A Qualified Opinion

This is not another entry about the Orlando Magic. Just bear with me.

In 1995, the top-seeded Magic faced the 8th-seeded Boston Celtics in the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs. Orlando's pro basketball history stretched back all of six seasons; the Celtics were, well, the 16-time NBA Champion Boston Celtics. The Boston media, particularly Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe, had a field day with the small-town newbies in Central Florida.

Shaughnessy and his visiting counterparts were mortified by the distinctly non-traditional game night presentation in Orlando: the dancers, the t-shirt tosses, the music and sound effects, Paul Porter's caffeinated public address announcing. The atmosphere of the Orlando Arena, coupled with the unabashed lack of cynicism from the basketball-challenged locals, led Shaughnessy to christen Orlando as "Hooterville."

Given that the Magic wiped the floor with the Celtics' jockey shorts in that series, including a 124-77 disembowelment in Game 1 that ranks as the worst road playoff loss in the Celtics' 59-year history, you'd think that Shaughnessy (and the rest of the Globe staff) would let the "Hooterville" joke die quietly. And you'd be wrong.

My father-in-law, who splits time between Sarasota and Massachusetts, tipped me off to a Globe article dated February 26th of this year in which Orlando is once again referenced as "Hooterville" (and by the way, the Hooterville Magic beat the Celtics in three out of four meetings this season). Curious, I did a quick search of the Globe archives, and found 66 "Hooterville" references from 1995 to the present - about two-thirds of those contained in stories about the Magic.

In January of 2005 - a full decade after the Magic-Celtics series - Shaughnessy finally went off the board in describing Super Bowl host Jacksonville as a "yahoo town." You gotta mix it up, after all.

You cannot fathom the vastness of the crap I do not give about Dan Shaughnessy's opinion of Orlando, Jacksonville, Yulee, Micanopy, or any other town in Florida. And while it might be fun, or satisfying in the short term, to return fire at the city of Boston, I can't, because I happen to love the place. I'm content to allow great weather, a million golf courses, pristine beaches, the best college football in the country, friendly neighbors, and a lack of state income tax placate me. I certainly don't feel threatened or insulted by any Boston Globe writer, or by anything regarding Boston. As former Magic (and current Celtic) head coach Doc Rivers liked to say, "it is what it is."

Why do I bring this up? Chris Ballard has an article in this week's Sports Illustrated describing how the internet, and specifically bloggers, have changed sports coverage. The article prominently features ESPN.com's Bill Simmons, who I think is terrifically talented and fun to read, as "the embodiment of the [online sports community's] prevailing ethos: the empowerment of the fan."

The author concludes that blogs are taking sports coverage "away from facts, reporting and professional decorum," which is not necessarily true across the blogosphere, but certainly not a stretch. The article touches on not just fan blogs, but also team-sponsored websites, many of which have become "exclusive" repositories for breaking news (read: a method of filtering information). Ballard delves into the world of newspaper reporters who also blog, and the subsequent effects on the reporters' relationships with the teams they are assigned to cover. Sports-slash-humor sites like Deadspin are also covered (and there, he missed one: Fistful of Sports, composed by Reid Kerr, unfailingly funny). In short, Ballard's piece is exhaustively researched and balanced, befitting an august publication like Sports Illustrated.

But there were a couple of passages that caught my eye:

"In this digital age...we can all be real-time observers, and opinion...often trumps fact. Which is to say, for those uninterested in actual reporting, the print media have almost become an afterthought." (page 60)

"It's...easier to take potshots when you never have to talk to your targets." (page 61)

"And now: the era of detachment and fragmentation - detachment because technology allows games to be covered from great distances and fragmentation because fans can tailor the 'news' to their needs." (page 61)

In my opinion - and it's ONLY my opinion - Sports Illustrated comes very, very close to calling the blogosphere "Hooterville."

There's no question that internet coverage has changed the game, particularly for traditional media. At one time, sports talk radio was considered the greatest threat to newspapers and magazines; now, the web is the elephant on the copy desk. Ask the South Florida Sun-Sentinel's Ira Winderman, or the Miami Herald's Jason Cole, or any of the other fine newspaper writers who appear on "Sports Talk Live." All of them now include a blog, or occasional live chats, or some other internet component as part of their routine - and not necessarily by choice. For that matter, Sports Illustrated's web presence is hardly insignificant. In fact, in that same March 27 issue, the "From The Editor" column points out that SI's website enjoyed a record 440 million page views last month - and increased revenue 104 percent last year. The message from the traditional print media is clear: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em - and THEN try to beat 'em. It's just business, and I have no problem with that.

That's one approach. Another approach is to question the credibility of internet sports coverage by pointing out, for example, that Bill Simmons "deliberately avoids meeting players" (page 61), and wrote a lengthy column on Kobe Bryant's 81-point performance despite the fact that he "wasn't at Staples Center...and had not interviewed anyone..." (page 60). Blogs that are composed by "unofficial" observers (i.e., non-credentialed media) are an even easier target. How can you, the consumer, take this stuff seriously when these guys are writing from their living rooms? Don't you want real reporters, with media passes and everything, getting quotes from actual players in authentic locker rooms?

Or, put another way - how could the mighty Celtics take Orlando, with its short-attention-span game night theatrics, seriously? Never mind that every team in the league - including the Celtics - would eventually copy the Magic's in-game presentation, to the point that today, it's the industry standard. It's not the way the Celtics did it in 1995 - not the way that made Boston Globe writers comfortable - and therefore, Orlando must be Hooterville.

It couldn't be us, so it must be them.

Internet sports coverage is in its infancy relative to print, television, and radio. The spectrum of accuracy, relevance, and professionalism is still the widest of any form of media. However, the traditional media outlets who dismiss the "empowerment of the fan" do so at their own peril. Fact is, Bill Simmons is funny. Sites like Sports Pickle are entertaining. And to fans, sports are forms of entertainment, supposed to be fun. No wonder the blogosphere has exploded. And no wonder entities like Sports Illustrated might feel just a tad threatened. As one who crosses the line between the traditional and the non-traditional media, I find this tension fascinating.

Beat them at their own game, or mock them. Either way, we're not in Hooterville anymore.