Too Big To Fail?

Americans are comfortable with a little bit of corruption.  It almost is like we have grown to accept that it is just going to happen and we just need to deal with it.  We have lived through so many different scandals that we have developed a very cynical nature.  There have been so many movies based on government conspiracies that I would wager most Americans believe that there is always some level of conspiracy going on.  It's just how it is.

There are two instances where Americans will no longer deal silently with corruption.  The first is when it starts to affect our life - especially our wallet.  As long as it is someone else's problem, it isn't a problem.  But when it becomes my problem, then we have a problem.  We had an animal living in the pond behind our house.  Well, we have a lot of animals living out there: turtles, fish, ducks, Canadian geese.  But we had this weird animal out there.  I would see it swimming along from time to time.  It looked like a beaver.  I would see it slithering through and diving under the lily pads.  I found out from some of my outdoorsy friends that it was a nutria - basically a giant river rat.  I liked watching it.  Well, one of my neighbors didn't think it was such a cute animal.  Apparently its activities were infringing on my neighbor's happiness.  The rat would come up into the lady's yard and eat her plants.  It would gnaw on the wooden wall constructed to keep water out of the yard.  And the leftovers from its snacks was clogging up our spillway, causing flooding in that yard.  To me, it wasn't an issue.  My yard has a very steep incline, so flooding is not a problem.  I have a fence around my yard, so the rat wasn't going to come up on my property.  But this lady starting making a stink.  She had a few other homeowners on her side due to garden and flooding damage.  She brought it before the HOA Board (which we both are on) and wanted us to pay to have the eradication done.  On top of it all, she was all weird about the animal being killed - which we all knew would be the outcome.  It was going to cost $800 to clear the pond.  I asked how much it cost for a box of bullets.  She didn't appreciate that suggestion.  Now it became my problem.  I didn't want the HOA to spend hundreds of dollars to pull this animal out.  It wasn't bothering me, personally.  I didn't even realize it was a problem at all.   (Things have a funny way of working themselves out.  The rat got run over by a car a couple of weeks later ... before we paid to clear the pond.  I had nothing to do with it.  Promise.)

This is kind of how we approach corruption in the US.  It isn't my problem.  It isn't hurting me.  Don't rock the boat.  But if it encroaches on my comfort, all heck breaks loose.  Look at the investment banking scandal of a few years ago.  Or the Enron/big business scandal.  Or the subprime mortgage collapse.  Or the automaker fiasco.  Those issues had been bubbling for years.  Was anyone surprised that financial advisors were cheating?  I doubt that.  What year did Wall Street come out?  We had been through all of this before, just with different financial elements.  Instead of junk bonds it was Ponzi schemes.  Was the subprime mortgage problem a shock?  How could it be?  How long could banks hand out mortgages to people who couldn't afford to pay for them before the process collapsed?  We know in the back of our minds that things are not always above board with companies, governments, industries, celebrities.  But we turn a blind eye and convince ourselves things may be different this time.  Until it interferes with our life.

The other instance were corruption gets us riled up is when it become blatant.  This is kind of a corollary of the first instance.  Instead of it interfering with our wallets or our lives, it interferes with our comfort.  It makes us feel embarrassed and awkward.   How could we have let this go on?  It makes us look bad.  We frequently see this with celebrities.  We cut actors, musicians, "reality" stars a lot of slack in our country.  It is like we know that they are going to make questionable choices and we are fine with that, as long as it is kept quiet.  If they want to smoke weed, that's fine.  Just don't do it in a park.  If they want to do lines of coke in the bathroom at the Chateau Marmont, that's fine.  Just don't film it and post it on Twitter.  If they want to run a dog fighting ring, so be it.  Just don't advertise the fights.  When those private foibles become public scandals, we throw our hands up in mock indignation.  "How could they do this?!?"  What we are really asking is "how could they be so blatant in their stupidity?"

If you don't think this is accurate, I want you to think back a few years to the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal.  Vick was going along as a maddeningly erratic and fragile quarterback when we all started to hear about his involvement in a dog-fighting ring.  There were the usual denials, followed by proof of the existence of the ring.  Vick got arrested, tried, and imprisoned for his role in the whole thing.  During the whole process, we heard about how this is a cultural issue.  In the culture that Vick grew up, dog fighting was an acceptable practice.  Vick didn't know that it was a problem.  But it went public and we all went crazy.  Now, think about this.  In the years since Vick's dog fighting ring went public, how many dog fighting rings have you heard about being broken up by the cops?  With the amount of public outrage over Vick's crimes, you would think dog fighting is completely detestable in our country.  And in the dialogue, we kept hearing about how this was cultural - meaning that there are more of these rings going on right now.  Thinking back to how people wanted Vick banned for life from the NFL and imprisoned for a hundred years, shouldn't we have formed some kind of task force to uncover and shut down these dog fighting rings?  We know they are out there, right?  Why aren't there federal agents played by a young Kevin Costner busting into warehouses and backyards across the country, leading dozens of people into paddy wagons?  It isn't happening because it isn't blatantly in our face any more.  It slinked back into the shadows and we left it alone.  As long as Amanda Bynes isn't hurling phones and bongs out of hotel windows, Charlie Sheen isn't showing up drunk for interviews, Justin Bieber isn't racing his silver rocket car through rush hour traffic, these people can be crazy all they want.  Just don't embarrass us with your crazy.  Don't get your crazy on me.  As long as your favorite NCAA team keeps its player payments, arrests, and false test scores quiet, it is fine.  But if it becomes blatant, the team gets blistered.

All of this has come to mind as I observe the NFL.  The National Football League is a mammoth industry that generates gobs of money.  Its influence is not just felt in cities with teams, although those cities certainly do benefit a great deal.  Its presence on television brings huge ratings and advertising dollars to those channels.  Hundreds of companies are intertwined with the NFL: restaurants (McDonald's), soda companies (Pepsi), shoe companies (Nike), computer companies (Lenovo, Microsoft), pizza companies (Papa John's).  It goes on and on.  The NFL took in $1.07 billion from sponsorships last year.  The last television contract was for $8 billion.  That included CBS paying $275 million for the rights to simulcast Thursday night NFL games along with the NFL Network.  They don't have any exclusive rights.  Think about this - CBS is the number one network on television.  On Thursday night they already had the number one comedy show on television.  But they were willing to juggle their entire schedule for the right to run games that were already being shown on another network.  The NFL is enormous.

The spillover effect of the NFL leaves its mark on college and high school athletics.  As technological, medical, and pharmaceutical breakthroughs find success in the NFL, they work their way down the chain.  The same goes for game planning.  And for coaching techniques.  And for desired athlete qualities.  Yes, some things work their way back up the chain like the Nike and Under Armor uniforms from Oregon and Maryland or the wildcat formation.  But for every one innovation that swims upstream, a hundred flow back down.  As the offensive linemen in the NFL got larger and faster, that desirability moved down through the ranks.  As quarterbacks needed to become more mobile, that quality was harvested from below.  In addition to qualities trickling down, so did behavior.  The NFL players make a lot of high risk, high reward plays.  Defensive backs would launch themselves at wide receivers.  Kick coverage teams fly around with reckless abandon.  Running backs put their heads down and bull forward.  Soon college and then high school players began to play the same way.

Through all of this, doctors were concerned about the overall health of younger football players.  Only 6 percent of high school senior players will play in college.  Only 1.7 percent of college seniors will get drafted by the NFL.  That means 0.08% of high school players will ever make it to the NFL.  Out of every 1,000 high school players, not even one will make it to the NFL.  But that allure keeps players striving and aiming to be that one in a thousand.  So, even though there are numerous health risks, players keep going.  Offensive lineman pack on weight to reach the right size, even though they don't do it the right way and are really just massively obese.  Young teens start weight training before doctors would advise that practice.  These students tear up their knees, ankles, backs and doom themselves to a lifetime of pain.  They sow the seeds of drug addictions by using painkillers at a disturbing rate - in addition to other pills like amphetamines and steroids.

Then there is the risk of concussions.  Actually, it shouldn't even be called a risk anymore.  It has basically crossed the line to an occupational hazard.  The numbers are horrifying.  I've talked about concussions before on this blog and there is a ton of research out there telling the truth about concussion dangers.  Players get into dozens of collisions every game that are equivalent to a car crash.  Some players estimate that they get into two to three plays per game that ring their bells and possibly give them a minor concussion.  More and more players are talking about how they already have memory loss.  Bret Favre, who has only been out of the game for a couple years, said he routinely forgets where he is or why he went there.  Former players are committing suicide at an alarming rate.  There are massive health repercussions from ALS to depression to Alzheimer's.

Now we are facing the specter of domestic violence as well.  Ray Rice punches his fiancee out in an elevator and gets suspended for two games.  The NFL reconsidered its punishment after the country lost its collective mind once the video footage hit the airwaves.  Rice's lawyer has complained this is the NFL equivalent of double jeopardy, being tried for the same crime twice.  They actually have some valid arguments there.  There is just too much evidence that the Baltimore Ravens and the NFL knew the extent of Rice's actions and covered it up.  So because they got busted and went into damage control mode, Rice got his contract terminated and his ability to play in the NFL revoked.  Adrian Peterson, one of the biggest stars in the league, beat his four year old son so savagely that he had a dozen open lacerations on his body.  I won't say he disciplined his son because this goes far beyond discipline.  I have kids and understand the concept of punishment.  I also have seen discipline that crossed the line when I was a child.  Peterson was not just punishing his son; he was taking out his anger and frustration on him.  He obviously was not in control in that moment.  And it makes me wonder how many other times that had happened.

At the same moment all of this was happening, several other players were being charged with domestic violence crimes.  The owner of the Dallas Cowboys was being investigated for sexual impropriety - which was largely brushed off because the statute of limitations had expired.  As I watched the reactions of America, it was like it couldn't decide what to do.  This level of corruption and horrific behavior usually would have triggered our offense mechanisms.  But something stopped that.  It was like the fact that it was football and we all love football halted us from going further.  We got angry about Ray Rice and he was punished.  But it stopped there.  Some people were angry about Peterson, but others defended him because it fell under "corporal punishment" and no one wants to step on that issue.  He was deactivated for one game while the investigation started.  But the Vikings actually reinstated him for the next week before a bunch of people lost their minds and the team reconsidered.  In the midst of all of this, the commissioner understandably came under fire for his gross ineptitude.  He scrambled and danced in his press conference and managed to deflect the anger.

To be completely honest, I am fed up with all of it.  I am angry.  I have loved football as long as I have known about sports.  I have great memories watching football: Sunday afternoons with my dad, Super Bowl parties, UCF games, Jaguar games.  But I have reached a breaking point.  This year, I have watched very little football.  I have opportunities.  Last night I was sitting on the couch watching TV and flipping over to the game never entered my mind.  I shuttered my fantasy football league this year that I had run for over a decade.  This isn't just a busy dad finding other things to do.  This year should be the year I want to see the NFL the most.  My favorite team (the Jaguars) drafted a UCF player (Blake Bortles) who is now their starting quarterback.  I know his mom.  She taught both of my sons in preschool.  I remember him as a middle schooler.  I should be glued to the tv during the season.  But I just can't.

I'm not the only one that feels this way.  My favorite sportswriter is Bill Simmons.  I have read his stuff since he first got signed by ESPN.  I love his writing style and his passion for sports.  But I also love the fact that he is a fan first.  He is irate over all of this.  He has been attacking commissioner Goodell for his role in these scandals.  Finally Simmons snapped on a podcast and went off on the commissioner.  He called him a liar - something that the media almost universally has agreed upon.  The end result?  ESPN suspended Simmons for three full weeks without pay.  What!?!  A media member has been questioning the NFL for weeks and finally says what many fans are thinking.  And he gets suspended?  For three weeks!!!  To recap, Ray Rice was originally suspended for two weeks for punching his fiancee so hard she fell backwards and got knocked unconscious.  Then he dragged her out of the elevator like a sack of flour.  Two weeks.  Stephen A Smith, another ESPN personality who is a complete idiot, got suspended for one week for basically saying not to judge Ray Rice too quickly and that the fiancee "may have had it coming."  One week.  Adrian Peterson was originally suspended for one week for savagely beating his four year old.  The other domestic cases originally had no suspensions.  Mike Tirico, another ESPN turd, has been accused of several instances sexual impropriety with no suspensions.  Jerry Jones, owner of the Cowboys, was accused of sexual impropriety with no suspension.  Bill Simmons, tired of all of this bull, went off and was suspended for three weeks.  Why?  Because ESPN is the biggest partner of the NFL and pays $1.7 billion a year to show Monday Night Football.  The NFL told ESPN to get Simmons under control.  You don't believe that happened?  There is precedent.  Years ago, ESPN ran an original series entitled Playmakers that was supposedly based on the NFL.  There was drug use, rape, racism, homophobia.  The NFL threatened to pull out of their relationship with ESPN if the show wasn't cancelled.  Boom.  The show is gone.

I don't get it.  The NFL makes a giant deal about women's issues in October for breast cancer awareness month.  It is the only time players can wear non-uniform elements, as long as they are pink.  But there are players beating up their girlfriends, fiancees, and wives and the NFL does nothing.  And we, as viewers, seem shocked.  Why?  These guys are hopped up on so many supplements and chemicals.  They are in a culture where rage and lack of control is encouraged on the playing field.  How long did we think it would take before that spilled over into their homes?  Didn't professional wrestling teach us anything?  Look at the number of former wrestlers who have died early, committed suicide, attacked their significant others.  One of the saddest stories was Chris Benoit.  He was considered a good guy.  Then he killed his wife, his son, and himself.  Why?  Depression, concussion damage, steroid damage.  "Well that's an extreme case!"  Really?

December 2012.  Kansas City, Missouri.  Twenty-two year old Kansas City Chief player, Javon Belcher, drives to the Chief's facilities.  He shoots himself in front of the head coach and general manager.  It turns out he had murdered his girlfriend earlier.  His body was exhumed last year and last week we found out that his brain showed evidence of CTE - the damage caused by concussions that causes people to lose their memories and control of themselves.  He was 22.  Look at the erratic behavior exhibited by NFL players.  Donte Stallworth is speeding and strikes and kills a man in Miami.  Ray Lewis (doesn't) stab a man to death in a parking lot.  Plaxico Burress shoots himself in the leg.  Josh Gordon keeps failing drug tests.  Jonathan Martin and Richie Icognito have the most unhealthy and bizarre friendship ever, complete with accusations of bullying and racism.  Jadaveon Clowney gets busted for driving over 100 mph down Interstate 77 twice in a week.  There is a laundry list of this stuff.  How long until this boils over?  How long until the corruption is actually bad enough to make us do something?  It is already blatant.  It is already out of control.  But I guess it hasn't affected us personally enough yet.

In 1991 there was a movie that came out called The Last Boy Scout.  It starred Damon Wayans, Bruce Willis, and Halle Berry.  It wasn't a very good movie.  It took place in the world of professional football with Wayans as a pro player and Willis as a detective or something.  There were tons of scenes that hinted at the excesses in the NFL: drugs, sex, money, ignoring injuries.  But one scene has always stuck with me.  It was one of the opening scenes.  A player was taking back a kickoff and pulled out a gun and started shooting the would-be tacklers until he scored and then shot himself.  It came out that this player was in deep with gambling debts and he felt he had to score to keep his family safe.  I thought that was ridiculous.  What player would shoot other players on the field like that?  Less than 25 years later, would you honestly be that shocked if something like that actually happened?  Chances are, it would be stunning.  But not shocking.  That should show you there is a problem.  If a sport actually has fostered an environment where a murder on the field would not be spin-your-head crazy, that sport is out of control.  My question is if that possible tragedy would even be enough to take down the NFL.

Analyze this

With the kids back at school, I have been able to return to the world of sports radio and television. I don't sit there all day and watch a never ending stream of ESPN shows, mind you. I abandoned the Worldwide Leader years ago when it was apparent that what they considered sports coverage was some combination of loud-mouthed ignorant hosts arguing with each other. Instead, I usually have the Dan Patrick Show running on the radio or NBC Sports network while I am working. No matter where you get your sports coverage, one thing that is startlingly clear within a matter of days is just how much critical analysis has become the dominant source of content. This isn't analysis like Trent Dilfer may offer on ESPN, where he is breaking down plays and coverages. This is just plain criticism passing as journalism. It isn't limited to sports, either. I would wager that more words of criticism are written across the interwebs each day than any other tone. 

You see it in entertainment coverage, sports coverage, news coverage, food coverage, fashion, celebrity, travel - even religion.  Gone are the days of the simple reporting of facts or investigative journalism. Everything now has to have an editorial attached. One of the biggest examples of this was when CNN switched their sports provider from Sports Illustrated to Bleacher Report. SI is a (somewhat) respectable old school sports journalistic entity. Bleacher Report is basically a sports blog. Every article they write ends with some kind of editorial statement. Some of them are wildly out of place and unnecessary. But there they are. It is almost like the news outlets are worried we won't know what to do with the information they are providing us. So they also have give us the stance we should take now that we have the news. 

Look at political speeches. Some political entity will get on television and give a fifteen minute speech. Then the networks will run two hours of commentary breaking down and criticizing what that person said. And with the rise of Twitter, we don't even have to wait until the speech is over. We can start sending out our analysis as soon as the person hits the stage. "What a weasel." "What is that tie supposed to mean?" "How can this guy get elected when he mispronounces mujaheddin?"  

Slip back into the sports world for a moment. After last college football season, it was the unanimous opinion among sports people that Jadaveon Clowney would be the first pick in last year's draft. There was even spirited discussions about if he should sit out this season to make sure he didn't get injured like his old teammate Marcus Lattimore. He was the best player in college football, we were told. He is unstoppable, they said. It was like every college football expert was tripping over each other to join some insane Clowney posse. (No groaning, you should expect that by now people.) Living in Columbia, we have gotten more than enough coverage of Clowney. My twelve year old son, who could care less about football, wanted to watch the first game and came home telling jokes involving Clowney. (Why is six afraid of seven? Clowney) Two games into the season? USA Today had a headline this week asking if Clowney had already slipped in the draft. Sports outlets have already switched to debating just how overrated this out of shape wannabe is. The Gamecocks still have 10-12 games remaining this year. And he's washed up after just two?

Think about the news of Ben Affleck's casting as Batman. How much ink and web space was devoted to criticizing that choice? I clearly remember this uproar over Michael Keaton being cast. And Christian Bale being cast. And Heath Ledger being cast as Joker. In fact, the person who was the least criticized for being cast as Batman was George Clooney, who was so bad he has apologized for his role. Affleck is an Oscar winner for screenwriting and producing. He has been nominated as an actor. This isn't Zac Efron or Ashton Kutcher being cast here. We don't have any footage, any pictures, any script yet. But people have eviscerated the choice.  

So what, you may wonder. In fact, you may be waiting for me to be done to criticize me. I think there are several problems. First, being so critical all the time is a horrible way to live. It poisons your thought processes to where you start to find the worst in everything instead of the best. Think about if you go to a restaurant with a positive outlook. Let's say you know the owner or you're on a date. You will praise the things you like and overlook the things you dislike, unless the whole experience is a complete disaster. Maybe the chicken was a little dry. But the appetizers were great and the dessert rocked. You will probably walk out happy and see the experience as positive. If you go in angry and wondering if this dump will be any good, well, it will more than likely bring you down - no matter how good it is. 

Second, we get an overinflated view of our importance when we become full time critics. "People HAVE TO know what I'm thinking!"  It is like the universe is holding its breath to hear what we think of the new Harry Potter movies or Kate Winslet's dress. Since the Internet allows us to be anonymous in our criticisms. We can write rude things about an athlete who could tear our heads off in real life. We can say things about people we never would say to someone's face. Would you ever walk up to Ben Affleck and tell him he is going to suck as Batman? Would you tell the president to his face you think he is a jerk? Would you look an actress up and down and say she looks like a cow?  Of course not. But online, behind our screen names, we can be as cruel as we want. It makes us feel like we have power over those people, because we can cut them down. They may have the fame, money, and power we wish we had. But, dang it, we can be rotten on Facebook about them. We start to believe we are above the rules of common courtesy. We are superior to all those people who disagree with us. That's hardly a healthy view of things. 

The last reason I have to avoid the cult of criticism is something I realized yesterday in an unusual place. We fail to see the beauty of the "big picture" when we start to pick on and at everything. Last night one of my very favorite shows ended. We have been watching Burn Notice on USA since the end if season two. We caught up on the first two seasons quickly and have been avid viewers for five years. The show is far from perfect. It had had its ups and downs and its share of ludicrous story lines. It suffered from the entertainment trap of "too many layers of bad guys," where each conspiracy unveils another deeper layer. This season was much darker and different from the other ones. Instead of helping someone every week while constantly pursuing the bad guys behind the curtain, the team was kind of out to save their own skins. They were doing one job all season, only to stay out of prison themselves. They had to partner with slimy government agents to take down slimier bad guys. The problem came when the slime line wasn't so clear. Our honorable hero, Michael Westen, went so far under cover it looked like he wouldn't and couldn't come out. It was easy to pick on the season. Some episodes were frustrating. They weren't bad. But they were different. And that was hard. But as they tied all the pieces together, it culminated in one of the best series finales I have ever seen. Michael ended his quest the only way possible for a man like him. There were major sacrifices made - ones that were heartbreaking to see come to pass. But I couldn't have asked for a better ending after so many years invested in the show. 

So often we forget the big picture. We can be so critical of each quarter, half, and game that we miss out on the complete season or career. We get upset about a role being cast and miss out on the overall direction of the movie franchise. Think about the Avengers movie franchise. People griped about Robert Downey Jr being cast as Iron Man. It was originally supposed to be Tom Cruise. How stupid would that be in retrospect?  People were unhappy about just about everyone cast in the Avengers series, except Samuel L Jackson. But the movie itself was brilliant. The complete effort made sense. Imagine if the Internet existed when Michelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel. Would there be constant online whine and cheese fests over each panel?  "I can't believe he painted Jeremiah that way!!!  Omg!"  Would Lincoln or Reagan stood up to the constant news influx and the age of twitter?  Doubtful. Personally, I also think of the Bible and how people get hung up on battles over tiny passages while missing the whole story. It is often quite detrimental to be so obsessed with the parts that we miss the completed project. 

I know that I have battled a critical spirit in my own life. I have been labelled by many people as a negative person, with one minister telling me in junior high that I was "the most negative person he ever met." (That felt good.)  I will admit that I have been negative a lot and I still can easily fall back into that. I also like to analyze movies, restaurants, music, sermons, tv shows, and books more than most people. I like to think about them and critique them (which is not the same thing as criticizing them.) A critic doesn't have to be critical. We can examine a thing and judge it without bringing an acidic attitude into the process. What is our reason for that analysis? Is it to help people or ourselves? Is it to make ourselves feel better and tear others down? Is it to stir up issues and brings readers to our blog or twitter account? Are we being fair and allowing people to present the completed work before we tear it to shreds?  Maybe it would be helpful to turn that highly trained analytical eye inward for a spell to make sure we are doing things right first, and doing them for the right reason. It may give us a richer view of things were we aren't constantly tearing them apart. 

Vicious

You know how sometimes something just sits there in the base of your brain for months? And out of nowhere a minor event just kind of triggers it to become a big issue? That's kind of what I'm dealing with right now with the "New Media." I'm not sure if all of you know what I'm talking about. Over the last few years, the Old Media (newspapers, television news) has slowly been giving way to New Media (bloggers, social networking, YouTube, live news updates via twitter). We have seen major news outlets just shut down, due to their eroding readership and income.

What has stepped into that void is the New Media. They have become the de facto news source for many people. For a large number, this is an upgrade since this new source is more "honest" and less restrained by corporate influence or political bias. It is more relatable since it is not written by stuffy academics who don't live in the real world. On the flip side, this New Media also has virtually no accountability at all. You can say whatever you want in a blog or on a facebook post and no one can do anything about it. If you pulled that stuff in a newspaper or on a news broadcast, you would get sued for libel.

So, now TMZ is considered a legitimate news source, frequently quoted by mainstream news outlets. It, in reality, is a gossip site. But they have tons of contributors, so they can get places that ABC can't. They also can accuse people of all kinds of stuff that isn't verified, since they aren't "mainstream media." Take the Carrie Prejean case - the former Miss California whose personal religious beliefs came under fire by Perez Hilton (another New Media maven). She has gone rounds with the Miss USA group, swapping lawsuits. Last week, all the lawsuits were mysteriously settled. No one knew what exactly caused the quick settlement, until TMZ announced it was the appearance of a sex tape of Prejean. Everyone went, "Oh, okay. Now we understand." Every single story I saw mentioned how TMZ verified the tape's existence. When did TMZ become a legitimate source? They also played the same role when Erin Andrews of ESPN was victim of a peeping tom this summer - verifying the tape.

So there is now this parasitic relationship between Old Media and New Media. The traditional sources of news are relying on the newer ones frequently for news and verification of stories. They also know that many younger people actually trust TMZ more than CBS - or believe Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert over Brian Williams of NBC. [Most young people have no clue that the larger players in "New Media" are owned by "Old Media" companies, anyway. Fox owns MySpace. Google owns YouTube. NBC owns Hulu.]

Here's my problem. Bias is always going to exist in media. You cannot report a story without your perspective playing a part. And all news outlets play the "yellow journalism" game every day - playing up shocking stories over boring stories. Take a look at CNN.com some time. They always push the more scintillating stories up the chart. Why? Money. They get paid by advertisers for clicks. And there is more money in clicks on pages further into a website. CNN may get 5 cents for an ad view on page one, but get 20 cents for an ad view three levels in. So they want to drive people further into their site. So they push the crazy stories. All websites do this. It's how newspapers ran for decades - push the big nutty story because people want to read it.

Well, in New Media, there is a different bias also prevalent. It is viciousness. There is an ugly edge to these sites. Some of it is that they writers and editors are people who were shunned by mainstream media sources. Maybe they weren't good enough or popular enough. Maybe the didn't get hired, or they didn't get the degree they needed. Now they are going to take it out on the big dogs. They are relentless in their criticism of people in leadership or in the public eye. But it isn't just criticism trying to make change. It is just vicious attacks - lashing out to hurt or to make the attacker feel better. And it even happens when one of these New Media types reaches a level of success - they become targets as well. Every movie, book, television show, comic book, album that comes out faces acerbic commentary. Entertainers have to deal with dozens of sites ripping into them in a mean-spirited fashion. If I had to come up with one word for the tone of the Internet, it would be sardonic -- bitterly and mockingly sarcastic.

One example is Deadspin.com. This is a site that is supposed to "cover sports coverage." It was created to talk about the sports coverage out there - like ESPN, CBS, etc. The site, first of all, is owned by Gawker Media - which also owns a lot of very unsavory sites. But it has a very nasty edge to it. A couple weeks ago, ESPN personality Steve Phillips found himself in a big problem where his mistress went psycho and told his wife that they were together. When Deadspin confronted ESPN to validate the rumor, the Worldwide Leader denied everything. Then it hit the newspapers everywhere. Deadspin got furious at ESPN for withholding info. So they went into attack mode - and they started airing unsubstantiated rumors about multiple ESPN personalities and executives. They outed affairs and behaviors. All because they got scooped on a story.

How is that responsible? How can that level of viciousness be okay for a "news outlet." Deadspin hides behind the fact that they are a glorified blog. But shouldn't there be some responsibility? Another example is with Bill Simmons - ESPN's most popular writer. Simmons himself circumvented the usual process of getting hired. He started his own sports blog in Boston. Finally, he got to be so popular that ESPN hired him. Now he is a massively successful writer and media person. His articles get more hits than any other sportswriter. His podcast is the most listened to sports podcast in America. He just wrote a second book - The Book of Basketball - that hit #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction chart. He has reached a level of huge success. Instead of being happy for him - a regular guy who made good - he has become a major target of places like Deadspin and bloggers everywhere. They relentlessly ridicule him. They slam his characteristic writing style. They rip into his love for Boston sports. Personally, I think it is because they are all jealous.

I like Simmons. He is one of my writers that I read all the time. I bought his book the week it came out and I love it. It is a very thorough and entertaining look at basketball. But he gets ripped constantly about his book signings or his "selling out" or his opinions. I don't like everything he writes - his morals and mine are light years apart. And, sure, I think he is a little hung up on himself. But this is a guy who worked hard and made his dream come true. He's doing well and creating very enjoyable stuff. So, naturally, he deserves to be tormented and hated.

I write a blog (actually I have three). I use Facebook and Twitter. You could say I am a "New Media" member, since I don't have a journalism degree but still write my opinions out there. I write books for Defender Ministries, even though they are not put out by a mainstream publisher. I hope to circumvent some of the traditional methods for a writer - especially a religious writer. But I hope I never reduce myself to the level where I would be so vicious and hateful. I try hard to make sure I don't go over the top. Yes, I have written things in my blogs that I would never say to someone's face - like Michael Vick, Alex Rodriguez, Billy Donovan, Ronald McDonald. I just don't think I have ever been vicious out of jealousy or spite. And, quite frankly, I can't stand reading things with that bent. I fear that this mentality is only going to get worse. The more popular these sites become, the more they are validated. Unfortunately, that means the mindset becomes acceptable as well. It doesn't make for a pleasant or beneficial experience for anyone.

Trouble in Tally

I wrote this for my fantasy football site after USF humiliated FSU last week. In light of the defeat at the hands of Boston College, I decided to post it on my blog, too. Being up in Tallahassee for this football season, I am paying attention more to the Seminoles. I'm not able to keep up as well with UCF as I wish, so I have to settle for FSU.

And settle really is the right word for it. It really made me wonder what is going on up here. Leading up to the USF/FSU game, there was a lot of smack talk between the USF and FSU camps. It sounded like a little brother mouthing off to big bro - with the older sibling about to drop a Big Stinky Leg Drop on the little punk. But it turned out that the little guy had been doing HGH and Steroid cycles while gone to college and the big guy had been doing keg stands. So there was a beating, but not what anyone expected. The game wasn't even as close as the score indicated. Remember USF missed two field goals and one of FSU's scores was a result of a micro-field.

What made it all even worse - and something echoed by the announcers on ESPN U (where U is for Ubvious Uverstatement) to the point of nausea - was that all of the damage was done by a quarterback who grew up in Tallahassee and idolized FSU. The question that stems from that is something FSU seriously must address - but probably won't. HOW IN THE HECK DID THAT HAPPEN? How did B.J. Daniels end up whipping FSU instead of playing for them? As I kept hearing the announcers mention this fact, I really began to wonder. What caused arguably the most dominant team in college football in the 90s to degrade to this point? This is the same team that went 14 years straight finishing in the top five. Who does that? Now, they can't even string two good games together.

I have a couple of theories (which, honestly don't mean jack crap). First of all, FSU has completely lost its recruiting abilities. I know, they signed five of the ESPN Top 150 last year. But I looked at some stuff over the weekend and found out something interesting. Florida is the best supplier of high school players, period. 25 of the ESPN Top 150 were from Florida. The next closest is Texas (19), Georgia (16), and Kahleefornyuh (15). So it really isn't even close. This has been the case for a LOOOOOOONG time. Florida is chock full of speed and talent. Once upon a time, there were three major Florida schools. They would divide up the best of the Florida booty. Things have changed, though. I went through the rosters of the nine biggest football programs in Florida (UF, FSU, UM, USF, UCF, FIU, FAU, FAMU, BCC). Most of the smaller schools have now pilfered the Florida ranks (except for UCF, who recruits like it is a nationally known school - but it is NOT). Here's what I found:

• USF - 91.7% Florida players
• BCC - 91.6% Florida players
• FAU - 89.5% Florida players
• FIU - 85.8% Florida players
• FAMU - 83.5% Florida players
• UCF - 68.7% Florida players
• UM - 66.7% Florida players
• UF - 63.1% Florida players
• FSU - 52.8% Florida players

Combined, that adds up to 691 players, if you are curious. Do you notice something strange about that chart? I can understand the big difference between the first five and the bottom four. The first five are newer and smaller programs, so they are reduced to pulling from their backyard. That is what happens all over the country. The other four teams (yeah, UCF too) are more nationally known. They have been around longer, have larger campuses, more national coverage. (Remember UCF has had two top 5 Heisman finishers, three bowl appearances, and is the largest school in Florida.) So they can pull from the best of the country. That is why UF, UM, UCF, and FSU have smaller percentages. BUT, once you hit a certain point, doesn't the number start to mean something more? I mean, you are in Florida. You are nationally known with great facilities. You have a legend as a coach. How can you only get 56 state kids? I mean, South Carolina has 22 from Florida. The pool has been depleted, for sure, thanks to the higher number of suitors. (Not to mention Michigan, Georgia, Illinois, Auburn, Ole Miss, Georgia Tech, NC State, Boston College, Notre Dame, Mississippi State, and Ohio State all have between 10 and 20 Florida boys.) I just think that FSU's luster has worn off in-state. There is no reason to be that inept at recruiting in your backyard. That's how B.J. Daniels escapes.

The other main thing is that FSU is killing itself with its refusal to make a coaching change. Everyone knows that Bobby Bowden is not the coach of that team. Jimbo Fisher is the coach. Bobby is a guy in a sun hat and Oakleys wandering on the sideline wondering where his sandwich is. This can't be positive. The players have to be torn. In the Miami game, there was one point where Bowden and Fisher both were trying to talk to one of the players. The youngster looked confused and then went over to Fisher. The only ONLY reason that Bowden is still there is that he wants to beat Paterno. FSU finally got smart and put some "Associate Head Coaches" in place, like Penn State did. But Bowden (and his supporters in the Boosters) still hold too much sway. The game has passed him by - as well as Mickey Andrews and other St. Bobby staff guys. FSU really just needs to gut the coaching staff. They need to fire everyone (Fisher included, who I have not been impressed with at all). Then they need to dangle a truckload of money at some brilliant coach and say, "Here are the keys. Fix it." And not someone out of the "FSU Family." Someone who knows what they are doing.

See, the new coaches like Urban Meyer don't give a rat's tail about who ends up at the top of the all-time win chart. They don't plan on staying anywhere long enough to get a field named after them. They are going to jump into the pros or the broadcasting booth anyway. They are hired guns. Very effective, potent, intelligent guns. They have mastered the new recruiting world (texts, tweets, cell phones). It isn't about sitting in a living room and convincing mama any more. It is impressing and seducing and relentlessly pursuing. I respect FSU's loyalty - it is so rare now in our world. But it is hurting that program. The victory over FSU was huge to USF - they are going to have an even better recruiting edge now, more respect, blah blah blah. But it was huge to FSU because it showed them they aren't the big dog any more. In reality, there is UF in the top tier. FSU, UM, USF are in the next tier. UCF, FAU, and FIU are nipping at their heels. It isn't the Big Three - it is the Big One and the Next Six. FSU had better do something, or they are going to be destined to 7-5 seasons and being home before New Year.

Air

Tonight, the NBA will induct its latest class into the Basketball Hall of Fame. David Robinson (always one of my favorite players), John Stockton (always one of my least favorite players), Jerry Sloan (disliked also, but a great coach). All are worthy candidates. But this really is the Michael Jordan show.

It kind of is appropriate that it is this way. When Jordan was playing, he was such a force that the rest of the league actually paled by comparison. Robinson was tremendous, but didn't really come into his own until Jordan was retired and Duncan joined the squad. Stockton and Sloan both saw what could be a dynasty in Utah squelched by Jordan's Bulls - forcing them to be the NBA equivalent of the Buffalo Bills. Chris Robinson wrote a tremendous piece today for ESPN about Robinson - and the kind of person and player he was. It certainly was a compelling argument for why the big guy will have a bigger impact than Jordan. But it also kind of sounded like someone supporting the fourth place candidate in a Presidential primary.

Jordan, plain and simple, was the greatest player. He came along at the perfect time. The NBA was in need of a new icon, with Magic and Bird on the decline. The television and international exposure for the NBA was in its heights. And the new marketing element for players was hitting a new level. Jordan tapped into all of that. He had a winning smile, an attractive face, a highly rewatchable playing style, a great voice, and a willingness to capitalize on all of that. His deal with Nike was revolutionary. No one ever had been that tied to a company. But that was also the deal he had with Gatorade . . . and Hanes . . . and Ball Park franks. He transcended sports. Remember, he was in Space Jam. He captured the imagination.

His play was phenomenal. I remember watching him all the time on television. He hit the NBA about the same time I got interested. I watched his 69 point game against Cleveland in 1990. (The night made even more memorable by Stacey King's epic quote: "I like to think of it as the night that Michael Jordan and I scored 70 points together.") I remember the early years, when he was just a freak on a mediocre team. I remember when the Bulls butt up against the Pistons and their nauseating "beat the crap out of Jordan" approach. I remember when the Bulls finally broke through and won their first three championships.

To someone who has only heard of Jordan from history, or seen replays of him, you cannot possibly understand just how ridonkulous he was live. You were sitting there, watching the other team pull ahead near the end of the game. And you just KNEW. You knew he was going to go on a tear. When he pulls the heart out of the entire city of Cleveland, it was like you KNEW it was coming. He did things on the court that did not seem possible. He would jump and the defender would go up and come down before Jordan would drop. He would fade back until it looked like he would fall over - and the ball would go in. There were at least five "what the what!?!" moments each game.

The Slam Dunk Contests -- they were just crazy. The 1988 contest, where he went up against Dominique Wilkins was just sick. That was the legen - wait for it - dary free throw line dunk where he just kept going up and up and double pumped the ball. I remember just going crazy when I saw that. Then he quit doing the contests. He had nothing left to prove. He had won two titles in a row and should have won in 84 also. And I think that is what hurt the contest for so long - well that and Spud Webb winning.

What made Jordan even more successful than so many people was that he changed his game when necessary. You can shake rims like that and fly forever. As he began to get older, he perfected other areas of his game. One of the greatest pure scorers ever in the NBA became a perennial member of the All Defense Team - and Defensive Player of the Year. The person playing him didn't just get torched for 50 points, but he also got shut down all night. As he had to give up his perpetual lane invasions, he developed an absolutely deadly fade away jump shot - effectively nullifying blocked shots. Think about it - do you remember him getting his shot blocked? I remember a couple of them. You know what happened next? He would relentlessly attack the clown who dared to block him and score the next six baskets off of him until the opposing coach would call a timeout just to give the poor schlub a break.

The competitive nature was also what set him apart. He pushed his teammates. He pushed his coaches. He was the most talented, dedicated, competitive person on the court. He would not allow himself or his team to lose. But, the funny thing is that this is precisely what actually hurt his reputation. For most of his career, Jordan was seen as a clean-cut guy - immensely talented, funny. He was seen as a family man. Even his first retirement was seen as a guy who just didn't feel challenged any more.

But all of that changed as time wore on. His horrendous gambling problem came to light - making people wonder if that first retirement was actually an under-the-table deal with Commissioner Stern to avoid suspension. When his dad was killed, people wondered aloud if it was gambling related. He got divorced. Jordan un-retired twice - the second time was a pathetic effort by a player who should have left his magical ending in place. Instead he came back with the Wizards and just wasn't the same. His foray into team ownership and management has been equally disappointing. He is highly competitive. Which is exactly why so many former teammates hate him, why he is so lousy at being an executive. He has no patience. He wants to WIN. And that is an unquenchable drive. This is why he basically lives on a golf course or casino. Remember when he found out he was being inducted into the Hall, he almost seemed angry or resentful. It was because it meant he was done - and he can't stand losing -- even to the clock and calendar.

It is sad, actually. The perception of Jordan today is hardly what it was. People today can't help but mention all the stuff in the last paragraph when talking about him. Younger people have no idea what exactly he meant to the league, what a phenomenon he was. Everyone tries to christen the "next Jordan" - which actually tarnishes #23's legacy. By trying to push other inferior people into that role, it makes fans who don't know better think that Jordan may only be that good. Kobe, LeBron, Harold Miner. There are numerous pretenders to that title. In reality, I don't know if even Jordan could be the "next Jordan" if he came along today. He would be so over-exposed. It would all seem so planned and orchestrated. People would hate him like so many people hate Kobe or LeBron. They would have a Jordan puppet. He would demand a trade if the Bulls didn't put enough focus on winning. He would toy with the people of Chicago when it came time to re-sign, threatening to go to New Jersey.

Today, though, I was able to spend a few moments remembering what it was like to see someone so incredible. I watched his whole career - from UNC to DC. I could take time to think about all that "other stuff" that clouds the picture. But today, on the induction day, I wanted to remember what it was like to really think that a man could do the impossible. It was good to revisit what, as a kid, it was like to imagine a man could fly and never land. There's plenty of other days to remember that he actually did land.

WEEKEND LIST: 5 MOST ANNOYING SPORTS ANALYSTS

This is one new feature I want to start - the Weekend List.  They may be silly, they may be serious.  But hopefully they will be somewhat interesting and fun.  Here's the first one.

5 MOST ANNOYING SPORTS ANALYSTS

This is kind of a follow-up to my point on the End of the Year Sports list - where I mentioned how ridiculous ESPN had become.  I find myself so irritated by the new face of sports analysis.  Hardly anyone gives true breakdowns any more - they all need to have a gimmick and an angle and a story.  Sometimes, I just want to know the basics without weird sound effects, antagonistic positions, and screaming.  

1 - SKIP BAYLESS - ESPN - Have you ever been around someone who just likes to argue?  They intentionally try to get you going, just so they have something to fight about?  That is Bayless.  He intentionally picks the most asinine position just to start a fight.  And, like most of these goofy analysts, he is adamant he is right.  The problem is, he's never right.  He could not be more wrong.  He could try, but he would not succeed.  Yet ESPN keeps on promoting him and giving him new arenas to mouth off.  This is one of those people who make me wish I were deaf.

2 - COLIN COWHERD - ESPN RADIO - A few years ago, ESPN Radio had the Tony Kornheiser Show around lunch.  I would listen to it every day on my way home to eat.  He left to do other stuff, and they replaced him with Cowherd.  Now, most influential sportswriters are from the Northeast or Chicago - he's from Portland.  He's lived in Seattle, Portland, Vegas.  And he's always touting West Coast everything.  He's arrogant and thinks he is smarter than everyone.  People who don't agree with him are called "mouth breathers" and "rednecks."  He repeats himself all the time.  He is always repeating himself.  But he says the dumbest stuff.  For example, he said every time a Whole Foods Grocery moves into town, every single other grocery store in the area closes down.  Really?  Is that so?  The Publix a half mile away from the only Whole Foods in Orlando would like to say you are, again, wrong.

3 - EMMITT SMITH - ESPN'S FOOTBALL COVERAGE - I loved Emmitt when he was playing for the Cowboys.  And I even wanted him to win Dancing with the Stars.  But when it comes to analyzing football, he is one of the worst I ever heard.  He screws up even simple points.  "He owns the league record for this, and the team record as well."  He is awkward and clumsy.  He goes to prove that just because you can run fast doesn't mean you can think fast.

4 -  AL TRAUTWIG - NBC OLYMPICS - Every time Trautwig is covering an event, it feels like it should be a Lifetime Original Movie.  Every single person has a back story that has to be told.  The event itself has to be so dramatic that we all are in constant suspense.  And, even after years of announcing gymnastics, triathlons, and more, it still seems like he is border-line clueless about the actual rules and specifics of the sport.  There are times I watch the events muted to avoid his schmaltz.

5 - STEPHEN A. SMITH - ESPN - DID YOU NOTICE THAT THIS ENTIRE LIST WAS PRETTY MUCH MADE UP BY ESPN PERSONALITIES!!!  DO YOU WONDER WHY THAT IS?  I THINK IT IS BECAUSE SECRETLY DAVID STAPLES HATES DISNEY EMPLOYEES!  WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING!?!  WELL OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT NETWORK CONGLOMERATES.  DAVID STAPLES IS HORRIBLE!  I HAVE A HUGE MOUTH AND YELL ABOUT EVERYTHING!  FOR SOME REASON I HAVE BEEN CHOSEN TO BE THE URBAN VOICE!  

For those of you who don't know who that last one is, he yells all the time.  Just watch some NBA on ESPN and you'll see.

Well, I hope you all have a good week.  I'll pop in and out with postings.