even in the play-acting of professional wrestling/"sports entertainment," a good plot line needs both hero and villain -- not merely choke-slams.
I don't know what the future of journalism holds, but here's hoping it still has room for those who recognize that sport, ultimately, is another forum for community, blessed and cursed with all humanity's flaws and triumphs, and enriched by robust discussion of each.
9
@Tim It's kind of hard to separate the two though. How often do you hear about some player that has been suspended for such and such a reason? Or, how are you supposed to cover sports without covering the whole kneeling thing? What about strikes and player union holdouts that effect the whole season? Is Deflategate and illegal videotaping of practice still "sports"? What about Billichick visiting an illegal massage parlor? Out of bounds? What about if a player does something really charitable, but outside of the game? Is it permitted if it's "positive"? As a journalist, they're asking you to not talk about these things, when they're obviously having an impact on the game and are pretty huge stories?
As a long time reader of Deadspin (and many of the former Gawker sites) I can attest to two things: 1) some of the best writing I've read on line was Deadspin articles that were unrelated to sports (I invite you to read Albert Burneko's article, "The Great American Menu: Foods Of The States, Ranked and Mapped - https://deadspin.com/the-great-american-menu-foods-of-the-states-ranked-an-1349137024] and 2) not all of the good writing was restricted to the bloggers. The comments section on Deadspin contained some of the sharpest minds and most biting commentary I've read anywhere, including here.
34
@Jimal you rather inadvertently just admitted that Deadspin freely published articles that had *nothing* to do with sports, proving that this op-ed writer is being disingenuous.
the owners have every right to want THEIR sports-website to actually cover sports, and only sports. perhaps the departed staff can create their own successful venture? if they weren't simply exploiting Deadspin and have a genuinely loyal and interested base of readership, it will follow them to a new venture, no?
maybe they don't have faith in the loyalty of their readers?
3
We owe all of you a deep set of gratitude for your bravery in these dark times. I never thought that Hedge Funds would become the new masters of the universe and the gestapos of destruction.
People think that Warren, Bernie are fools railing against greedy capitalism trying to steal the money of the rich. that is not the case
The gutting of companies is what Mitt Romney mike Milken and so many others are very gifted at. Last week the NYT wrote in 20008 as Wall Street was begging for a bail out they were betting against the American people. We should be very woke of the vultures of our country and do everything we can to stop the GOP and the very rich from destroying our country.
We live in a country of extreme destruction for anything that is good and it is apparent in sports. Not the game bur the culture. It is sickening that ay hedge fund manager believes that they are the masters of the universe.
We know your names and will follow you wherever you guys go and we will not forget what you did for the people and democracy.
12
@Tony Important we remember the real hero's like Barry on veterans day. Thank you for your service Barry. Viva!
1
@Tony
"People" don't rail against Warren et al. Republicans and Plutocrats do.
RIP Deadspin. Roth was by far the best writer to tackle the complete hellworld we find ourselves in
20
Deadspin, ESPN, newspapers all irrelevant as they hark tribute to a bygone era. Oh, my you all made a point. But no one is watching or cares.
@BB
Yet here you are.
I returned to Deadspin exactly once since Barry Petchesky was fired and the staff resigned. You know, the way you have to rubberneck when driving by a traffic accident. Where else will I get to vote for best bear videos? Who else will turn their sharp wit against arrogant owner/billionaires, universities and coaches that turned a blind eye to hundreds of cases of sexual abuse of young athletes (looking at you Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep-OH), and the ongoing exploitation of college athletes? I loved the tone, the topics covered, the humorous videos and the incisive essays. There was no handwringing. There was integrity. And The Worldwide Leader (ESPN) doesn't get my clicks either. "The Athletic" is worthy, but mostly serious and sadly lacking the snark factor I so enjoy. I will follow the staff wherever they land. Best wishes to all of them for their future success.
22
I honestly haven't found a replacement sports site since Deadspin went down. Not sure that it exists (right now, anyway). I finally deleted the bookmark yesterday — the zombie site that was Deadspin is just too sad to look at.
25
@barry: Could the Deadspin staff band together and form their own new blog that follows the same format as the former Deadspin?
11
@Chris Rockett Well, that would require them to risk their own money instead of someone else's, a concept they probably view as unpalatable.
The problem with Deadspin recently wasn't articles about the intersection of sports and politics, but articles focused solely on politics. And as the New York Times wrote, the "offending" memo stated that "Stories that showed the intersection of sports and other topics were fair game" and that Mr. Maidment said at the relevant meeting that he "enjoyed a recent post about President Trump getting booed at a World Series game. But purely non-sports content was forbidden." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/business/media/deadspin-was-a-good-website.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
My issue with the purely political content was that it was insufferably woke and self-righteous. Not surprisingly, the authors of this content are now touting their virtuous nature to all who will listen. Give me a break.
18
@David That was YOUR problem with it. But their non-sports content was some of the most popular on the site.
@Craig I have no issue with links or side panels which direct you to their affiliated sites like Jezebel or The Root.
Deadspin was a good website.
13
Life's tough. Live with it.
9
@Kent Kraus This is good Content. Thank you for your contribution.
2
There is no small irony in Deadspin's alumni engaging in precisely the sort of self-aggrandizing, self-justifying hogwash that the site, at its best, would once have excoriated.
Towards the end, Deadspin was a news aggregator that cannibalized reporting from more reputable websites for clicks. After the demise of Gawker, it became a marketing website that interspersed clickbait with paid promotions. In short, Deadspin's post-Daulerio/Gawker era activities actively facilitated the demise of legitimate independent media in the internet era.
20
@Half Sour You clearly have no earthly idea was was being published on Deadspin over the last 12 months. News aggregation?? That's the exact opposite of what it was, and exactly what G/O Media wanted it to be. A look at the site in its current state bears that out.
2
@Half Sour While there WAS a lot of "report on the reporting" and "microwaving" (borrowing from work already done well after the events in question), the G/O Media sites WERE driven by their original content, even if it wasn't always timely.
@Craig I would read it every day.
So if you had such a wonderful, profitable product, Mr. Petchesky, (which I never heard of by the way) why don't you and your staff recreate it under a different name? Heck, borrow some money to do that and you can own the product and you can call the shots. It's called free enterprise - which judging by your piece is something I would guess you find abhorrent. And those of us who value sports to escape the tedious and exhausting 24/7 politicization of everything will have a safe space at the old Deadspin.
9
@John J.
I don't think you can presume from Petchesky's piece that he finds free enterprise abhorrent. Petchesky was an employee, not an entrepreneur. Raising the money to fund an alternative sports journalism outlet is not as easy as you make it out to be. But the idea of relaunching under a new moniker is a valid one, if someone is prepared to finance it.
10
@John J. "I never read it, here's why it was bad." This is an excellent take.
3
@John J. They should. If David Roth, all by himself, had a Patreon I would contribute.
Without Roth and his former colleagues, however, Deadspin is now worthless. Genius business move by the private equity firm that purchased it.
Thats nice I'm sure you've landed on your feet at NY Times. Deadspin has clout and it won't be hard you people to get jobs elsewhere. Its different for fanbases of NCAA Football who coaches have with these mega buyouts at these colleges where the fans have to fundraise to get them to leave. I mean its hard being writer, woe is you but you got clout. People recognize the Deadspin brand name in your industry and I was wondering maybe it would make more sense for you to try writing political stories rather than mixing sports and politics?
Its like these video gamers who identify with right wing or left wing politics and try and marry the two together. Those things don't mix, these kids are mentally sick and need help but they're parents are at work while get home from school and go online unmonitored.
3
How unfortunately shortsighted is Deadspin's view of sports in human history. I have chaired the Nineteenth Century Research Committee for the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) since 2007 and my tagline for all my official correspondense in that capacity is: "because baseball history is not only baseball history. "
13
Also lost with the death of Deadspin is a platform that held other sports media outlets accountable for racism, sexism, and calling out when the ESPNs of the world tried to stick to sports and as a result did not tell the whole story. I'm mourning the loss of a progressive voice in Deadspin.
38
@Joe Likewise. I read for the wit, the challenge to the sports world status quo, for the terrific commentariat.
1
i visited this site nearly every day since it's inception. as a life-long sports fan it was a refreshing alternative to the same-old sports coverage that you can find anywhere and everywhere. since they cleaned house, i have not been back and won't be back. i hope something fills the void soon. good luck to all the staff.
84
@LPR For old time's sake: this is good kinja.
8
Thank you for this. In solidarity, I haven't clicked on Deadspin since the news broke. It, and you writers, will be greatly missed. Looking forward to following you all somewhere and picking up the conversation where we left off.
62
Hi Barry,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Deadspin will be missed greatly. Not automatically going to the site every couple of hours has been much harder than I thought it would be. It was hilarious, informative but what was particularly inspiring was that it helped a lot of people I personally know think critically about things they otherwise would not have. The whole staff was phenomenal and I can still barely believe it's gone. I'll follow everyone's other stuff though. Deadspin is dead. Deadspin forever.
38
Many of us that have been devout Deadspin readers enjoyed going to the site, and to other sports sites, to escape the political coverage. As Deadspin drifted into yet another Think Progress / Huffpo, it was easy to take it off of my must-reads.
18
@Ryan m when did this happen? Every time I've asked this of the people making this complaint about how Deadspin changed, theyve either been unable to answer or pointed to a year that I've immediately found conter-evidence to from prior years.
Deadspin was always the thing you're claiming it turned into.
51
@Oh? When did it drift into a political site that also covered sports? It's happened over a couple of years. I didn't claim it happened at one event or another.
1
@Ryan m The notion of 'escaping politics' is flawed, because everything is inherently political. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that.
12
As an occasional Deadspin reader, I missed this. Guess I'm no longer an occasional Deadspin reader.
6
Sadly, it's all true.... and it's not just sports.
Even the NYT is a bit neutered now.
This is all just another example of T. S. Eliot's "This is the way the world ends; not with a bang but a whimper."
It almost makes me want to go full Luddite on all civilization.
20
Are Pulitzer Prizes awarded for sports writing?
5
@Mon Ray On occasion, yes. Red Smith in 1976, for instance.
2
Unfortunately, Donald Trump’s Inner Party collaborators and the Outer Party mobs in the Southeast, Plains and rural parts of the country have no use for a free media.
Instead of ignoring news they don’t like, they affix “fake news” and “enemy of the people” and godless liberal media to what news outlets that don’t tow the newspeak of the Party.
There will be more zombification of media outlets as Inner Party oligarchs attempt to silence the media they don’t like.
Too bad America can’t teach civics.
16
@Practical Thoughts Writers are free to start their own businesses and run them as they see fit. Not one thing is stopping them from doing it other than getting the finances, hiring the staffs, managing the business, getting advertisements, handling distribution and subscriptions, ... Writers are really good at writing but then they think that the rest of the world should bend to them.
4
@DC Yes, they could start their own business. They could. They could pull themselves up by their bootstraps and not complain and not make excuses and start their own enterprise on their own terms. They could definitely do that. Just like you and I could quit our boring insurance company jobs and finally go become white water rafting guides. But all that said, I don't think that was the point of this article. I think the point was: in this giant world with many, many strictly-sports sites, can we have one non-strictly sports site?
2
Bravo. I await your next efforts. I suggest that readers ignore the site and even stop doing google searches so that it dies a quick death
13
As soon as sports teams stop playing the national anthem and/or god bless america, taking money from the military to trot out armed service members, unfurling oversized flags, and otherwise enforcing mandatory patriotism, then maybe somebody can make a case to just "stick to sports".
324
@cornell
Should we stop playing the US national anthem at the Olympic when USA competitors win? Let's set aside differences for a moment of national togetherness, now and again.
1
@Critical Thinking Please - in international competition, when teams represent their nations, playing national anthems is definitely appropriate.
But in professional sports, when individuals of many nationalities are representing a local team and their owner(s) it makes no sense. It's a relatively recent phenomenon, and American sports leagues are pretty much alone in doing it.
7
@cornell "It's a relatively recent phenomenon..."
From what I've read (linked below), it started in 1918 during a baseball game, where it grew to other teams in the league. After WWII, it also became the norm in football games. I understand that many things are relative, but I'd have to say that your definition of "recent" differs from mine.
https://www.history.com/news/why-the-star-spangled-banner-is-played-at-sporting-events
2
The broader question that faces society is this:
Can journalism remain the Fourth Estate when the owners of journalism media outlets view those outlets as commodities whose products must be widely sell-able? Put another way, is truth (or the amount of it) being compromised by profit?
It makes one think that perhaps all journalism outfits should become untaxable non-profits similar to churches.
30
@VJR Then like churches they will have to go begging for financing. Or do you propose that the tax payers should cover this enterprise as well?
1
@DC Let them beg. And, I am fine with some federal funding.
Both NPR and PBS already do this.
What about the CBC in Canada or the BBC in the UK?
Speaking of PBS in particular, "The News Hour" has been successfully doing it since 1973 when it was 30 minutes long and was "The MacNeil-Lehrer Report".
1
@DC that's what subscriptions are.
This attempt to frame sports as being untainted by the events of the real world has been ongoing for decades but most especially when Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their black-gloved fists in protest at the Mexico City Olympics in 1968. Or was it much earlier, when Satchel Paige was denied a place in MLB? Or further back, when Jesse Owens flouted the myths of Aryan superiority at the Berlin Olympics in 1936? Or is it so far back that we have to rely on history books for accuracy?
The point clearly is that sports are played by humans and the trials and tribulations of being humans will always be a significant part of the story. If we can have stories about the triumph of the soccer player who overcame cancer or the tennis player who overcame a learning disability, then we also need to hear about the other challenges athletes and teams face as they overcome what humans do to humans.
Good luck in your next endeavor, Drew!
95
Good journalism is a necessary ingredient of a healthy democracy. A healthy democracy is the bane of oligarchs. Private equity is the tool that oligarchs use to profit from the disabling of democracy.
54
Sports is a reflection of society and culture. Sports (and life) does not fit neatly into four quarters, three periods, or nine innings, and the editors at Deadspin understood that truth well. Count me among myriad fans of sports journalism that are still mourning the loss of both Deadspin and Sports Illustrated, especially since ESPN has also taken the "stick to sports" tactic. You will be missed.
Private equity may take a "catch and kill" approach to journalism, but I'm optimistic that bright ideas, fresh perspectives, and reporting that serves as a force for good will always persevere in a free market.
10
Deadspin provided 10-15 minutes of insightful, quirky and often irreverent sports vignettes that were consumed on a near daily basis over lunch. The comments section added comic relief and reinforced the idea that sports were not just on the field.
Unable to visit the eviscerated website, what a shame.
50
@Dan the comment sections were often times better than the actual stories!!! Gonna miss that site!
6
If one wants the generic box scores, catchs of the day & 'Top 10' highlights, then ESPN's sportscenter is the bland, but perky highlights reel shows that play endlessly for the masses. However, sports journalism will be at a loss for Deadspin's gutting (a la HBO's Succession), like it is for Grantland and other outlets.....one can look to the Gumbel brothers sports axis for this dichotomy- do you lean Greg & straight play by play or Bryant and his HBO shows in-depth intersection of the culture & politics of these more broad reaching issues (racism, abuse/violence, player health, classism, gender equity, corruption, freedom of speech, etc.). We need the latter more than ever.
8
I was wondering what was going on when for the last few days there was no updated content. My mornings were my local paper, the NYT and Deadspin. Gave me what I needed. Deadspin was informative, funny and woke. Is there anything else?
I have worked in the private equity world and I get investment decisions but I'm also a consumer and a target audience for the advertisers on the site I guess i should call formerly known as Deadspin. Whatever it becomes, I won't be back.
29
As a journalist of almost 40 years and the author of a sports/culture blog at thegamesmenplay.com, I know only too well how this "game" is played -- athletes who are rewarded for sticking to the script rather than making waves; owners of media companies and teams who are all for freedom of speech as long as it touts the company line; fans who think they own the players' souls and see sports as a mere escape, because they don't want to have their own beliefs challenged.
But like the arts, sports are part of culture, and culture encompasses everything from religion to politics to fashion and food. It's all of a piece. And you know what? The irony is the public likes it that way. The reader is never so engaged -- and, all right, infuriated but also enlightened -- as when we journos connect the dots.
To you and to all those who are fighting the good journalistic fight, I commend you and I wish for your a better vehicle in which to do your fine work.
66
Private equity firms are vultures.
But the part that you (and your fellows who work[ed] at G/O Media) refuse to acknowledge is that vultures generally only go for carrion. And the actions of Gawker/Gizmodo Media over the years, the constant self-inflicted wounds, the insistence to bite the hand that feeds them, had put your family of blogs in a position where the assets were so toxic that only a private equity firm was willing to pony up for them.
You were told to "stick to sports" because your brand had repeatedly demonstrated that they weren't ABLE to cross into the "bigger" picture responsibly.
The Gawker brand had become the media they claimed they despised. They committed all the same sins as the media they scorned. And in the end, they had alienated all the people who could have saved from this fate.
I'm sorry you were fired, Barry... but I'm not sorry for the death of your platform.
Honestly, I say good riddance.
10
@chemiclord Your vultures/carrion metaphor seems to miss the mark for private equity firms.
They care not whether a company is thriving or failing; they care whether there are assets that can be liquidated.
I don't know what the financial health of Gizmodo was, but if Great Hill is acting as a classic Private Equity player, one presumes that there are assets worth liquidating.
On the other hand, if the conspiracy theory is true, we'll soon see the staff of The Onion told to stick to straight news!
6
@Prog54 You can only liquidate assets if someone else finds them valuable enough to purchase. That means a PEG liquidating assets is no more than a middleman. Where are all the suitors you seem to think see tremendous value in Deadspin as it existed in its former incarnation?
@Prog54 My guess is that Great Hill saw media properties with a prior semi-positive reputation, and could turn them into a content churning ad-click-through sort of website. Ya know, like approximately 20,000 other news-aggregate sites that do little but parrot was is already out there for consumption.
These are buy low, sell high sort of attempts; where the upfront cost is fairly little (I recall GHP bought then Gizmodo Media Group for around $30 million, which is a pittance for what the entire Gawker sites were valued at a long time ago).
Make no mistake (and what Petchesky would LOVE to gloss over and for you to forget), but the former Gawker properties were outright TOXIC by the time that Great Hill got their hands on it, and that toxic valuation was due pretty much ENTIRELY due to self-inflicted damage.
They ran their sites into the ground at Mach speed, and now are complaining that vultures are picking the bones clean. Sorry, guys, but you did this to yourselves, and it's hard for me to have much sympathy.
The journalism published on Deadspin over the last decade has been some of the most insightful, clever, informative and poignant writing anywhere, NYT included. The crimes and cover-ups committed at Michigan State and Baylor, the cynical self-dealing of NCAA leadership, the NFL's pathetic tough-guy posturing - these are just a few of the topics that were routinely explored with remarkable nuance, depth and humor at Deadspin. Sports offer a unique perspective into our culture and our time - something that Deadspin writers and editors understood thoroughly. The demise of this website, as Barry Petchesky explains here with characteristic eloquence and poise, is both a tragedy and also entirely predictable consequence of current American-style capitalism.
In a more just world, these writers would be recognized for their immense talents and immediately hired by the Times and other havens for independent journalism so that we could continue to hear and appreciate their voices. This newspaper and its readers would benefit immeasurably from David Roth's insights into our president's psyche, Drew Magary's rants on modern parenting, Diana Moskovitz's determined, brilliant exposure of the inherent sexism of the sports world. But then I remind myself it is 2019, and most likely Deadspin and all of its funny, wonderful takes are gone for good. I'm left just remembering some guys.
202
@Adam Great kinja.
7
1 guy to remember
3
Deadspin was not on my reading list at all, since I follow sports only peripherally. Your article makes me wish I had. You nailed it completely in the last four paragraphs what is happening in so many fields. I look forward to your next venture.
9
David Roth no longer writes for Deadspin, so I will no longer be visiting Deadspin. David Roth was the scarce resource they had, not Words About Sports.
Another example of a company being taken over by business geniuses and promptly just dying for no good reason a few months later. Well done, guys.
6
@Will It's Roth I'll miss the most. Rarely have I seen such a talent at combining nouns and verbs.
3
I hope you and your staff find a more worthy outlet of your brand of journalism. The whole "stick to sports" mantra is ridiculous, and ignores what good journalism stands for.
13
It's all about the money.
3
I miss Deadspin every single day.
33
Panae et circuses.
2
Okay, but please take the fatigues off the coaches.
4
This essay is running in a publication in which, on the whole, sportswriters very much stick to sports, political writers to politics, food writers to food, etc. There is a bit of a disconnect when sportswriters who have no significant training/reporting experience in the political world presume to share their thoughts on very complex issues. People like Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman paid a lot of dues as reporters before anyone let them start opining on important issues. I've always been a bit leery of sportswriters-turned-political commentators who seek to weigh in on matters that are so complex, and who seem to not have the self-scrutiny to see their deficit - their opinions comes from an unnuanced place at best, and at worst comes from the sports frame of mind - opposing teams, definable wins and losses, keeping score, etc. I wonder if any of the Deadspin staff could get work as serious political commentators. I would also worry if Maureen Dowd or Thomas Friedman were covering the Yankees.
13
@Ted
George Will wrote extensively on sports.
Ken Burns, of Civil War and VietNam fame, also made an extensive documentary on Baseball.
The world is not so narrow.
6
Deadspin was a good website.
36
"Private equity" is by definition;
1. Private, answers to no-one.
2. Equity: read Money.
Ergo; it's Money that the few ultrarich control and it seeks more of the same.
Private Equity doesn't "do" anything.
6
Beyond Barry's argument that sports touches the larger world, Deadspin was also simply fun to read, even when it wandered completely outside of the orbit of sports (as it frequently did). I'm not a sports guy at all (like, I've lost the ability to sit through a game, unless it's the once-a-year live event I attend). But, Drew Magary was easily my favorite writer in the G/O lineup, because he was funny and wrote about food, parenting, and the foibles of the modern world as well as sports.
The Concourse essay entitled "The Adults in the Room" (still googlable) really hit the nail on the head - this was a move by people who think they know better, but really don't. The Dunning-Kruger effect + wealth + power = destructive moves like this, and almost everything seems to work this way, these days.
Whether G/O ultimately morphs into something that conforms to Great Hills' vision or fizzles and dies makes no difference to me - they aren't getting my clicks any more.
49
Well said. I miss Deadspin. It's hard losing such a good website seemingly over night. I wish you and the rest of the writes the best.
PS. I'm making Drew's chili for dinner tonight.
16
I wish more people would or could state what seems increasingly obvious: Deadspin (and Splinter) were bought by right-wing interests that would rather burn down a profitable business than allow it to continue publishing non-conservative political content. Because this otherwise makes zero sense as a money-making venture.
You don't bring in former Forbes alums to run a website that regularly posts left-leaning political content. You bring them to shut that kind of content down (while saddling the website with as many ads as a reader's browser can handle and then a few more). And to everybody else's loss, they did that job exceedingly well.
346
@Floydbot There's no evidence that's what happened here. There's a lot of money from the top tier at Great Hill that's gone to Democrats in recent elections. This isn't Peter Thiel suing and bankrupting Gawker because he didn't like them.
There were a series of dumb business decisions that culminated with the entire staff of Deadspin quitting a couple weeks ago. Dumb business decisions don't have to be politically motivated.
13
@Floydbot This has been my thought from the start.
13
@Floydbot that's not the case at all. Petchesky also distorts what Deadspin writers were told: stick to sports or subjects that has something to do with sports. He *would* have been allowed to write about Italian soccer matches and racist fans and about Suzuki at the White House. The memo said exactly that.
The fact that he lies about it waters down all of his claims.
10
While it truly is a sad reflection on the treatment of journalism, as this piece so clearly states, I also mourn the loss of what was also a really entertaining website. Assuming the new owners recognized that Deadspin had a strong viewership, I then can only assume the hardheadedness to not let these professionals continue to do the good work was done for more nefarious reasons. It's odd how some capitalists only seem to believe in a "markets know best" model when it aligns to their beliefs.
162
"Sports" consist of the games that are being played and their outcomes, the individuals and teams playing the games and their won and lost records, plus the business and politics of sports. One can be interested in the games and performance aspect of sports without being interested in the business or political aspect of sports. Most fans of professional sports are interested in the former and pay to watch them because of the former, not the latter. There is plenty of room for media outlets that cover the former and not the latter, vice versa or both. It is up to the owner of the media outlet to decide which aspect of sports it wants to cover.
6
@Jay Orchard And one can also be interested in the "big picture." There are many parents, for example, who encourage their children to become professional athletes because they see it as a ticket to a big paycheck.
Providing information about the tradeoffs one must make as a professional athlete, and the way big money rules the sports teams is valuable and vital information.
I don't think the author was arguing that the owner couldn't or shouldn't dictate what the outlet covers.
He is pointing out that Deadspin has now changed, and in his opinion, it's for the worse.
Perhaps in another year, we will see how the new, improved, "only-sports" Deadspin is faring.
12
@Jay Orchard yes but there are dozens of outlets which already offer the statistical reporting of on-field exploits. Petchesky's central question is why, from all these options, GHP chose to buy Deadspin and force its otherwise unique reporting into that mold. Would it not have been easier to buy a different outlet which already "stuck to sports"?
48
@Jay Orchard Sure, you can have a site that just recaps that day's games. That would be a very boring site, and certainly not Deadspin. Deadspin was popular because it was so much more than that.
64
"stand for something or fall for everything" I appreciate what you and your staff have done Barry. I look forward to reading your work again soon.
Thanks!
Todd
327
@Todd I think sports writing may in fact be something other than journalism.
Of the 800-plus Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism awarded since the early 1900s, only 3 were awarded (in the Commentary category) to sports writers, the last in 1990.
Further, of the 31 past and current categories within the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism, sports writing is not included.
1