Ham Sandwich

This guy doesn't need the media's help to make an a** out of himself. The media did all it could to make us believe he was a stud on the field and a leader of men. Can't say I've seen much evidence of either. Based on his facebook activity he seems kind of pathetic. He needs a mentor; maybe Maybin can hook him up with Arrington.

OK. and... Look both ways when you cross the street. your turn.

Yes and no. The writers are trying to have it both ways, mixing factual reporting about sports with human interest pieces. If the fans aren't sophisticated enough to be discerning consumers then the writers shouldn't take advantage of that.

Actually I picked out the stuff that I wanted to respond to. That's the stuff where I don't entirely agree with you. The stuff I left out was what I pretty much agree with.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying. But I don't think we all know it's show biz. Many fans are invested in the drama to an unhealthy degree and they can't see the forest for the trees. They'd never admit that this is anything like what the readers of US magazine and People and TMZ are up to. I'd like it if more fans took a step back saw it as just chit-chat and entertainment, with all of the marketing and packaging that we expect to come along with things like movies and celebrity.

I guess all my rambling will soon be irrelevant anyway. The players are bypassing the media. Will the fans buy into players' self reporting as readily as they eat up sportswriters' articles? Or will they see it as player-controlled PR, and not to be trusted. This could be a good thing if it means we pay more attention to game performance and less to the celebrity stuff. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4137488

[quote name='Lori' date='May 6 2009, 02:20 PM' post='1420801' So you're saying the "writers" are to blame for the backlash against Whitner, who has yet to turn out to be the next Hall of Fame safety? I think his top-ten draft status has more to do with that than any 100,000 words written on the topic. Yes. When he was drafted in the top ten it was labeled a reach, so fans immediately had plenty of doubts. However, by the time the season started he had massive fan support. Where did that come from? (You already know my answer.) I couldn't understand why fans were raving about this guy who really wasn't showing much on the field. After a couple of years skeptics like me started to call him out. The real backlash though was targeted at the Whitner fans who wouldn't let go of this unsubstantiated belief that he was a great player and a great leader (also put forth in the articles based on flimsy evidence of true leadership). I attribute that to the steady flow of articles that fans seem to swallow whole, without chewing even a little.

My questions to ask regarding integrity: did the writer embellish, write a story that isn't supported by the facts, ignore contradictory facts, fabricate dramatic elements? The answers are clear for this article - the writer didn't do any of that. You can tell from his writing that Tim Graham has the highest regard for professional integrity. He's one of the good guys. He's one of the best sports writers out there and we are very lucky to have him covering the Bills. I can't think of anyone I'd rather have covering the Bills. On top of that, he's intelligent and insightful and you can tell that he's knowledgeable about more than just sports. He's accessible to his readers and tells it like he sees it. And he's got a sharp wit too. I'm sorry that he takes criticism so hard. But I guess that's just another indication of how important his professional integrity is to him. I think he is beyond reproach. Someone should write a personal profile of Tim, because he is clearly a model for other writers. So if it's not Tim Graham that I'm doubting, what the hell have I been going on about? Well, I just don't go for this type of sentimental sports coverage that has become so predominant. I used to read those Sports Illustrated articles as a kid and get sucked right in. I loved them. But there have been so many that these sentimental portraits have become a genre of their own. I imagine that any writer who grew up reading Sports Illustrated just kind of assumes that this stuff is rightfully a large part of what sportswriting is about. But it's really gone too far. The coverage of the Olympics has taken it to new heights and others are following suit. Anybody remember the Teddy Bruschi primetime game after his comeback? It was disgusting. The game itself was a sidelight to the heroic Teddy. Readers should think twice about how they are getting sucked in. Case in point - we were all lead to believe that Donte Whitner was the second coming of Ronnie Lott before he had ever played a game. And the Whitner bandwagon charged on for 2 years, all in the face of very scarce evidence that he was anything but ordinary. The articles kept coming and then game announcers repeated the popular opinion back to us. But finally the skeptics came forth and subsequently the vitriol flew in both directions all over the message boards. This never would have happened if the writers had taken a more balanced approach from the start, both in regard to his abilities and his supposed intangibles. But again, it's hard to blame the writers. They're trying to make a living at a tough job. Everything around them says that these articles are the epitome of sportswriting and a showcase for their talents. They should start to consider bucking the trend but I doubt they will. You can't push back against a tsunami. As fans we should just learn to take these articles for what they are. Enjoy them as a glimpse into an athlete's life. But don't get carried away. You can't get to know these guys through 1000 word articles. And you don't really need to to be a fan.

Writing an emotional personal profile doesn't mean the writer lacks integrity. It means they value this kind of story more than I do. A lot of people value this kind of story more than I do. And they're not wrong. But it would be nice if fans thought twice about how well they can possibly "know" any celebrity, and how much that should even matter to them. It would also be nice if raising that question didn't get you chastized.

It was very well written. Maybin seems like a great kid. But is this the first time you've read a story like this? I doubt it. Go to just about any team's site at this time of year and you'll find a similar tear jerker. Is every team drafting not just great football players but heroic human beings as well? Is there a secret, second Combine for measuring the dramatic power of players' personal histories? I doubt it. Why bother; the writers can just create it. Sports is a business. Anybody question that? The Bills are a business. ESPN is a business, and Sports Illustrated is a business that has been publishing articles like this for as long as I can remember. The master himself, Rick Reilly, got $3 million a yr to bring his syrupy ink from SI to ESPN last year. Writers don't win awards for cold hard analysis, they've got to pull at the heartstrings. But do we really need our athletes to deliver heart wrenching personal stories as well? Can't we just stick to Oprah for that stuff? I know, I know what you're thinking... "this story shows that he's human just like us." I disagree. I think it portrays him as more human than us. Not only is he Superman but he's Clark Kent too. I'm not questioning the writers' integrity. They're not trying to deceive, but they're a product of their environment. They've seen what brings a writer success, and they want to write something with emotional impact. So I don't blame them. They're giving everybody what they want. Except for skeptical jerks like me who question what the media has become. Personally, I like to think of the players as regular people. I prefer to save the praise for what they do on the field. That I can see for my own eyes without a "storyteller" whispering in my ear. But if you like this kind of thing and want to become emotionally attached to people you've never met, be my guest. However, on behalf of us heartless fans who choose not to watch Oprah, I ask that you cut us some slack. We have a right to express our opinions too.

Tim, I'm curious about how an assignment like the Maybin article typically arises. Who decides that it should be written and how is the subject chosen? Do you have input on which player it will be? It seems like this kind of article is written about at least one rookie per team every year. Inevitably the fans then latch onto that player and build him up before he's even played a single game... like Donte for example. If the player lives up to expectations on the field the momentum builds... if not, a backlash is inevitable... like in Donte's case. Your articles are always fair and don't over-hype the player. But it seems that regardless of the angle that's taken, there's an inescapable element of mythmaking in this type of article. I imagine that's what the readers want, that's what your editor wants, that's what the team wants, and that's what the player wants. It's really what spectator sports is all about. An interesting story can be written about almost any player. So who chooses the player, and how is the decision made? The top pick is the obvious choice, but what if the guy's a jerk? In that case the article usually hints at the fact that he's a jerk but the myth will still be made. "He's a jerk, but he's the kind of jerk you like to have on your team and hate to play against." That sorta thing. So it goes.

Tim, what do you think of our new right guard, Thurman Merman? I hear he's got a nasty streak. Last time I heard that about a Bills rookie they were talking about Mike Williams. So there's that. Based on his draft video vignettes this curly haired kid don't look so great. Is the NFL draft the most surreal event in sports? I think it is now that NBA rookies have stopped wearing pimp suits to the draft.