Bob Costas: "Buzz realizes that he did a disservice to his own points"

Now that the video of Buzz Bissinger has been getting kicked around cyberspace for 48 hours or so, and everyone has had a chance to sleep on it ... what did it all mean? Richard Sandomir of the New York Times had the chance to answer that question when he interviewed Bob Costas, on whose HBO program the whole Buzz-versus-the-blogosphere street theatre broke out. Unfortunately, Sandomir's story chose to focus on the spectacle of a Pulitzer winner going apopletic on the editor of Deadspin, using words that aren't allowed, say, on NBC on Friday nights. Will Leitch noted the Times angle as well, and lamented that an opportunity for blogger-MSM detente, like Middle East peace, may have been squandered Tuesday night.

Well, not so fast: Our baseball blogger Sam Mellinger's post about the futility of Us v. Them seems to have struck a nerve (thanks to Romenesko). And the reaction I got to my post earlier today about the "Costas Now" contretemps suggests that even pure bloggers are sick of all the mindless MSM-bashing. Still, there are some fine points to be ironed out — like whether commenters are, to quote myself, taking over the asylum — and whether that's not stirring a lot of needless acrimony; and on the other hand, if old media dudes just need to take all the spewing with a grain of salt.

Happily, Sandomir's loss was my gain. I called up Bob Costas this afternoon and asked him what he thought was gained, or not, by what happened on his show. Despite what Bissinger told the Times, Costas believes the writer is genuinely sorry at how things turned out — and he made clear to me, on more than one occasion, that whatever Bissinger thinks, he, Bob Costas, has only one bone to pick with the blogosphere ... and it's kinda the same one a lot of us bloggers have, too.

TV Barn: So, do you agree with Will Leitch that MSM-blogger relations were irreparably harmed by that exchange on your show?

Bob Costas: No. No. Buzz realizes that he did a disservice to his own points. On the other hand, if fairness prevails — which on the web it often doesn't because people are coming after whoever the villain-of-the-day is with torches and pitchforks — but if fairness prevails, you keep in mind who he is and that more than outweighs a subpar performance on his part.

The heat he brought to it obscured whatever points he made. And then some people made the leap that because I am critical of some — precisely SOME aspects of the web — that my sentiments are the same as Buzz's. And they’re not.

It's convenient, and in this case Buzz handed it to them on a silver platter, it’s convenient and self-flattering for some members of the blogosphere to think any and all objections to them come because mainstream media people are threatened by them.

While there is unquestionably a new media revolution going on, and much of it is good, the part — speaking for myself, the only part, the ONLY part — of which I am critical, is that there is an ethos on a significant portion of the web, an ethos not of criticism or skepticism or a contrarian viewpoint. There is an ethos of abuse, where not only is cogent thought not required, it’s almost resented. Where a reasonable argument has no place and where ad hominem attacks reign. That is not all or even most of the web, but no fair-minded person would say that isn't a significant portion of it. That’s my criticism.

Are some elements of this found in mainstream media? Yes. But the worst thing you'd find in talk radio, the snarkiest thing you'd read in print ... even more virulent forms of it are found on the internet because in most cases there are no standards. Now, coming with it are there many important fresh new voices? Absolutely. Are there places where people like you, who were one of the first ones, and Joe Posnanski, not to name all Kansas City guys, but where you can go to get more expansive or quirkier versions of their thought? Yes. Are there nichier places ... baseball-centric sites filled with detailed statistical analysis or, say, everything you want to know about the Seattle Mariners? That’s great. Nothing wrong with that.

But I think (to) the blogosphere, if you’re a critic of the blogosphere you’re somehow against its democratic virtues. Hey, I spent my whole career talking to cabdrivers, everyday people, I did sports talk radio in St. Louis in the 1970s. Some people are more knowledgeable about aspects of sports than I am. I absolutely respect that. ... But it also opens the door for every anonymous bully and lout to spout.

I was talking to King Kaufman about this. He said, "You know, a lot of this stuff, you can get on sports talk radio, except (on the internet) you don't have the bleep button." And I agreed but added this: If you truly didn't have a bleep button in talk radio ... you wouldn't just have the occasional person spewing scurrilous things, you'd have it all the time, more and more ... to the point where it crowded out other voices and brought the whole enterprise down.

Truth be told, on any websites, not just confined to sports, that is what happens. It's not that this kind of lowbrow stuff is tolerated, it is implictly encouraged because the more of those type posts you get the more it is validated. The popularity of sites is measured by it. Who is going to say, "I don’t want the person who says 'Bleep you, douchebag' "? That’s a hit! That’s my single criticism of this. And anyone who interprets that as a rejection of all the upsides of the web is either rather dense or wilfully misinterpreting what I say.

TVB: But clearly Buzz was indifferent to the distinction between posts and comments. Should they be judged equally — the people who write for blogs and the people who merely react to them?

I would say that clearly some old media types can’t or don’t want to make the distinctions between posts and comments. I understand. On the other hand,, generally speaking the tone of the post will affect the tone and content of the comments. If you wanted to you could regulate that ... but for example, talking about Deadspin, which does a lot of amusing and worthy things, it's pretty clear that they have no interest in weeding out bullies and louts. They're interested in that. It's a substantial part of the audience. That doesn't mean Will Leitch doesn't write interesting things or make valid observations. But there's baggage that comes with that.

By the way, this is a consistent thing with me. I decried it in talk radio. I've decried it where it comes in print. There's a difference between edgy and abusive, between being provocative and stupid, between a tough and cogent critique and something you just pull out of your ass.

All the better sides of that can be found on the web. But all the worst sides, too. Why would anybody have trouble acknowledging that? If someone says "not all of the aspects of television are good," why would I not agree with that? If someone says to me, "Sports talk radio is generally not very good," why would I take this as a personal insult? Why the circle the wagons thing? It’s ludicrous.

Now I’ll also say this. This notion that the motivation for every critique of the blogosphere is that old-line types are threatened, I'd like to ask the question: Why would I be threatened? Anyone who knows me knows I don't view the world this way. If I were threatened by anything it would be the proliferation of sports programs on cable.

TVB: Well, and recently HBO cancelled "Inside the NFL," which you hosted, for that reason.

Yes, but that was not the end of the world. ... Nothing the blogosphere does in the near future poses a threat to me. I can see a newspaperman saying: "Damn, I’ve done a good job, but circulation is diminishing, newsrooms are being cut" — I can see the validity in that. I can’t see that in a broadcaster on network television.

I think a lot of the blogger types want a straw man. Unfortunately, Bissinger handed it to them. But in my case, this notion that Costas bashes bloggers, or he hates the blogosphere, that’s just false. If there’s a problem, the problem is that for whatever reason some of these people just want to have an argument based on a position I don't hold.

LETTERS: "Comments vs. posts is a tricky issue most old media types don't understand"

LETTERS: "I like Deadspin a lot, but there's a lot of truth in what Biss had to say"