Sir, I couldn't agree with you more that Pam Ward would be an excellent NFL broadcaster. Which is why I was so befuddled when you pointed to my post -- in which I clearly state that "Pam Ward is not a bad broadcaster -- not at all, actually" -- as an example of "small-mindedness." Am I missing something?
I'm a longtime reader, by the way ... from way back when I ran Brill's All-Star Newspaper, which prominently featured you, sir ...
Best,
Will Leitch
Editor
Deadpsin.com
Yes, it did. Those were happy times.
Well, Will, I'm afraid your article out-un-ironized me there. Whereas I thought I was flanking you on the
earnest, non-snarky side, here you are telling me no, you really meant it! I mean, what's a critic to do these days? Seriously, I thought you were doing that we-don't-hate-her-honest! thing. I stand corrected.
But actually, it was more than that. As I'm sure you know, when you put a post like that out there on your site, even if you actually take women's sports seriously (which Deadspin does), many of your readers don't. And this is significant only if because the owner of Gawker Media himself has been making noises in the media that suggest the commentary makes the site the site. And even you have to admit, on a thoughtful review of the comments to that piece, the vast majority of the opinionators would be in full agreement with Doctor Johnson if
they knew who he was. (I'm guessing some hold views of women that make Bud Light ads seem like Jane Austen.)
So that's why I used you as shorthand. Not you singular -- you plural.
Anyway, I'm thrilled to add you to the bandwagon for my draft-Pam campaign. Not that anyone at the NFL pays attention to what anyone not on the NFL payroll says about anything, except, of course, for what you write ... sir.--AB
