I thought this one would sort of put a crimp in the operation.
This week’s Sports Illustrated is the annual “Year In Sports Media” issue. So, what am I to do? It would be ridiculous to review someone else’s review. That’s a little further through the looking glass than I’m comfortable going.
But, two things give me hope.
1. There are non-media related articles which need to be judged
2. I got this comment from a reader named Tom, after I posted a review earlier this week about HBO’s Penguins-Capitals 24/7. If he can review reviews, so can I.
With all do respect,
You sound like you should go back to reviewing Broadway musicals. You obviously have ZERO insight to the sport of hockey. This review is embarrassing, not just for you, but for those of us who justed wasted 4 minutes reading it. This is time I will never get back.
Again, stick to the fluffy stuff… and leave the hockey related reviews to those who actually have insight on the subject.
First of all, Tom, thanks for reading.
The fact is, I’ve never actually been to a Broadway musical, let alone reviewed one. Perhaps you are mistaking me with someone else.
More likely, you are trying to insinuate that I am, in some way, homosexual. Well, sir, I am not. But even if I were, that fact would not prevent me from being a knowledgable hockey fan. I’m sure there a number of great hockey fans who happen to be gay. For God’s sake, pretty soon they’ll be able to serve openly in the military. Are you going to tell them they can’t watch a Penguins game?
And thanks for insulting me and then reiterating your point in the final paragraph of your well argued opinion. Fortunately, unlike you, I am not a fucking mouthbreathing troglodyte RETARD. I was perfectly capable of drawing your thesis without that condescending summation.
But in case you are not as intellectually gifted, allow me to offer a closing argument of my own. Fuck you, cuntlick.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.
Now, let’s review.
Let’s start with the letters section. I was pleasantly surprised by the measured tones taken by Sports Illustrated readers in reference to Michael Vick. Whether they are rooting for his continued success or having trouble forgiving him, all the letter writers avoided getting hysterical in their messages. I was especially impressed by Chuck Rosenberg, the lead prosecutor in the case, who voiced his hope that Vick would grow from his experience.
That lasted until I read the first letter about the next article, which focused on the life and death of Cal Rower Jill Costello.
With tears in my eyes, I sit here hoping that Michael Vick reads your heart-wrenching article about Jill Costello’s battle with cancer (The Courage of Jill Costello, Nov. 29) and fully realizes what having a second chance means. He should also note the loving role of Jack, Jill’s Maltese puppy, who was an inspiration to her in her final days.
Lake St. Louis, Mo.
If all you took out of Chris Ballard’s amazing story about Jill Costello is that she bought a dog, then it is you, and not Michael Vick, who is lacking in perspective.
Next, I will praise Steve Rushin, which is something I am never fond of doing. While his scorecard column about automated sports writing includes a number of the puns I find so cloying, it does also include one of the greatest sentence fragments I’ve ever read:
Robots have always been out to get us,
I don’t know why, but that really cracked me up.
In honor of Larry King’s last show this week, we’ll discuss the media reviews in a series of short bursts of thought.
-It’s odd that Pablo Torre’s review of “The Fighter” spends so much time convincing us of it’s authenticity when you consider that it includes a reference to how the script plays up the significance of a championship belt Mickey Ward won, when in reality it’s a title no one’s heard of. Plus, Ward himself gives an interview in which he basically says half the movie is bullshit.
-Richard Deitsch liked most of the 30 for 30′s. So did I.
-I thought it would have made sense to name a blog of the year, instead of talking about streaming content. If you’re going to acknowledge a new format, you need to recognize that old media companies are not dominating it.
-A few years ago, I bought Jim Miller and Tom Shales 600 page oral history of Saturday Night Live. I read it in two days. I can’t put into words how excited I am about the ESPN book.
Finally, Dan Patrick talks to Jeremy Shockey. At first, Shockey actually has some intelligent things to say. Luckily, Dan Patrick derails that by asking about tattoos. When I got back from college after my freshman year, my Dad bought a Dave Matthews album and then asked my brother and I if he should get the Fugees CD. Except he pronounced it wrong, with a hard “g” sound. He was trying very hard to remain cool for his teenaged sons. This is how I feel about Dan Patrick.
Do You See What He Sees? by Charles S. Pierce
Apparently, Mark Twain would have made a great slot reciever. At least that’s what I think this first ridiculous paragraph is trying to say:
Part of genius is realizing that to look is only to begin to see. Someone looks at a block of marble and sees David. Someone else looks at a river and sees a boy and a man on a raft, one white and one black, floating through the purple twilight in a country facing the bargain that allowed it to grow but betrayed its ideals. Someone else looks at an ocean and sees a continent on the other side, real and solid, even though he has yet to step onto its shores. The eyes are the windows to the soul and all that rot, but they are something else as well. They are the engines of imagination. Geniuses see what isn’t there but ought to be, damn well should be, inevitably will be. In this, seeing truly is believing.
Former SCP contributor Dave in Brighton once said reading Charles P. Pierce is like having a dictionary throw up on you. That’s about as spot on a description as I’ve ever heard. Did you guys track the feud between Pierce and Bill Simmons on the internet and twitter this week? It’s awesome when two old men pull out their shriveled old dicks and try to compare who’s pubes are greyer.
Love Is In The Air by Lee Jenkins
This was a cool article. Kevin Love is such a throwback, it makes sense that he would have such tight connections to cultural touchstones from previous generations. And, whenever you can hear crazy Brian Wilson stories, you’ve had a good day.
Montreal’s Mighty Mouth by Michael Farber
I am incredibly impressed with the fact that Michael Farber didn’t feel compelled to focus on the fact that PK Subban is black. Especially in an article that focused so much on his attitude and the way he treats the unspoken rules of his sport. This could have gotten ugly quick.
The Season After by Austin Murphy
I didn’t really want to read this article. I saw it was about the guy who died with Ted Stevens and I thought, “I didn’t like Ted Stevens. I probably won’t like the guy who died with him.But, for you good reader, I powered through. I’m glad I did. It was a well written, emotional account of the aftermath of a tragedy, but it didn’t wallow in sentiment.
Point After by Joe Posnanski
This is one of the greatest developments to hit Sports Illustrated in a long time. It’s the perfect marriage of writer and outlet. Joe Posnanski is a master at small, emotional pieces, which is exactly what the Point After should be. Check out this rememberance of Bob Feller he wrote for his blog. While his Army Navy piece doesn’t neccesarily tug at the heartstrings, it’s a topic well suited for the back page. I’m frankly more excited to see what will come in the future than I am about this piece. But, either way, I’m excited.