CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Roger Ebert vs. Jay Mariotti
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Roger Ebert vs. Jay Mariotti

post #1 of 23
8/29/08 at 11:55am
Thread Starter 
Interesting post on Ebert's website about Mariotti's leaving the Sun-Times:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...TARY/808289997

From a comedy standpoint alone the article is worthwhile, just for the picture of Mariotti. It's like the ghost of Chris Penn and The Swayze's mullet had a bastard lovechild (their lovemaking set to Enigma's "Sadeness").

But the post also raises a larger point in today's media world, whether the newspaper is truly dead, or dying. I think there will always be a certain demographic who needs and reads the papers, though as another generation passes that will shrink, as it has been. For me, papers are like casinos in that though the internet makes gambling easy to access, you can't always trust you're getting a fair deal, and half the fun of gambling is being at the casino. Smelling the mixture of smoke and musk, hearing the constant thrum of slots, tapping the felt to get your next card. I guess that's the long way of saying I totally get why internet news sources are so popular, but I'll always love the tactile nature of holding the paper. It's all about the ritual.

Not a profound thought, I know, but I'm curious to know what others think of news print vs. internet phenomenon, particularly in a place like this.
Reply
post #2 of 23
8/29/08 at 12:10pm
I loved this goodbye article. Marrioti is a fool, and it's a shame the Sun-Times didn't boot the guy and boost their integrity long ago.

As far as print vs. net, print's going to have a place, but they must adapt and supplement with their net presence. The Big Lead and Deadspin have been discussing it since their inceptions, and The Wire obviously touched on it during the last season. Magazines like EGM with 1UP have shown how to do print/net right, and the Houston Chronicle has a nice web presence as well.

But as I read yesterday, no one under 40 is sitting down with a cup of coffee and a paper these days. We sit at our work computer for an hour, enjoy some coffee and read the news before kicking off our work day.
Reply
post #3 of 23
8/29/08 at 12:14pm
Newspapers always made their money on advertising and classifieds, not so much on the actual delivery of the paper itself. The internet needs to figure out advertising, how to make it work for both sides, and more than just snorg Tees. Once that happens, I think the transition is possible.
Reply
post #4 of 23
8/29/08 at 12:16pm
Yeah, Roger!

Just me or is every major sports columnist / talking head a major douchebag?!
Reply
post #5 of 23
8/29/08 at 12:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
Just me or is every major sports columnist / talking head a major douchebag?!
Mariotti's always been a douchebag, and it's pretty clear from Ebert's post that his colleagues at the Sun-Times felt the same way.
Reply
post #6 of 23
8/29/08 at 12:36pm
All I want is a Mariotti warning before any new ESPN program he's featured on so I can avoid it like the god awful AROUND THE HORN.
Reply
post #7 of 23
8/29/08 at 1:17pm
My Mom is more like her own mother than she'd care to admit. Nana sends a fat envelope to me about once a month stuffed with newspaper clippings, and my mom stuffs my email inbox with links to dumb "best of..." lists, news I've already read (better-written elsewhere) or annoying forwards. One of the 2 generations is killing less trees and taking up less real world space with their clutter. I use to collect "genre entertainment" magazines like Cinescape and Starlog and couldn't bring myself to throw them out. I've moved 6 times in 10 years... and magazines are heavy. Thank God for CHUD.
Reply
post #8 of 23
8/29/08 at 2:16pm
Honestly, I read a paper every time I can get my hands on one. I don't subscribe, but I do grab one if I'm going to be eating anywhere, or killing time. I still don't feel like I've read ALL the news when I read a website (it's infinite), the paper there is a beginning and end and I can feel complete. So I don't think it's dead, same with magazines. And I'm a huge tech geek.

And fuck Mariotti. What a blowhard.
Reply
post #9 of 23
8/29/08 at 2:44pm
I will never feel comfortable taking the computer with me when I have to take a shit.

For that reason alone, long live print media.
Reply
post #10 of 23
8/29/08 at 3:33pm
Thread Starter 
It's also difficult to wipe your ass with Mariotti's column if you only have your Dell with you.
Reply
post #11 of 23
8/29/08 at 3:37pm
Being trapped in a room with Mariotti....that is the stuff of nightmares.
Reply
post #12 of 23
8/29/08 at 3:39pm
Jay Mariotti and Woody Paige should just go ahead and set a date. Those two deserve each other.
Reply
post #13 of 23
8/29/08 at 5:38pm
I'm honestly shocked that newspapers are still around. I just don't even touch them anymore. Or magazines, for that matter.
Reply
post #14 of 23
8/29/08 at 7:15pm
Most sports are douches, but Mariotti is the douchyest.
Reply
post #15 of 23
8/29/08 at 7:46pm
In their pictures, both Ebert and Mariotti have their heads cocked at precisely the same angle. When I first clicked the link I thought my monitor was tipping over.
Reply
post #16 of 23
8/29/08 at 7:51pm

Ebert over Mariotti

I throw down squarely in the corner of print media not being dead but is something that you have to watch out for, sort of like a puppy on a highrise porch. I love reading the newspapers/mags/journals but when you either buy a print subscription or XBLA, I can see where it begins to get stickier.

It is sort of bad to even know who Mariotti is but numerous hours of ESPN watching will lead you in that direction. ESPN is the new Light FM at many workplaces as its everpresence is trying to smash the same 18 box scores into as many hours of programing as possible. What is worse is the more time that they need to fill not actually showing sports, they need "names" like Mariotti to run their (slightly scripted) mouths.

After all, ESPN should hire Ebert (oh wait...same Disney company that let him go) since he wisely choose "Hoop Dreams" as his film of the 1990's. Now that is Sports Reporting!
Reply
post #17 of 23
8/29/08 at 8:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Ebert
On your way out, don't let the door bang you on the ass.
Man, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You get Ebert nice and pissed off and he will spin gold out of thread.
Reply
post #18 of 23
8/29/08 at 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
I'm honestly shocked that newspapers are still around. I just don't even touch them anymore. Or magazines, for that matter.
While newspapers aren't my first source for news, they still provide some fairly interesting articles and editorials. Same with a few magazines.
Reply
post #19 of 23
8/30/08 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyG View Post
But as I read yesterday, no one under 40 is sitting down with a cup of coffee and a paper these days. We sit at our work computer for an hour, enjoy some coffee and read the news before kicking off our work day.
I sit down with a cup of coffee and newspaper all the time.
Reply
post #20 of 23
8/30/08 at 3:28pm
I can't live without my newspaper. I'm not a coffee person, but my morning doesn't begin until I've sat down and read the paper.

What is outdated as far as where I get my news is the local TV channels. They'll come on with their teasers, "find out why you're going to die tomorrow, tonight at eleven", and I curse at them and go to my computer to find out NOW why I'm going to die tomorrow, fuck waiting until eleven.
Reply
post #21 of 23
8/30/08 at 4:17pm
Fellow journalists in Chicago are very pleased to see Mariotti go:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinbe...tein29.article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,7448377.story
Reply
post #22 of 23
8/31/08 at 4:31pm
My dad's been in the newspaper industry for my entire life, and I've grown up around newsrooms and newspapers. I love the things, but I can see where the problems are, and Andre is absolutely correct. The problem is in advertising -- the papers need to figure out how to make their websites more attractive to advertisers, and advertisers need to figure out how to attract newspapers.

The fact remains that a lot of newspapers' websites are poorly designed and hard to navigate. The Times has it right, so do Los Angeles and Washington and from what I've seen, Chicago. But a lot of the smaller papers, including the one my dad works for, have either ugly design, a hard to navigate format, or both. The advantage here is that in lieu of using a website, some folks might pick up the paper, but that's hard when your hometown paper is 200 miles away.

There are other problems, sure -- payment and archive issues, lack of a substantive search function -- but in terms the "digital age," that seems to me one of the bigger problems, especially in small-market papers.
Reply
post #23 of 23
9/1/08 at 12:58am
Well, another problem is the inherent delay in actually delivering news. When a website receives new information, they can update their site more or less immediately. A newspaper has to wait until the next edition goes out.

Magazines are much, much worse, though. Their information is often several weeks out of date, if not months.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Roger Ebert vs. Jay Mariotti