Revolutions & Evolutions

When John Lennon and The Beatles sang of everyone wanting a revolution and blaming an institution, there was an aura of credibility to the fact it was an era of uprising.

The powerful lyrics about evolution and changing the constitution ended with Lennon telling everyone it would be alright.

And he was right. The world’s axis has continued to spin for another 40-plus years since that song was recorded in 1968.

The 1960s are often referenced as the preeminent decade when the world was changing, a zero hour for counter-culture, and a revolutionary time when people really wanted to change the world.

In reality, the 1960s were just another decade where a lot of altering and history making events happened at the same time – different and yet much the same as potentially the 1770s, 1860s, 1950s or even the 1990s.

And each time, the message is much the same: We do not like the way things are and believe they can be better.

History, as they say, repeats itself. Sometimes, it just needs to mix up the beat or the chorus or the bridge. But we’ve been playing the same tracks over and over.

Some decades or eras are marked by violence, others by relative peace. But all are marked by men and women who fundamentally are consumed with the idea of seizing power and controlling the masses.

Whether it be a monarchy, a dictator, a president or a parliament, it is not about changing the world – it is about controlling the people in it.

The message is always the same: “I know what is right and what is best for the vast majority of you. Allow me to lead you to an unspecified time in the not too distant future where the world will shine brightly and we will be placed upon top of a hill.”

Be careful, therefore, of mortals who seek to be idolized by man. Ego, vanity, greed. These deadly sins have steered many men and women in the wrong direction, under the false pretense and belief they are part of a positive uprising, a part of the light, a part of truth, that they too shall be a part of history.

If you care to emotionally detach yourself from a political party, from a country, from a religion for a moment, you’ll eventually arrive at the assessment that all the world’s political and ideological dramas come from the same place: we are right and they are wrong.

Now, “we” and “they” could be anyone. It could be the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France or Spain. It could be Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus. It could be Democrats, Republicans, Tea Parties or Green Parties. Perhaps it is Democracies or Communists. It could be Coke or Pepsi. Nike or Adidas. New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox. Gay or straight. Man or woman.

Each and every affiliation we have and cling to in this world generally has an opposite. We’ve taken ourselves to this generic labels of good and evil, dark and light, when in reality, we do not truly know which is which.

How often to do we look back at our own American history and see we were indeed the bad guys in a situation? At least a couple times, right? But let us move past slavery and our treatment of Native Americans because it was so long ago. Let’s not live in the past, right Mark McGwire?

We pretend to have evolved and changed, but that is all it is – a front which matches our social media pictures and status updates, yet hides the broken infrastructure of our marriages, homes and society.

The violence at home and abroad shifts and varies from year to year, decade to decade. What once took place in the act of war (and difficult to even imagine then) now takes place in our cities, trains, subways, schools and offices worldwide.

We pledge to stop it or solve it, but we’re only saying that to get elected. Seven years ago, we thought we’d turned over some great new chapter of hope and change. We have received roughly the same amount of political jabs, shades of gray and dishonesty as before and some change.

As we prepare to pick another political “leader” in roughly 22 months, we’ll be choosing most likely a new president from an old list. A man attempting for a third time who cannot believe he didn’t win in 2012. A woman doing exactly the same, whose husband was president 20 years ago. Another man whose brother and father were president.

They will all attack each other verbally. The media will attack them. In fact, they already have (at least the New York Times still puts Mr. and Mrs./Ms. in print, so there’s a tad bit of decorum left in the world, I suppose).

These candidates will all claim to be different than their relatives. They will also claim to be different than their records and their previous versions of themselves. We’ll all be left with trying to figure out who is lying and who is telling 40 percent of the truth and who can get five percent of what they say they want to accomplish, accomplished.

This dour message is both meant to depress, educate and invigorate.

Whether we’re discussing terrorism, religion, politics or something else, we do indeed have the power to impact the future.

However, we must first learn to evolve and grow beyond what we are now and what we have been in the past.

It is quite simply how and in what manner we treat each other as human beings. As long as we belittle and disrespect and disparage, all this only continues.

Last week it was Paris, next month it may be Rio. In 2007-08, George W. Bush had incredibly low approval ratings. In 2013-14, Barack Obama has had incredibly low approval ratings. We’re using arguments about past wars and past years as some sort of verbal weapon in an attack on something happening now. We’re attempting to repeal and rollback.

These may be valid or necessary – in the eyes of those doing the rolling and repealing and beyond – but we’re simply changing band-aids. Our cuts won’t heal without an ointment to salve our wounds. We just keep cutting the same areas over and over.

Ask those closest to you to describe you in one word. What would their answers be? Love? Faith? Smile? Funny? Caring? Or would it be something else? Depressed? Rude? Angry? Busy?

We’re constantly yearning for change, change, change. But we’re not quite ever sure what that looks like – and we’d most likely need the whole thing explained to us a few times, anyway.

Look at it this way: Ask yourself what you’re doing and what or whom you are doing it for.

No matter who you are, in roughly five or six generations, no one is going to even remember your name. In roughly two generations, they won’t recall what you did for your occupation, what your childhood was like, what your favorite songs or colors were. They won’t know what your favorite hat was, what you got your spouse for their birthday or what it was like when you got married.

It’s quite simple. From the words of Lao Tzu:

“If you are depressed, you are living in the past.

If you are anxious, you are living the future.

If you are at peace, you are living in the present.”

This is not meant to be depressing, either. On the contrary, it is quite freeing. You only need worry about the here and now. The past is over and the future has yet to occur.

Additionally, the world you live in now, the people you surround yourself with and how you treat them, which will be your legacy. Though your name may not last through the infinite time the universe will, your legacy in this world will.

How you treat and interact with your little world will influence those around you – your children, your family, your friends, your colleagues.

Perhaps their actions and behaviors will change as well. And that is something truly revolutionary.

Or maybe, just evolutionary.

Either way, it will indeed be alright.

NFL

Pink Slip Promotions

Several years ago, I wrote a column about the massive layoff that occurs each year the day after the final game of the NFL regular season. Several years later, nothing has changed except this: it has gotten worse.

Across the NFL, across the landscape of professional sports in general, coaching is not just an uneasy profession, it is nearly brimming on insanity.

Before noon on Monday, four NFL coaches no longer had the positions they’d held 24 hours prior. Fewer people probably lost their seasonal jobs at your local Wal-Mart Friday.

Then again, it’s not just football that hires and fires the same way we change our undergarments – nor is this a new phenomenon.

In late 2008, six NBA coaches were fired before the season was 25 games old. Think about that: six teams decided that the wrong person was coaching their franchise that season when the season was barely 25 percent complete.

All this begs the question of why? Why are we terminating head coaches so fast? Is it the culture? Is it the rabid fan bases? Is it the expectations?

Coaches are paid, shall we say, rather well these days. The fact that Jim Harbaugh was offered a rumored $48 million dollars to coach a collegiate football team who have not been elite for nearly a decade (or longer) is the easiest example of this.

But it appears that it takes that kind of money to lure someone into the coaching pit of hell that is “big-time” football.

Harbaugh seems to have preferred to stay in the NFL, but he looked at the mess in Oakland (something like 400 coaches in the last 15 seasons) and Chicago (brimming with angry teens at skill positions) and then glanced at his alma mater’s boosters whipping out their checkbooks (and adding something like 14 zeroes) and had an actual decision to make.

But beware of the obligation that comes with that money. It’s win and win now. Like right now. Like the recruiting war, the season opener, the Ohio State, Michigan State and all the B1G games. Oh, and win the B1G title game. Restore the greatness, win the playoff and Hail to the Victors. Do this! Do it now!

Or find another job.

And find them, fired coaches do.

Why? Because the coaches that are being fired are pretty much all the same. They do the same stuff. Run the same plays. Talk the same speak. Wear the same clothes. Some are stronger in some areas, but the vast majority of coaches’ fall into needing some luck, some key buy-in from the players and/or the organization, some early success and fans who’ll at least give them two or three seasons.

Marc Trestman didn’t get the multiple seasons. Rex Ryan didn’t get the players. Jim Harbaugh had the early success, but the organization did not seem to like him (and vice versa) no matter how much success they had.

Mike Smith, well, he joins the list of guys who deserved to be fired appropriately: multiple seasons, underachieving teams, poor decisions, lack of success. His time was up and that’s just the way it goes…for about one or two coaches a decade.

Production takes a little bit of time. Perhaps there is no sweet spot, yet logic would preclude that a season is not long enough – at any level – to determine future success. Unless that season is winless or a significant drop-off from before.

How many of us would have lost our jobs after 60 or 90 days under these conditions? What if your boss told you that you had exactly one year to win all the major awards you could win or hit a threshold the company had never seen or you would be fired?

Would you take the job? What if every job was like that? We’d be so busy undoing or understanding where we were that we’d never get anything done. Think of all the people who would have been fired for lack of production in history?

In 2006, Tom Coughlin was nearly fired by the New York Giants. Like “as close as you can be to fired without being fired” fired. He went on to win the Super Bowl the following season, got a contract extension, won another Super Bowl and now, eight years later, the rumors are the Giants will never fire him. Coughlin will have to step down to not be the coach of the Giants.

Rex Ryan took over the listless Jets and made them contenders against the likes of the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts, without much of a quarterback (or knowledge of the offensive side of the ball in general). Ryan made it to AFC Championship Games and seemed perfect for the tabloid headlines in New York, but ultimately, he failed.

Or did he? The players never quit and they all seem to love playing for Ryan.

The role of coach has become blurred. Is it a coach who gets the most out of his players? If so, Ryan and Harbaugh are widely successful. Is it someone who acts like a PR mouthpiece for the team? Or a calm, rational person who deals well with the media and fans? If so, they failed.

We cannot seem to make our minds up. We mock Harbaugh for his intensity, we belittled Jon Gruden’s famous 3:17am wake-up call, but then that’s the guy we want when the other guys fail. The grass is always just a little greener, no?

Is this a call for the use of a little patience? Of course, but we’re to blame. As fans, when we see another team turn it around, we get envious and demand the same thing.

There are mitigating factors to these teams and seasons, but we don’t care – give us the goods! Make something happen, owners and general managers! Create the illusion we’re moving in the right direction!

There’s a reason the Pittsburgh Steelers have been an overall successful organization for the better part of the past two decades. They’ve had two head coaches in that time span: Bill Cowher and Mike Tomlin. Go back even further, add in Chuck Noll’s legendary career, and the Steelers have had three head coaches since 1968.

The Raiders, by contrast, have had 13 head coaches since Tom Flores left after the 1987 season. Only Jon Gruden coached the Raiders for more than three seasons. In a totally related note, the Raiders have been one of the NFL’s worst teams since Gruden left.

It is increasingly unlikely we’re going to see another Jerry Sloan or Bill Belichick. We’re lucky if we will see another coach like Coughlin. We used to be surrounded by continuity. Coaches used to be able to have the chance to pull their teams out of a funk or improve on a losing or unsuccessful season.

This actually helped keep the players in line, knowing that they couldn’t whine to the media and work to have the coach canned, they’d have to work with the coach to make the team better and right the ship.

We live on a merry-go-round of professional coaching. I forgot that Tony Sparano, who coached the Miami Dolphins, was in fact the coach of the Raiders this season – and I pay attention to the NFL. Actually, without looking, I’m not sure I could name more than 20 of the 32 NFL coaches – and would be mildly surprised at who is coaching the team’s I cannot remember.

Yet we’re astonished when these coaches fail all over again. We want new coaches and new ideas, then read articles criticizing teams like the Philadelphia Eagles and Chip Kelly.

There’s only so many of these guys to go around. It’s what I call the “Pink Slip Promotion.” Get fired? No worries, just wait, there’s another job offer coming.

For our part as fans, we somehow operate under the premise that every team should be good or make the playoffs in every sport. They can’t.

No, really, they can’t.

Some teams are just bad and will remain that way until a coach has enough time to put his practices and methodologies in place and the players respond accordingly. Or they won’t, in which case, time to start over.

Look, I’m all for change if something’s not working.

Mike Smith should have been fired by the Atlanta Falcons – his team’s consistently underperformed, his consistently made poor decisions and he’d had more than sufficient time (seven seasons) to win division titles, playoff games and potentially, a Super Bowl.

But in the end, all we’re left with is pink slip promotions. Smith, Ryan, Trestman and the others who will follow will all end up back on your TVs soon enough.

So enjoy the next round of new hires in the NFL.

The names might ring a bell.

So might the results.

American culture, Culture, Media, psychology, Society

Faux Real

Last week, the geniuses at Slate put together an incredible piece about “The Year of Outrage” – tracking what America was so mad about in 2014.

For every day of the year.

Safe to say that based upon this study, it would seem as though our faux anger has created actual, real emotions. This is both sad and slightly scary, meaning that we are having an increasingly difficult time determining what is real, what is fake and how to react to both.

We can get a false sense of just about anything these days. We can generate fear and reaction into someone with a post, an e-mail, a text. We can misrepresent what matters and what does not.

We are less connected physically, but through technology, social media and various work “efficiencies” we are more connected psychologically.

And let’s be honest, our psychological make-up is not always the most stable of places.

We are flat-out terrified of stuff that just does not matter, yet increasingly numb to that which does.

We do not see things the same way, leading the vast majority of us to react quite differently to the same situation.

For example, an e-mail sent by a co-worker at 10:14pm, over something that could not only be handled tomorrow, but next week, create for some a sense of dread or panic that they have done something wrong to receive said message at said hour of the day. The sender, by contrast, was just knocking out a few “to do” items and not really paying attention to the time of day or the subject matter.

This faux anxiety creates faux stress that feels as real as you can imagine. That stress leads to anger and lashing out at the smallest of things – like perceiving someone cut you off in traffic, leading to a real finger being flashed and real bad words being used.

Thus, often, our perception of reality becomes our reality.

Millions of Americans deal with differing levels of anxiety and to me, there can be no doubt this is contributing factor to our reactions. The best way to describe an anxiety attack is the feeling of being charged by a bear, when there is, in fact, no bear.

It cannot help us out psychologically when we get worked up over something that’s been put out on the line that we have no part in or cannot control. We’re manufacturing our own dramas. We’re desensitized, yet somehow overly worked up at the same time.

A sampling of the topics that made us grab our verbal pitchforks and raise fury like hell hath no in 2014? Just your usual mixed bag: bad jokes by people and companies, how people react and respond to each other in positions of power and authority and of course, race. Typically, it is how we reacted in hindsight that seems most perplexing.

If we’re so outraged all the time, how do we survive? If our not entirely true feelings are coming out in a very real way, how do we know when we’re actually experiencing anything real? How do we know if we’re really angry? How are we not just becoming the slightest bit numb and missing the things that matter?

Do we even know the difference anymore?

Rage is more of a controllable anger. Outrage seems to encompass some sort of moral or ethical fury. As Slate mentions in their piece, it feels showy and a little false. Probably because in America in 2014, the outrage is just that – a faux show.

We kind of enjoy putting on the show. For each other, for ourselves.

More people are outraged at Sony for pulling “The Interview” than people who were actually planning to see “The Interview.” If you didn’t plan to see the movie, what do you care that a studio wasted millions on a film and marketing only to pull it? What possible moral or ethical outcry could there be to this? Yet, there it was, headlining the news, trending on social media.

The show must go on.

Of course, there are the topics we were outraged by – like social issues – in a possibly decent and entirely pure way, but of course, both sides of the discussion blew it because we got snide, hateful, over generalized and just looked and sounded insane most of the time.

Most of our stories pass through the life cycle partly on their merit (newsworthiness) and partly – largely – due to how we react to it. “It” only becomes a thing if we let it, allow it or want it to. But who can actually tell what we really care about and what we faux care about anymore.

The general theory goes that in anger, you tend to not listen very well. If we’re so outraged and blinded by vengeful anger at all these topics and sensitive subjects in the world, how on earth are we going to have a proper discourse and actually build a bridge to solving said problems?

Ever argue with your spouse or significant other? The rage and indignation rises to a level that virtually blocks both of you out and all you can hear and see is the anger. The words don’t matter as much as the tone.

No point on earth can be made and accepted through shouting down, demeaning, mocking or condescending the opposing side. Uh, they already oppose you…so…certainly your remarkably smarmy attitude will win friends and influence people over to your side, right?

And after the anger and outrage have subsided, you might have a chance to get somewhere with the person opposite you.

Yet outrage exists as a kind of mental bomb. You cannot see it, but once it goes off, the effects of the outrage last much longer than you think they do. And the next time someone says something, they are gently traipsing through the mental mine field of your outrage, trying to avoid the buzz words or things they believe set you off before.

Or they just don’t even bother, which is kind of worse, because it means we’ve stopped caring.

We’ve all been there. It’s the people in your life that are actually no longer in your life. The ones you stopped seeing and calling – or the family you deal with at major events, but say nothing of relevance to anymore because it just is not worth the hassle of taking another hit of their outrage.

This is my overall fear: That we will stop caring about the stuff that actually matters because we’re too outraged and obsessed with the stuff that doesn’t – or too busy avoiding the social media bullies to realize we’ve become one of them.

We see what the backlash does to people, every day folks like you and me, writers, media types, celebrities. It crushes them like a tidal wave. The vitriol and anger override anything else, swallowing them whole, exacerbating the moment, most of the time making the reaction to a reaction a bigger moment than the moment.

Fake emotional outbursts create real damage. They create situations where there are none. These have been dubbed “nontroversies.”

By the look of it, we specialize in nontroversies, but what do we do when the indignation and public shaming passes, when the offending party has been branded, fired or both? Then what?

Simple.

On to the next one.

And we leave the trash and damage for someone else to pick-up. It’s not our problem.

This is the faux show.

This is America – where we pretend to care about that which matters little, where we put on our show, where we seek to portray the picture of perfection, of wealth, of happiness.

Except that we are broken inside, broke on the outside and empty all over.

The best gift this holiday season is one you can give both to yourself and help spread to others: be different. Don’t engage in the minutia, the gossip, the social media mobs. Stay positive, do not the negativity eat away your ability to discern the difference between what is real and what is imagined.

Know what is important. Spend some time thinking about that. Live in the present and embrace the unknown. Expect nothing. Calculate little. Just live and be.

Know that the only currency that truly matters in this world is faith, hope and love. Their value is immeasurable, which is why they are a treasure.

And those three – faith, hope and love – are the most real emotions you could ever experience.

Here’s to the hope that 2015 will be the Year of Anything But Anger.

Real or fake.

American culture, Culture, culture war, Politics, pop culture, psychology, race relations, Society & Culture

As The World Burns

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas.

That is not such a good thing.

Here we sit, as the world burns around us, and lament the trivial, the inconsequential, the minutia. We fight over saving an extra 20 percent in the Target parking lot. black friday

I have come to the conclusion that we must secretly want it this way. Or we are lazy. Or we do not care. Or it is just easier to ignore it and focus on our first world problems, holiday plans, on the gifts we must buy. We do not really want to talk about it or do anything about it. We just want to complain about it for a hot minute and move on to the next thing.

We put a proverbial Band-Aid over it and hope it goes away?

Oh, you are probably wondering what “it” is. You want to define “it”? Fine, I suppose that is fair. “It” is undefinable. “It” is everything, anything and nothing at the same time.

“It” is the topic of the day. “It” is immigration, race relations, religion, poverty, politics, international affairs and the economy. “It” is gun control, Hollywood celebrity culture, concussion protocols, domestic violence, locker room language and bullying.

“It” is how families communicate, nuclear and extended. “It” is marriage, divorce, parenting and children. “It” is our increasing reliance on technology. “It” is our jobs, our anxiety, and our fears, our obsessions with the material and immaterial of the world.

“It” is every little thing we deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Perhaps most of all, “it” is you.

Yes, you – the one who thinks I am writing to everyone else and doesn’t think that these (hopefully) thought provoking pieces of less than literary prowess over the past few years are directed at them.

It is directed at you.

It is also meant for me.

When my writing changed a few years ago, it was because the way I think changed and evolved. A funny thing happens as you age, you start paying attention to more than just box scores. You marry, have children and find yourself watching less SportsCenter. Why? Because in the grand scheme of things, it just doesn’t matter as much, while what we are doing to ourselves does as a society matters all that much more.

But a key realization occurred along the way: talking does little. Writing seems to do less. People do not want to hear about the ills of the world, much less so what they can do to improve it. We do quite a bit of talking in our public and private lives. Actually addressing “it” and finding real solutions is a much more difficult proposition.

And this is because we simply do not listen.

We hear, but we don’t listen. We can’t talk about anything that leads to a civilized, give-and-take discussion and solution, because mostly, we’re unwilling to budge on our positions, to meet others halfway. We react, we get angry, we get hostile. To most, an idea of a solution to any problem is agreeing that we are right. It is part ego, part vanity.

Devaluing the ideas, thoughts, and concerns of others while simultaneously self-promoting our own as fact and truth is as dangerous as it is foolish.

To most of us, we might recognize this, so we back-off. It is not worth the argument, the fight. We Band-Aid our lives for the sake of doing the dance. We won’t talk about “it” – whatever “it” happens to be, because all it will end in is hurt feelings, angry words and emotional outbursts.

So we bottle it all up inside, allowing it to take residence in our proverbial mental garbage bin of all the things we’ve ignored, swallowed and tried to forget over the years. These situations become like sticks of unlit dynamite.

And then, at some unknown point in the future, the most meaningless thing sets off the wick and we explode, looking like we need a straight-jacket and some prescription drugs.

We’re all a little crazy.

But that is because we allow ourselves to be. We think we’re saving face. We’re not. Clear and honest communication is a central part, but actually listening and being willing to bend, to meet in the middle on whatever “it” is would most likely serve us all well.

This much is true: if we agreed to disagree from the beginning and worked to a solution that neither feels entirely great about, but comfortable with, we might actually get somewhere in this world.

Our world view is significantly altered by the fact that I am me and you are you. We’re a country and world full of people with specifically engineered lives, with experiences vastly independent from one another.

We share the same period of time and space in this universe, but we experience that time and space in very different ways, which means we do not – and cannot – see the world the same way.

So why are we so surprised when people of opposing viewpoints and political parties, living in different cities, towns and regions, with entirely different life experiences disagree with us?

We will never agree on anything because not one of us looks at everything the same way. It is not about forcing someone else to see why they are wrong and you are right.On the contrary, it is an attempt to build a bridge toward the middle where you see where they are coming from.

bridge

That is problem solving. That is relationship management. That is how we were designed to interact. We are not all geniuses in all aspects of life and its infinite mysteries, nor are we complete morons, either. We’re a melting pot of races, religions, ethnicities, social, cultural and economic backgrounds.

We – READ: you and I – would be better off if this were not just a pipe dream, but something we actually exercised ourselves and taught to our children. You – yes, you – will be wrong sometimes. You will be right sometimes.

Sometimes, you might be either, neither or both.

The same goes for me, your parents, in-laws, children, their friends, teachers, your co-workers, the guy working construction and the lawyer on 5th Avenue, the President, Congress, Roger Goodell, Chris Rock and the waiter at your restaurant.

Be in the world, not above it. People are people, their problems are real because they experience them. Don’t shut them down. When we refuse to grow, we refuse to change – and change is largely inevitable. Growth is good. Sticking to your old habits, beliefs and traditions is not necessarily something to be proud of.

So this holiday season, start a new tradition.

Try.

Try to be honest. Try to be kind.

Try to avoid the Social Media tar pits that cannot be one. Try not to take the bait. Try to understand there are people who do not have food, shelter or friends.

Try to not be too swayed – or angry – with those seeking your vote, your money, your donations and your time. Try to give back a little more than you take.

Try to understand the other side, someone else’s perspective as best you can. Try not to shut down or shut out. Try open minded. Try accepting what you can.

I don’t think you should necessarily succumb to the world, give in to all opposing views and beliefs and acknowledge they are somehow right. But the world is not going to fully come your direction, either.

Try to build a bridge.

At least your half of “it,” anyway.

Bill Simmons, ESPN, Media, Uncategorized

Bye, Bye Byline

You know that old saying about opinions and a certain body part that ends with the punch line “everybody has ‘em?” Well, if the mega media conglomerates continue to silence the voices in writing, pretty soon, only one of those will still be true.

Media has gotten so big, so interconnected, columnists are a dying breed. Perhaps this is just the natural progression of things. First, it was technology impacting media and the death of the traditional newspaper. Next, the 24-hour news cycle and social media have reduced it to a sound bite.

And now, here we are toeing in dangerous, muddied waters were media, journalism, columnists and brands are all hanging out together around the water cooler.

For those who follow sports, writing and media, perhaps you are well aware of the recent events surrounding ESPN’s suspension of popular sports columnist Bill Simmons. If you are not, well, you can catch up by reading this or simply doing a Google search.

The short of it is that Simmons, who founded Grantland.com, and has been one of ESPN’s most popular writers for the past dozen years, was suspended in late September following a podcast where he called NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell a liar in regard to details and facts that led to the Ray Rice suspension.

Simmons taunted ESPN to reprimand him and got three weeks of what he was looking for.

No matter what you think of Simmons, as a writer or as a media figure, what is clearly evident is that this is his “Custer” moment. He’s taking a stand against something he feels is extremely out of sync in the world of media. It got worse on Thursday, when ESPN Radio’s popular morning show, Mike & Mike, played a snippet of a sound bite where Simmons critiqued LeBron James – to which one of the hosts of the show blasted Simmons for, and took a personal shot at Simmons over perceived headline grabbing.

Naturally, Simmons responded by going nuclear on Mike & Mike via Twitter.

This is not the first catfight between “talent” at ESPN – nor will it be the last. But the last six weeks have brought into clear focus what is not only a growing issue in all forms of media, but especially in sports.

ESPN has serious issues to confront behind the scenes right now, and they have very little to do with Bill Simmons. The crossfire happening across platforms and brands happens all the time – and is wildly disconcerting. If you continually mock and belittle your co-workers, you both lose. The audience doesn’t know who to trust and become uncomfortable with the situation and will turn elsewhere for less hysterics.

The Worldwide Leader in Sports cannot cover sports as they should, in large part due to the behemoth brand that is “ESPN” – and perhaps most concerning – due to its massive TV rights contracts with the NBA, NFL and Major League Baseball.

For a long time, these moments have been coming: How do you completely cover a news story or an event if the entity you are covering in said story is also your meal ticket – sorry, “corporate partner”? ESPN pays for the rights to cover these games and find it difficult to dive too deep into sensitive issues and topics for fear they will lose that right down the road.

This is not just an ESPN problem – but as the biggest sports industry media conglomerate, it is the most easily detectable. Whether or not Simmons has the right to say Roger Goodell is a liar should never be in question, but it is because the ESPN brand is in bed with the NFL and the NFL just cannot be questioned like that from its partners.

And this is the same reason why no one can take the NFL Network seriously – it is merely a mouthpiece for the league to package the product and show highlights and retain some money by keeping viewers on their league channel.

The second component of this issue is how poorly we label journalism, reporting and writing in the current age.

Writing is a creative art form, and most other writers I know treat it as such. Opinion based columns are just that – based on someone’s opinion. While there are obligations to writing factual evidence in support of your opinion – an argument, really – it is not to be taken as journalistic reporting of events. And most people know the difference.

The ESPN Ombudsman wrote about this earlier this week, and frankly, I’m not convinced this person understands it either.

(Note: The Ombudsman is an appointed official who investigates complaints against maladministration, in this case, media and journalism.)

Agreeing that Simmons had not met “journalistic obligations” in providing sufficient proof that Goodell was a liar, the ESPN Ombudsman counters those like me who put Simmons in a different category by claiming that “Simmons sometimes acts like a journalist, or at the least seems to want to be taken seriously.”

Is that itself not a potshot from an unbiased appointed official? And further, am I right in taking this to mean that you cannot be an opinion columnist, a jokester or a podcast host and be taken seriously? What about that kind of writing and media means you are a farce in the eyes of the journalism world? Reporting the facts and only the facts would leave many others at ESPN – in print, radio and television – suspended to the point they might not have enough talent to do a show some days.

How do you prove someone a liar, anyway? It is the ultimate he said/she said. People struggle with this in a court of law, let alone a court of public opinion. Many would argue we still do not know all the facts on the Ray Rice situation and subsequent suspension scandal – partly because the NFL has contradicted itself, as well as having other entities in the situation dispute their side of the story.

Would the Ombudsman – or anyone else – have had a problem with the NFL calling the security officials in charge of the tape who claimed they sent it to the NFL liars? They essentially did. But the now-closed Casino didn’t have a television contract with ESPN or the NFL, so who cares about their integrity and side of the story, right? Has anyone come out and vigorously defended Goodell or shown proof that he’s not lying? If so, I must have missed it.

House rules do apply, except that the mansion of ESPN is not the journalistic beacon of integrity to begin with, so their house rules are painted with a heavy coat of bias as well. Should I not take them seriously because they market themselves so heavily?

Better still: how many “Rules of Journalism” were broken during the NBA Free Agency period? Do these sacred rules include quoting unnamed sources which turn out to be completely wrong? No one knew anything, but everyone knew something when it came to where LeBron James was going to choose to play basketball. ESPN printed many of these “rumors” on their website, discussed them at length on the airwaves. No one was suspended or reprimanded or blasted cross-brand for that. No one issued an apology weeks later when it was clear that half of what we heard the first 10 days of July was a mixture of gossip, rumor and lies.

The expectation that Simmons should show journalistic integrity is a farce for that reason and an even more important one: Simmons is not a reporter or a journalist. Just read anything he has written since 2000 – a conglomeration of jokes, analogies, pop culture references and random opinions. It is not journalism, nor was it ever intended to be. He’s no different than Rush Limbaugh or anyone else in that sub-category of media. He’s also not Walter Cronkite.

As the Ombudsman himself writes, “Simmons is a columnist paid for opinions, not a reporter paid to dig up facts.” Well, Simmons opinion was that Roger Goodell is a liar and that LeBron James is not looking like himself early this NBA season. While I personally wouldn’t put up quite the fight Simmons is – there is a bit of grandstanding taking place on his part – how can anyone determine his opinion is right or wrong, since by definition, it’s an opinion?

Some – like the Ombudsman – refer to this as accusatory or slander. That’s stretching those definitions for effect just a bit. There’s at the very least minor pause that can be given to the notion that Goodell was lying about seeing the tape based on what we’ve heard and read up to this point.

It is tough to condone the manner and irreverence of Simmons in these situations, but that was never the point.

We’re confusing what reporting, journalism and writing are. There are subgenres and shades of gray within the media world – and we’re forced to deal with most of them. But you cannot stop people or forbid them from sharing what they are being paid to do.

If this makes your brain hurt, welcome to the club, but more importantly, welcome to the future.

We’ve entered a mysterious world where something is essentially owned by a group that owns four other things that are not all that connected, but treading lightly is required all the same. Sticking with ESPN here: Disney owns Marvel, ABC, ESPN and Grantland – and must identify it as being so.

We chuckle when we think of Big Brother, but this is happening, in chunks and pieces, in different areas of our society. This is just one component, and anyone – like the ESPN Ombudsman – who suggests we simply all need to evolve is one of those already lost to the media machine.

Evolving would be recognizing the various and diverse kinds of writing and journalism that make up the media now, not ordering all good soldiers to fall into line with what the company – or its partners want.

If that is truly the way we are headed, I fear for our creative writing genre in media.

Soon, even the byline will fade to the mind-numbing “Wire Report,” as if some lifeless droid concocted the cold, hard facts and presented them as such, sans opinion.

And that will truly be a sad day.

If you disagree, call me a liar.

I, for one, will not demand your evidence to the contrary.

[Writer/Editor/Blogger/Site Manager Note: For clarification purposes, this was an opinion piece and in no way, despite fancy links and evidence, should be considered journalism.]

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: