Grantland

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
23,984
SI gets the feature on Major League 22 years later.

That should have been up Grantland's alley, similar to the National piece.
I don't know. While it was an interesting piece, the whole Cult of Charlie Sheen (and that's what SI is glomming onto here) felt a bit played out in May. So I can see why Grantland didn't cover this one. I mean, who celebrates a 22nd anniversary?

SI was pretty lucky that Sheen admitted that he used steroids in preparation for the flick.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,317
I can't argue with you somewhat....but I will say that ignoring the Sheen stuff, most of the rest of it was interesting...the Sheen stuff was the weakest stuff IMO.

It was interesting to see Sheen comment on how he created the cult of bullpen entrance songs. Probably a standalone item.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,082
It was interesting to see Sheen comment on how he created the cult of bullpen entrance songs. Probably a standalone item.
(Caveat...its at home, not read it yet, but....)

I suppose it depends how one defines "created". For example, the Mets' organist used to play the same Irish jig every time Tug McGraw entered the game in the early 70s.


My guess is that the only cult Charlie Sheen ever created is the cult of "watching a guy who had it handed to him piss it all away."
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Simmons "The Movie Star" piece was terrible.

First of all, he starts out talking about a subject he should know about, the NBA. Granted, not an element of the game, but the razz-ma-tazz opening that, as he states, every team begins a game with. He hates it (apparently), but rather than offer an explanation for the phenomenon, he simply states:

How did this become the blueprint for starting an NBA game? I have no idea.
Come on. Given that the entire piece that follows is an "analysis" of Hollywood movie making, an area in which he has 0 self-professed expertise, we're to believe that he has "no idea" how the spectacle of his dear-and-beloved NBA has evolved the way it has?

Fine. Whatever. It's a lead-in to something else. But it's a disingenuous and lazy lead-in at the very least.

The entire premise of his analogy that follows, however, is completely flawed in an obvious way. He compares professional sports teams that are required, regardless of their talent, to promote themselves, to Hollywood movies that are creations of marketing.

Nobody is requiring Hollywood studios to make films. They make them under the calculated risk that they will appeal to people and make money. NBA franchises do not operate under that business model: given no better option, they are forced to make Mo Williams the focus of their marketing campaign because that's all they have to work with in a given season.

Hollywood, unlike the Cleveland Cavaliers, makes gobs of liquid cash. The business model that they have is based on calculated risks that some stars do appeal (Will Smith) or might appeal (Ryan Reynolds) to a vast audience. Sometimes, the star doesn't even matter, and the effects/producer/director are the star (see, e.g. "Avatar").

Finally, movie quality is subjective. One cannot hope to base a "movie star" designation on box office performance alone. That's the most ridiculous and lazy assessment I've ever heard him make. Dustin Hoffman was a movie star in the 1970s, and his movies made dick. Jack Nicholson didn't make a ton of money until later in his career. The vast majority of "movie stars" as we now know them didn't become such until the 1980s and the re-emergence of the blockbuster. Even Robert DeNiro (of "The Godfather II", a mega hit) floundered, box-office wise, well into the 1980s. "Raging Bull", arguably his finest moment, was a box office bust.

I'm not defending Ryan Reynolds, but comparing the makeup of an NBA team to a movie without considering the Director, Producer, and Writer of the film in question is drawing the conclusion for an NBA's team success from the rebounding skills of its center.

Terribly lazy.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
60,898
`
Finally, movie quality is subjective. One cannot hope to base a "movie star" designation on box office performance alone. That's the most ridiculous and lazy assessment I've ever heard him make. Dustin Hoffman was a movie star in the 1970s, and his movies made dick. Jack Nicholson didn't make a ton of money until later in his career. The vast majority of "movie stars" as we now know them didn't become such until the 1980s and the re-emergence of the blockbuster. Even Robert DeNiro (of "The Godfather II", a mega hit) floundered, box-office wise, well into the 1980s. "Raging Bull", arguably his finest moment, was a box office bust.


Terribly lazy.
One of the many weaknesses of this article was the fact that he took a term with no universal, concrete definition - like "movie star" - listed people whom he though were and were not worthy of the appellation, but then didn't define it? I always thought of a "movie star" as someone who has the lead role in featured movies. If Simmons has a different definition, then he should provide that for us. By my definition, Ryan Reynolds is a movie star because, well, he stars in movies!
 

Kevin Jewkilis

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2006
1,241
Lafayette Sq., Cambridge
One of the many weaknesses of this article was the fact that he took a term with no universal, concrete definition - like "movie star" - listed people whom he though were and were not worthy of the appellation, but then didn't define it? I always thought of a "movie star" as someone who has the lead role in featured movies. If Simmons has a different definition, then he should provide that for us. By my definition, Ryan Reynolds is a movie star because, well, he stars in movies!
Except he does define it:

I believe there are 24 male movie stars right now, a funny number since that takes the NBA All-Star analogy full circle. But here's the list: Smith and Leo; Depp and Cruise; Clooney, Damon and Pitt; Downey and Bale; Hanks and Denzel; Stiller and Sandler; Crowe and Bridges; Carell, Rogen, Ferrell and Galifianakis; Wahlberg and Affleck; Gyllenhall (it kills me to put him on here, but there's just no way to avoid it); Justin Timberlake (who became a movie star simply by being so famous that he brainwashed us); and amazingly, Kevin James. All of them can open any movie in their wheelhouse that's half-decent; if it's a well-reviewed movie, even better.
You can disagree with his definition, but he repeats it several times throughout the article. He just did it in a smoother way than the execrable, "Websters defines movie star..." cliche.
 

Rocco Graziosa

owns the lcd soundsystem
SoSH Member
Sep 11, 2002
11,345
Boston MA
`

One of the many weaknesses of this article was the fact that he took a term with no universal, concrete definition - like "movie star" - listed people whom he though were and were not worthy of the appellation, but then didn't define it? I always thought of a "movie star" as someone who has the lead role in featured movies. If Simmons has a different definition, then he should provide that for us. By my definition, Ryan Reynolds is a movie star because, well, he stars in movies!
This was my exact reaction, but I was afraid to post it because I was afraid I would sound like a simpleton. And I'll tell you this, if I was Ryan Reynolds your damn right I would consider myself a movie star......and I bet the bevy of hot tail I would score would agree.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Except he does define it:


You can disagree with his definition, but he repeats it several times throughout the article. He just did it in a smoother way than the execrable, "Websters defines movie star..." cliche.

But, that's an absolutely useless, 3x subjective, definition. And even given his "definition," his list is both over and under-inclusive.

"All of them can open any movie in their wheelhouse that's half-decent; if it's a well-reviewed movie, even better."

1) What is an actor's "wheelhouse?" It sounds like a definition that requires it to define itself. I.e.: "What makes a movie star?" "Well, any person who can open a movie in their wheelhouse and make it popular." "Ok. Well, what do you mean by 'their wheelhouse'?" "Oh, that's the type a movie star is known for."

2) "...that's half decent." Ok, according to whom? Bill Simmons?

3) "...If it's a well-received movie, even better" Wait, what? Well received by whom? And does that include the impact of the actor's performance? Or is it aside from it?

It's a useless definition, and he basically just picked a bunch of popular actors and said "these guys are movie stars!" Because based on his entirely subjective, unsubstantiated opinion of "wheelhouse," "half decent," and "well received," they are good.

Basically, he looked at a bunch of high-grossing movies and said "These actors are movie stars...because they are in popular movies!"

Kevin fucking James? Seriously? Fuck you.

And you know what? If Seth Rogen is a "movie star" (presumably because he's in a lot of really popular Judd Apatow movies and some movies that aren't really popular or good)then why isn't Kristen Wiig? If its based purely on economic impact of a person's presence,why isn't Megan Fox a Bill Simmons Official(tm) Movie Star?

Answer: it's because, like Bill Simmons' highly-scientific on what makes for a "Fun Baseball Team," the definition is completely within the mind of Bill Simmons. If stats/information backs up his opinion? Great. If not? Oh well!
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
61,949
You can disagree with his definition, but he repeats it several times throughout the article. He just did it in a smoother way than the execrable, "Websters defines movie star..." cliche.
Actually, in the actual article, he waffles back and forth between this definition of star, defined as someone who makes moves that do well in the box office, and another implicit definition, defined as someone who makes good movies--juxtapose the definition you present with the key premise of the piece:
Fact: People believe Will Smith is the world's biggest movie star (even though he doesn't make great movies).
So in one definition, Smith is a star because his movies are popular. In another, people only believe he's a star because the movies do well despite not being very good.

Basically, he's skating around the the age-old tension between ideas about objective and subjective quality that exists in democratic culture (which is why his list is both "over and under-inclusive" as Dr. Leather points out. But he doesn't confront that tension head on and, in fact, doesn't seem to be aware of the issue, which causes the piece to suffer form the incoherence of holding to contradictory notions of what a star is.

Once you spot this problem, he's basically whining that people should like better movies than they do. Which is not uncommon among cultural critics, but to do so without self-awareness will tend to weaken the writing.

Then there's also the fact that, at least in my opinion, Bad Boys II is frickin' brilliant (he probably doesn't know what it's about), I Robot
is actually pretty good on the technology/civilization/human choice issues it addresses as part of the genre, Hancock was surprisingly original, Wild, Wild West may be wildly misunderstood (It has Kline and Branaugh in it, which doesn't necessarily mean it's good, but should be enough to give those who blow it off pause), and he was nominated for an Oscar for Pursuit of Happiness (as well as Ali which Simmons apparently didn't like).

In keeping with the laziness of the piece, though, it's worth noting that he omitted Smith's cameo in Jersey Girl where he plays Will Smith which could have supplied some context for the self-awareness that Simmons addresses but suggests is somehow a failing.
 

Curll

Guest
Jul 13, 2005
9,205
It was a summer box-office money maker (so, among those, it isn't bad). It was campy, had some neat visuals, and was Steampunk before Steampunk was known/cool/around.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
61,949
It was a summer box-office money maker (so, among those, it isn't bad). It was campy, had some neat visuals, and was Steampunk before Steampunk was known/cool/around.
Don't bother Curll--Merlin doesn't even like Howard the Duck.
 

Curll

Guest
Jul 13, 2005
9,205
Don't bother Curll--Merlin doesn't even like Howard the Duck.
That's understandable. His father was an abusive duck and his mother a maid at a Howard Johnson's. I've seen Merlin play Big Buck Hunter at a bar and the loon pulled out a real gun when those dumb bonus ducks starting going across the screen.
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
Today's article by Carles is the first time I feel like he got anywhere close to his HR 'voice' in the Grantland format ... I guess it's easy to forget there will be growing pains when some of the content has already been outstanding, but this was encouraging. Now, if only Chris Jones can get there too.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Brian Phillips writing about Wimbeldon has been terrific. I don't think he's one of their regular writers, but I hope he makes frequent appearances in the future. Both his work and the Masked Man's stuff on wrestling is especially enjoyable because I otherwise don't really care about the respective sports.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
I thought that the Molly Lambert piece on Shia was one of the better things she's written for the site. However, and I recognize that a) I'm probably in the minority here, and b) It might not matter, but even in the footnotes, on a professional site, my reading of an article comes to a grinding halt when someone actually uses the term LOL, especially un-ironically, as its own sentence, not attributed to a quote, and/or in all caps. If I were her editor, I would have had an issue with it. I would have at least pulled her aside and made it clear that if she wants to be taken seriously, maybe it'd be better to pull that.
 

LTF

Mailboxhead
Dope
Wright Thompson with another good piece, this time on a Birmingham hot dog joint. They need to get this man to write more frequently.
And to write longer pieces. I wasn't too familiar with the guy until Grantland launched. I've been reading some of his old stuff for ESPN.com and it's great. He has a sort of primer on SEC football that may not be worth much to college football diehards, but was fantastic for an outsider like myself.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,189
Philly
It feels like Deadspin is both taking up the banner of poking/prodding/watchdoggin Grantland (via their "Grantlandia" tag), but has also incorporated a bit of their would-be writing aesthetic. This excellent Kobayashi piece, for instance, is exactly the kind of thing I thought Grantland would be running.
 

Tokyo Sox

Baka Gaijin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 16, 2006
5,963
There
Wright Thompson with another good piece, this time on a Birmingham hot dog joint. They need to get this man to write more frequently.
I was feeling nostalgic earlier in the week looking at pictures of my nieces at the same 4th of July picnic and parade my sisters and I used to go to as kids. Then I just read this terrific story today. I'm sure mom & pop type stores disappear all the time all over the world. It's a sad fact of life. This felt however like a particularly American story. It was sad to read, but just the act of reading it gave me a sweet, wonderful taste of Americana that I haven't experienced in a long time. Very wabi-sabi.
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,405
Washington
And to write longer pieces. I wasn't too familiar with the guy until Grantland launched. I've been reading some of his old stuff for ESPN.com and it's great. He has a sort of primer on SEC football that may not be worth much to college football diehards, but was fantastic for an outsider like myself.
His Outside the Lines/E60 stuff is the best longform sports writing I've read anywhere.

He is an amazing writer. I'll be curious to see how Grantland uses him or how he views writing for it.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,525
Lynn, MA
Deadspin's most recent list of Grantland errors, including the motto in their banner

http://deadspin.com/5819051/dear-grantland-your-motto-is-wrong
 

Drocca

darrell foster wallace
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
17,585
Raleigh, NC
I've only been to Deadspin a few times when someone has linked something like the Farve thing. I don't profess to love everything about Grantland, because it has flaws. But, it's a site trying good long form writing. Deadspin is a National Enquirer site; owned and operated by Gawker which I guess is the same thing.

Oh, what I'm saying is that Deadspin is pretty much what's wrong and what's been wrong with the internet for a while and Grantland is, at least, trying to bring some unique original content.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,189
Philly
I can't stand Deadspin's commentators, or its exposes on meaningless crap like cell phone pictures, or the general tone of the site. But I really like how hard they're watchdogging Grantland; I'm glad somebody is. So there you go.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
I thought that the Molly Lambert piece on Shia was one of the better things she's written for the site. However, and I recognize that a) I'm probably in the minority here, and b) It might not matter, but even in the footnotes, on a professional site, my reading of an article comes to a grinding halt when someone actually uses the term LOL, especially un-ironically, as its own sentence, not attributed to a quote, and/or in all caps. If I were her editor, I would have had an issue with it. I would have at least pulled her aside and made it clear that if she wants to be taken seriously, maybe it'd be better to pull that.
I thought it was crap. She's trying to be snarky and clever and she's not. Almost no one named Molly (except Ivins) ever is.
 

Drocca

darrell foster wallace
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
17,585
Raleigh, NC
I can't stand Deadspin's commentators, or its exposes on meaningless crap like cell phone pictures, or the general tone of the site. But I really like how hard they're watchdogging Grantland; I'm glad somebody is. So there you go.
Watchdogging Grantland?

Is Grantland a political organization? A news organization? Why the hell would a site like Grantland need to be 'watchdogged?' You either read stuff on there or you don't. You either enjoy it or you don't. You are able to ascertain editorial mistakes on your own and access their individual and collective meaning or you can't. We need a watchdog for Grantland? That's, like, important?
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I agree with Drocca, but would it kill Grantland to get an editor?
Would it? How many editors, fact checks and proofreaders would you need to do a fairly thorough job given the amount of content they push out and how much would it slow down stories? If you could only write 90% as much material and everything gets pushed pack a day or two would that hurt the site? I honestly don't know but I do know that really editing a piece carefully is time consuming.
 

Rocco Graziosa

owns the lcd soundsystem
SoSH Member
Sep 11, 2002
11,345
Boston MA
Would it? How many editors, fact checks and proofreaders would you need to do a fairly thorough job given the amount of content they push out and how much would it slow down stories? If you could only write 90% as much material and everything gets pushed pack a day or two would that hurt the site? I honestly don't know but I do know that really editing a piece carefully is time consuming.
Plus do you really think thats what a large majority of the sites traffic even wants? They want content IMO. Certainly over editing as long as the sites writing talent is quality. So far I believe it is.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
45,774
Hartford, CT
Would it? How many editors, fact checks and proofreaders would you need to do a fairly thorough job given the amount of content they push out and how much would it slow down stories? If you could only write 90% as much material and everything gets pushed pack a day or two would that hurt the site? I honestly don't know but I do know that really editing a piece carefully is time consuming.
I think you're overstating the tradeoff. Most of the mistakes could be caught with - literally - 20-30 minutes of proofreading a piece. Which is probably 20-30 minutes more than they do at the moment.

I mean, Taylor and Blake Griffin as twins? This is shit the writer him/herself should be checking instinctively, much less an editor.

But, yeah, your point about content is taken. I'd rather they put more pride into the craft, but they're writing long blog posts, so whatever.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I think you're overstating the tradeoff. Most of the mistakes could be caught with - literally - 20-30 minutes of proofreading a piece. Which is probably 20-30 minutes more than they do at the moment.

I mean, Taylor and Blake Griffin as twins? This is shit the writer him/herself should be checking instinctively, much less an editor.

But, yeah, your point about content is taken. I'd rather they put more pride into the craft, but they're writing long blog posts, so whatever.
A good proofreader proofs 2500-3000 words an hour; the Bill Simmons draft diary with the Griffin quote is about 5500 words so proofing it one more time and making the corrections is maybe two hours of work. On the shorter articles, half an hour, sure. They do 7-8 articles a day; you're talking 1 or 2 FTEs to do one more careful proofread for everything on the site. I think it's a no brainer but what do I know.

Simmons shouldn't screw up the Taylor and Blake Griffin thing but having an editing/fact checking system in place to catch details like that would actually be pretty hard to do. It's one of a hundred minor details in the story and only a diehard hoops fan would know or even suspect it's wrong; you have to literally check everything to get shit like that right and that can take days.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
I've only been to Deadspin a few times when someone has linked something like the Farve thing. I don't profess to love everything about Grantland, because it has flaws. But, it's a site trying good long form writing. Deadspin is a National Enquirer site; owned and operated by Gawker which I guess is the same thing.

Oh, what I'm saying is that Deadspin is pretty much what's wrong and what's been wrong with the internet for a while and Grantland is, at least, trying to bring some unique original content.
I generally agree with this. Grantland is more good than bad, and Deadspin has many terrible qualities: An utter lack of humanity/empathy, appealing to the lowest common denominator, total viciousness regardless of the object. But Deadspin does have some really smart writers, and does publish some stuff that's worth reading. The bad thing is, Deadspin doesn't give a shit; the good thing is, Deadspin doesn't give a shit.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
And PH is right about Molly Lambert. I fucking hate her writing so far.
I agree with this too, but I did think the Shia La Beef thing was an improvement. That said, the Hemingway footnote was a perfect example of how useless Grantland footnotes are in general. Actually, it occurred to me that ML had missed the most obvious point of contrast between Hemingway and Shia: While Hemingway's curated persona was a cartoon of masculinity, his best writing gets to the core of male insecurity and fear as well as any writer every has, while simultaneously identifying the life-affirming aspects of male code and ritual that help broken young men to endure. Shia is all cartoon.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,189
Philly
Watchdogging Grantland?

Is Grantland a political organization? A news organization? Why the hell would a site like Grantland need to be 'watchdogged?' You either read stuff on there or you don't. You either enjoy it or you don't. You are able to ascertain editorial mistakes on your own and access their individual and collective meaning or you can't. We need a watchdog for Grantland? That's, like, important?
It's not important; nothing written on either site is. It's entertaining, seeing an ego-driven project called on stuff by another self-righteous bunch of pricks.
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
Watchdogging Grantland?

Is Grantland a political organization? A news organization? Why the hell would a site like Grantland need to be 'watchdogged?' You either read stuff on there or you don't. You either enjoy it or you don't. You are able to ascertain editorial mistakes on your own and access their individual and collective meaning or you can't. We need a watchdog for Grantland? That's, like, important?
So there's some holistic good to writing that is independent of, say, factual errors?

I love Grantland, but it would seem pretty easy to catch basic factual errors - why wouldn't they do this? I guess I agree with you that Deadspin as some sort of arbiter of fact is kind of fucked up, but it seems weird that this amazing content is going without basic fact-checking.

Either way, Molly Lambert sucks. She's the worst combination of boring and stuck on annoying schtick.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,475
02130
A good proofreader proofs 2500-3000 words an hour; the Bill Simmons draft diary with the Griffin quote is about 5500 words so proofing it one more time and making the corrections is maybe two hours of work. On the shorter articles, half an hour, sure. They do 7-8 articles a day; you're talking 1 or 2 FTEs to do one more careful proofread for everything on the site. I think it's a no brainer but what do I know.

Simmons shouldn't screw up the Taylor and Blake Griffin thing but having an editing/fact checking system in place to catch details like that would actually be pretty hard to do. It's one of a hundred minor details in the story and only a diehard hoops fan would know or even suspect it's wrong; you have to literally check everything to get shit like that right and that can take days.
Really? I admittedly wouldn't know that Blake Griffin didn't have a twin, but most of the egregious errors on there I caught instantly (Patrick Beverly, no Game 7 in 1974 SCF, "OBS" as a stat in that terrible anti-stats piece). If they had someone reading this stuff, even quickly, I bet they catch most of the errors that aren't nit-picky. Hell they could have an intern read it for free and if he or she is smart I bet they catch most stuff. If Kimmel makes up a story that's tougher to verify, but that's also more on him to y'know, not make up shit.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Really? I admittedly wouldn't know that Blake Griffin didn't have a twin, but most of the egregious errors on there I caught instantly (Patrick Beverly, no Game 7 in 1974 SCF, "OBS" as a stat in that terrible anti-stats piece). If they had someone reading this stuff, even quickly, I bet they catch most of the errors that aren't nit-picky. Hell they could have an intern read it for free and if he or she is smart I bet they catch most stuff. If Kimmel makes up a story that's tougher to verify, but that's also more on him to y'know, not make up shit.
Only a pretty big hockey fan notices the problems with your first two examples without looking them up, and only a fairly big stathead gets the third one. Most SoSH posters could do a great job at picking up these problems but we're a weird bunch. To actually get this stuff consistently right you have to look everything up in the editing process and not just count on the general knowledge of your editors.

EDIT: I'll bet that Jay Kang and the other five or six "editors" are giving every piece a once over, we're just seeing that they aren't currently able to catch everything.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
The Columbia Journalism Review (!) has weighed in with info from ESPN on its editorial policy and, not suprisingly, a bunch of quotes from Deadspin's Tom Scocca. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/introducing_the_grantland_corrections_desk.php?page=1

Watchdogging Grantland?

Is Grantland a political organization? A news organization? Why the hell would a site like Grantland need to be 'watchdogged?' You either read stuff on there or you don't. You either enjoy it or you don't. You are able to ascertain editorial mistakes on your own and access their individual and collective meaning or you can't. We need a watchdog for Grantland? That's, like, important?
According to Scocca, it's important because it gives a voice to Grantland's voiceless and disenfranchised. Really.:

“People have to take their grievances to Twitter or take their grievances to us,” said Tom Scocca, the managing editor of Deadspin.
“We’re definitely not holding Deadspin up as a flawless performer, but we strive to own the errors we make,” he told me.
“[Grantland is] caught in a little bit of a feedback loop,” Scocca said. “Because of the scrubbing their readers think that Grantland thinks it can pass itself off as perfect. The more unacknowledged corrections, the more irritating each new error gets.”
Scocca likened Deadspin’s creation of a Grantland corrections desk to when Spy magazine published letters to the editor of The New Yorker because the magazine declined to have a letters column.
The difference between Deadspin "watchdogging" ESPN in general and Grantland, is in the former Deadspin is the funny guy picking on the big bully, whereas they clearly view Grantland as a competitor and are doing what they can to take it down a peg. Their motivations are understandable, it's just not nearly as funny.

Also, that article has quotes from ESPN people about its editorial policy and they're saying they're applying it to Grantland consistently. They're definitely not, but I agree with Shelterdog that I think it's the content outstripping their ability to edit properly. The typos and dropped words bother me the most, because IMO it takes something away from otherwise great content. I would rather they hire more people than slow down their pace though.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,525
Lynn, MA
Apparently, Katie Baker was a VP at Goldman before Grantland.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/at-goldman-mounting-pressure-on-staff-to-keep-a-low-profile/
 

joyofsox

empty, bleak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
7,552
Vancouver Island
Deadspin's most recent list of Grantland errors, including the motto in their banner

http://deadspin.com/5819051/dear-grantland-your-motto-is-wrong
If a person points out sloppy errors in someone's writing, that person shouldn't broadcast his ignorance regarding apostrophies -- twice! -- in his comment:

In a footnote (sidenote?) to his The Killing column, Bill Simmons references a non-existent Mariner's player named Gary Halman. They do have a Greg Halman, however. He also identifies Halman as the Mariner's #5 hitter. He is in a platoon, and often does not bat 5th (although he has at times)
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,650
Mid-surburbia
That Deadspin article is the very worst kind of nitpicking crap. I feel dumber for having actually read the whole thing looking for the percieved humor. It legitimately astonishes me that full members of this site found it even remotely laudatory.

Edit: typo
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,650
Mid-surburbia
It's times like this when I wish I actually understood Twitter.

(and yes, I do work for a company that specializes in social media marketing. I really, REALLY, should understand it.)
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
The fact that they don't think it's important to have fact checking and copy editing is a direct reflection of the very worst tendencies of BS. The ESPN book makes it clear that he doesn't value the editing process. Which is, of course, dumb.
 

Drocca

darrell foster wallace
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
17,585
Raleigh, NC
Agreed. And I (and probably you) were able to figure that out without the use of some other, much shittier website.