September 7th, 2008 // 16 Comments
Filed: Tech
So Jay Mariotti, a sportswriter from the Chicago Sun-Times, quit and commented on the way out that newspapers are dead. Roger Ebert pens an open letter to the sportswriter in which he argues that newspapers are vibrant, wonderful institutions that just happen to be going through a bit of a tough time because of the weak economy, and ends by telling Mariotti, “Don’t let the door bang you on the ass.” Sure, this just confirms what we’ve already all known for years — that Ebert is a moron. (And yes, this all happened on Aug. 28, and I’m just writing about it now, sorry.) What really struck me, however, is the tone of Ebert’s letter. The anger, the bitterness, the utter denial. You’ll find lots of this in the print side of the media business these days. Lots of blustery declarations about how newspapers aren’t going away and wow we’re all doing so great and what’s wrong with the world and hurrumph harrumph. Craniorectal inversion, I believe the condition is called.
Who cares what Ebert has to say about anything anymore?
SRSLY, anyone?
Ebert pwned Jay Mariotti!
Your chosen photo shows poor taste.
So sayeth the man who left his print job for…another print job. (Don’t tell me that Newsweek has a website. So does the Sun-Times, you ink-stained wretch. Your salary will still be coming primarily from ad revenue generated by the dead tree copies sent out by US mail.)
Having read the piece, Ebert seemed more upset by two things specific to Mariotti and less about the state of print journalism in general: 1) Mariotti has a reputation for being a jerk, and it went beyond a persona he adopted for his columns. Ebert didn’t like the way he went on local TV and thumbed his nose at the whole organization, not just the economics of newsprint or the steady stream of bad management. He decided to defend his co-workers, who he feels are doing their jobs exceptionally well, and doing them with integrity, and not just an eye towards cashing out. 2) Mariotti signed a new contract, which Ebert suggests he did only to get the Sun-Times to pay for his trip to Beijing to cover the Olympics. I know that the modern corporate mindset is that contracts are quaint traditions and utterly unenforceable, but Ebert’s an old-school fellow who thinks that a commitment is a commitment, and that one’s reputation derives from how well one meets them.
Finally, if you’ve read anything by Ebert lately, you’ll notice a lot of wistfulness and nostalgia. Take a look at the picture you posted. Notice anything different? Go ahead, look closely. See that little bandage where he’s had a not insignificant portion of his jaw and neck cut out to remove tumors? Notice how he hasn’t been on TV for two years, having lost the ability to speak? Coming face-to-face with his own mortality? That’s enough to make any man wistful for times past and better days.
Of all the people to pick on and call a moron, you’re going after Roger Ebert?
Bring back Fake Steve. Real Dan is a putz.
You’re obviously not familiar with the work of Jay Mariotti. When the news of his (sudden and unprofessional) resignation broke, sports fans across the continent cheered. The Sun-Times ran pages of fan comments, virtually all of which echoed Ebert’s thoughts. Heck, they even ran an ad trumpeting Mariotti’s departure — above the headline! In penning the open letter that you criticize, Ebert simply captured the anger that many of us who consider ourselves sports fans have felt towards Jay Mariotti for the last several years. And none of us had to work with the a**hole.
Check out Deadspin’s coverage of the affair, then tell me who the moron is. I’ll give you a hint: It ain’t Roger Ebert.
Dan,
take a look at that “new voice of digital age” endorsement from Newsweek you have in your blog header.
Then read your recent posts.
Then ask yourself whether posts are worthy of someone who has been compared to Swift, Voltaire and who is said to be a voice of the (new) digital age.
Nasty picture choice. Are you supposed to be meaner than FSJ?
Wow, that’s a real picture? I thought it was a wax figure from Madame Tussauds!
Disappointed.
All we get here from RDL is denial and ad hominem rudeness.
If you have a point, make it intelligently. You have offered nothing to support your argument. Even your claims about the tone of the letter are not backed up with any specifics.
BTW: I have no problem with the photo. That is how things are now. I don’t think Ebert is shying away, so you don’t need to.
When the Internet only had a handful of machines and text-only terminals were absurdly expensive, there’s Licklider on camera saying how newspapers are embarrassing, really, because their information is printed onto paper and then shipped around on trucks.
Thirty six years later, his vision is becoming a reality, as these little regional information fiefdoms morph or melt away.
Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting? You’re next.
I stopped reading him entirely when he said a video game could never rise to the level or “art”. Rectocranially inverted indeed.
No problem with the photo. Ebert looks the way Ebert looks. As a longtime fan going back to the earliest days with Gene Siskel, I have watched him deliver his opinion time and time again. He has that right this time, too. But he is particularly mean-spirited with this one. Just ’cause you have no literal voice, Rog, doesn’t mean you can abuse your print one. Namaste.
@Grandmaster_fud - I agree. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead…
ahem … and you say this after taking a job and publishing your first column at which largely old media print outlet?
love ya, dan-o. but they who live in glass houses … should probably dress in the basement.
Roger Ebert has said he has no problem being seen as he is, so no reason not to publish this photo.