Kevin Marshall's America » internet

Times Union’s Bills fans/Gish controversy reveals problems deeper than nasty online comments

kevinmarshall — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:35:20 +0000

Earlier today on his Keyboard Krumbs blog, Rob Madeo tells the story of a frivolous sports opinion piece that has exploded in controversy due to internet reaction and the harassment and threats its author received.

Before the Buffalo Bills’ big test against the New England Patriots last week – one which they passed – Times Union Sports and Features writer Jennifer Gish wrote an article that was published in print and online titled “Bills fans need help keeping it real.” The article was intended to be tongue in cheek, but took a very sardonic, cruel, and mean tone that is unfortunately what passes for satire with those who have the unfortunate task of attracting eyeballs and traffic, particularly in that newsroom. She quoted Bills fans and painted them to look ridiculous and foolish. Which in hindsight was a bad idea, particularly with the inclusion of an elderly woman.

Then came the backlash. It being sports, the assholes and anti-social media gurus came out in full force on Twitter, through e-mail, and on blog comments to issue veiled threats, sexist remarks, and downright crude insults towards Gish. It’s ugly stuff and one of the many reasons why I steer clear of sports culture on the whole. (I’ll use this opportunity to note that you would be absolutely floored at how much more civil and respectful MMA blog comments and forums are compared to team sports, and I encourage you to check out my MMA blog Mixed Marshall Arts.)

Gish definitely did not deserve those comments. Even the stuff “suitable” for print was abhorrent.

There’s another issue here, though, which has gone largely ignored but has created quite a stir in certain circles in Albany, including many that I cross with.

Gish told Bryon McKim, one of the fans she quoted in the article, that she was doing a piece on the Bills 2-0 start to the season and their (then) forthcoming game against perennial contenders the New England Patriots. The following is the e-mail sent to him, which he posted on the Bills Backers website along with his response to the article:

“Hi Bryon,
I write a sports column for the TU, and am looking to talk to some Bills fans this week in light of the big test against the Patriots coming up. Can I interview you for it? If you can send me a number and best time to reach you I could call you tonight or tomorrow. I’ll also be reaching out to some of the other ABB. Thanks!
Jennifer”

According to Bryon, the tone of the interview was light and he was given the impression that an entirely different piece was being constructed than what was eventually published. Which, as Lydia Kulbida pointed out on her blog, sometimes happens. What isn’t acceptable is that she took his quotes out of context to make him look foolish, shoving him into a media pillory and embarrassing him on a grand scale. She never gave the impression that she would use anything resembling the tone and slant she ended up with, and when confronted about it, she replied to him and said that she told him that the article was going to be about the fans needing a reality check. Which is flat out not true: the only reference to a “reality check” was when she asked him if the game against the Patriots was going to be one for Bills fans.

In short, Gish intentionally misrepresented her intentions. Which, regardless of the unnecessary vitriol she received after it was printed, was wrong. Sometimes, in the thick of working on a piece of investigative journalism, some fenagling has to be done in order to get the information you need. But this was a fluff feature piece intended as humor (though woefully lacking in the finer points that separate satire from straight-up ridicule).

Again, you can read Bryon’s full response at the Albany Bills Backers’ official site. As a follow-up, fellow Bills Backer Ed Lass (disclosure: we’re BFFs) touched on one of the many problems with local media and their relationship with readers:

Newspapers are in a tough place. A Pew Research Center study earlier this year tells us that only 31% of Americans consider a newspaper to be a main source of news in their life. This is down from 45% in 2001. The internet provides news to 41% of Americans while TV still dominates with a 66% share. (Before all you math whizzes point out that this is greater than 100%, I’ll just say that Pew allowed people to choose more than one main source of news. Less than a third still chose the newspaper.)

Agreed, and what occurred here is one of the many reasons why this shift has occurred. Newspapers are getting desperate. Desperation brings attention, but it rarely brings anything resembling trust or admiration.

Ed also (rightly) chastises those comments and urges any of those reading to retract them. But he also touches on a salient point that I myself have been grappling with since this whole thing exploded:

On Twitter, Ms. Gish’s colleague Kristi Gustafson Barlette reports that Jennifer has been the target of “classless name-calling and physical threats.” I haven’t independently verified this, but I don’t condone it, and I hope it’s not coming from Albany Bills Backers who read Bryon’s call to action. If you’ve ever read the comments sections of the Times Union blogs, you’ll learn that TU readers are some of the most crass and vile people you’ll never meet. Apparently some of them are also the same Bills fans that I explained have moved here. I regret that. If anyone reading this has had a hand particularly in threats but also in name-calling, I would ask you to please retract the comments. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

The emphasis in bold is mine, not Ed’s. He’s not making the following point, but I will.

For far too long the Times Union, in its attempt to circumvent shrinking circulation and growing pains associated with the transition to 21st century media, has perpetuated and condoned the sort of ugliness that led to what happened with Gish. This is not to say she or other individuals are culpable for the inexcusable behavior of others, but it does make it more likely for people to jump over that line when a major newspaper blurs it by allowing comments to see the light of day that contain personal attacks and blogs from staff members that openly ridicule people a la “People of Wal-mart.”

I don’t mind telling you right now that I tried my damndest to deep-six all of that, and if I did let it through I made it a point to let them know that it wasn’t welcome or condoned on my space. But that’s because I want a better, not bigger, audience. The Times Union, unfortunately, doesn’t feel it has the luxury of that choice. Which is a shame for everyone. Especially the readers, who whether they are cognizant of it or not are the ones that suffer the most when local media takes the low road and compromises its value and integrity for the sake of SEO.

The bottom line, though, is that nothing before or after that article was written justified tricking regular people into making fools of themselves at the highest level of local media (and vice-versa lest anyone accuse me of condoning the attacks). What occurred with that article only encourages skepticism and distrust towards the press. Which is probably why Mike Huber’s well-intentioned offer to host a Bills Backers blog on the TU site will likely go ignored.

They’ve already been burned and seen others burned too. Last thing they want is to climb into the oven.

Internet pioneer Andy Rooney retires from 60 Minutes

kevinmarshall — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:56:54 +0000

Legendary crank and emphatically-challenged essayist Andy Rooney announced yesterday that after over 1,000 segments on the CBS News segment “60 Minutes,” he’s hanging it up.

I’m going to miss Andy. Mostly for the Andy Rooney Game, a brilliant concept created by comedian Joe Mande where you take everything but the first and last sentences out of an Andy Rooney segment. The result: hilarious non-sequitirs and an unintentionally revealing looks into the dark psyche of a tormented old man.

If it seems unfair to Rooney, it’s not as if he doesn’t deserve it. Have you ever seen or read such nuggets as his commentary on Kurt Cobain? To call his approach and views on tragedies and life in general out of date would be far too generous and an insult to antiquity. Age isn’t a factor, either: he was every bit the sharp grump at 92 that he was at 52.

All that aside, he was a true trailblazer and pioneer of a field that has exploded in recent years: people who don’t have very interesting thoughts, no constructive insights, and little in the way of art or intelligence in their souls spewing endless drivel for an audience that is all too eager to get angry and riled up over the mundane so as to distract them from real-world problems and responsibilities.

Basically, without Andy Rooney, the blogosphere wouldn’t exist. So thank you, Andy, for all that you’ve done. And if “60 Minutes” wants a replacement, there’s a link up above that says “Contact.” I’ll work for peanuts. Just ask the Times Union.

People of Wal-Mart

kevinmarshall — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:25:50 +0000

From its early days as a niche hobby to its expansion as a part of everyone’s daily life, the internet has catered to those with a slightly unconventional sense of humor. Some of it was due to previous constraints and conventions being sudden lifted, bringing together folks that otherwise wouldn’t find others with whom their sense of humor or particular interests jived. Along with this newfound sense of identity and freedom came anonymity and free license to be harsher, ruder, and crueler. As the internet has grown in acceptance and popularity, humor that was of a less kind nature has not only stayed with us, but perpetuated into an accepted form in the digital landscape.

With that, I’d like to talk about a site that is popular with many of my friends: People of Wal-Mart.

“People of Wal-Mart” is a collection of pictures and testimonials that capture the strange, wild, outrageous, and sometimes disturbing clothes and behaviors of the store’s customers. A quick look at the site and you’ll see men walking the aisles with no shirt or shoes, a young mother wearing what appears to be a thong as a bottom, a homeless man dressed in a faded rainbow of clashing colors, and morbidly obese individuals in skin-tight leggings amongst other outrageous images. It is typical of internet humor in the 21^st Century: user-generated, observational, coincidental, and sarcastic.

Also, cruel.

I’ve had this conversation before with friends of mine. For the most part, my concerns were written off with a simple statement such as “you’re taken it too seriously,” “you need to lighten up,” or “you’re thinking too much.” All three are ridiculous since those that really know me can testify to the fact that I rarely take things seriously and I rarely think. So for a long time I was content with simply not going to the site.

Ridiculing the downtrodden & less fortunate: America's new past-time.

However, a recent conversation with a friend sparked the need for me to revisit the argument. I searched “People of Wal-Mart” on Google and saw a link to the site with its tagline: “a collection of all the creatures that grace us with their presence at Wal-Mart.”

Creatures. I can’t emphasize that enough: not simply weirdos, or oddities, or freaks. Creatures! This provided the evidence for (and the crux of) my argument.

It is that idea – that these individuals are somehow sub-human simply because of their unfortunate lack of fashion sense or bizarre tendencies – that I find particularly shocking in its readied acceptance and prevalence. We chastise our children for pointing and laughing at the misfortune of others in a public setting, and yet we sit under the guise of anonymity doing the same thing but on a much wider scale. Shouldn’t we be better than this?

Look, I’m not trying to preach at anybody. I’m the last person to feign complete innocence when it comes to mean-spirited humor. Like you, I’m an imperfect soul. I’ve been known to poke fun at the misfortune of others. I’ve made jokes about the personal and professional failings of celebrities, since they tend to be such easy high profile targets. I know that despite their high level of exposure they are still real people that are suffering, but they are also in industries that reward them with excessive (and often undeserved) wealth. They have, for the most part, accepted public criticism and the potential to become a punchline as a consequence of their fame. It doesn’t excuse or justify the behavior, but I have at least given myself the time and opportunity to reconcile whether I’m okay with participating in open and public ridicule.

The people of Wal-Mart are not celebrities in a traditional sense, nor is there anything voluntary about their exposure to our judgment and scorn. These are people going about their day assuming their mundane activities and decisions will be put forth for public consumption and ridicule. Yes, a lot of them are dressed in an unfashionable manner, have a terrible haircut, or want for shoes. Yes, some of them are wearing wholly inappropriate attire and should know better. But are these really punishable offenses? And if they are, is there any sense of ill will behind these actions that justifies our reaction?

I could be accused of being a bit reactionary, but I honestly believe that the vast majority of the people highlighted on this site fall into two categories: the poor and the mentally ill. Their lives have taken more than a few unfortunate turns, and though it may be funny, the ridiculous nature of their attire and/or appearance is only a symptom of a much larger problem or disease.

Patronizing “People of Wal-Mart” really isn’t all that far removed from ridiculing the handicapped. I myself would normally scoff at such a comparison, except these, too, are often victims of circumstances beyond their control. And it’s obvious from viewing some of the photos displayed on the site that some of them may have disorders that resemble – or are – mental handicaps.

I find it particularly frustrating when the most vocal proponents and patrons of this site – most of them good people otherwise – have never found themselves in a position where they were living below the poverty line without the ability to rely on financial support from their parents or family. Although most would deny it, enjoyment people take from the site comes from a very classist perspective. In that case, I’d argue that “People of Wal-Mart” is potentially more than just lazy and questionable; it’s 21^st Century bourgeois snobbery disguised as sardonic fun. Worst of all, it’s just plain mean.

The vast majority of us (and I include myself in this statement) visit sites like “People of Wal-Mart” and don’t take the time to stop and think about what it is we’re really looking at. We want to watch the pratfall without thinking of what injuries might be sustained. I don’t want to be the one to lay the stereotypical liberal Irish Catholic guilt trip on you, my dear and appreciated readers. All I’m saying is

maybe before we visit and propagate sites like “People of Wal-Mart,” we should take a moment to think about what we’re really looking at and what our reaction says about us as people. As evolved and educated as most of us like to think that we are, we owe it to ourselves to at least put the question out there and make sure we’re okay with the fact that we’re participating in an exploitative and possibly discriminative form of entertainment.