Conor Dary wrote:I don't understand why anyone who follow anyone on twitter or anywhere for that matter. Maybe Warren Buffett, but any of these track people? What a bunch of bores. If Pre had been twittering and I was following it daily I probably would have been sick of him too.
Yet you appear to spend all day, everyday, on this board. Do you agree that many people wouldn't understand that?
What's so unusual about a track nut posting on a message board with other track nuts about track and field?
lonewolf wrote:People who did/do not like Lol will jump all over this..those who do not even know who she is will be swayed by the missleading headline which was obviously intended to arouse ire whether the "journalist" knew her or not.
This was her characteristically flippant reply to an anonymous interenet "stalker" with no malice intended. Lolo apologized, LeGrande understood the mistake and accepted her apology.
No story here..except as an example of the fallacy of the cliche that "there is no such thing as bad publicity."
I'm a huge supporter of women's sports but something I have notice both from athletes and journalists covering them that many seem to expect the coverage to always be positive and helping to "build the sport". For example Serena Williams bristled at a question at the USO saying they "the questioner" should be building her up not being negative. Agree with the earlier post that the true sports journalist shouldnt be selling the sport or the athlete.
Its been said that the most loving thing you can be with a person is honest. I think the same applies to sports and sports coverage.
jjk4ever wrote:Its been said that the most loving thing you can be with a person is honest. I think the same applies to sports and sports coverage.
Sport is de facto JUST FOR FUN, so what's the point of harsh criticism? Every time I watch a group of talking heads on ESPN going at it, I have to laugh! Dudes, it's just a game. WHY SO SERIOUS?!
Basically because most sports writers are complete idiots outside of their domain, and even there a lot of them are challenged. And the more famous they are the more vacuous they come. Especially the general sports writer.
Marlow wrote:Dudes, it's just a game. WHY SO SERIOUS?!
It's a multibillion dollar industry too.
Yes, but that's the business side of it, not the 'playing' side (of course the two are inter-related, but a game is still a game). Criticizing athletes and coaches for what they should or should not have done is (99% of the time) not at all business-related; it's just ego-involvement as to the outcome! The ESPN talking heads act as if what they are saying has some actual relevance to something IMPORTANT, but it most decidedly does NOT (other than our emotional investment).
Conor Dary wrote:Basically because most sports writers are complete idiots
br wrote:Lolo going to be on the Katie Couric show today on ABC. Check your local listings.
I'd rather watch reruns of last week's weather on the Weather Channel than that...ugh.
I appreciate br's post for those track fans who are into that sort of stuff, but I pretty much feel the same way you do and I'm a Lolo fan. However, I would feel the same way if Couric was interviewing Usain Bolt. There are very few athletes who I find interesting enough to make me want to sit down and watch someone like Couric do a softball interview. The only reason why I was interested in the Oprah-Marion Jones interview was because I knew they were going to talk about drugs. I wish Gabe Jennings had become a middle distance superstar because his interviews were must-see TV.
"Softball" interviews of people who hold no place of power, responsibiity or authority in society don't bother me jazz. I say this assuming that I'm interpreting your use of the term "softball" correctly.
I like lots of serious things. But I like trivial, fun things too.
Athletes and their personalities (everyone has a personality of course, even if it's a boring personality) for the most part just constitute fun for me. Fall into my category of "guilty pleasure", curiosity stuff.
Rightly or wrongly I never feel like I am compromising or short changing my more serious or "intellectual" side, by indulging in trivial stuff like paying attention to what some athletes say and do away from the playing surface.
I know very few truly successful or highly intelligent people, who don't have for themselves a few guilty pleasures.
Sprintzfan don't get me wrong. If I'm flipping channels and stumble across a softball interview of an athlete who I like, I'll watch it, but it's not must-see TV for me. I DVR HBO's Real Sports every month and I always watch the hard pieces (investigative news stories) and skip past the fluff pieces (profiles of successful sports figures).
I get you jazz. Totally understand what you're saying about watching that kind of programming.
Hey, I did get to see Lo Lo on Couric. All I can say is that Lo Lo really doesn't have a clue. She comes across to me as TOTALLY sheltered and basically completely ignorant of the world in which she lives. I really do wonder, if she ever even watches the news. Seriously. I'm not saying that to be funny. She really does strike me as one of those folks, who couldn't even tell you who is running for President right now. A person who just doesn't follow news events, and other "serious" stuff. Non-entertainment, non-sports stuff. I get no indications from her, that she has so much as a clue, as to why various people have been crtical of her and her career.
She has totally personalized it. Like she is some high school athlete being "hated on" by cheerleaders or something. She doesn't seem to me to have a clue about the history of the country. Femimism. Sexism. Colorism. Or anything else. To her this isn't about any longstanding issues at all. It is just people being mean to her.
I know what I'm saying about her sounds harsh, but I swear I don't mean it that way. I think I feel more sorry for her being so ill prepared for the celebrity she currently enjoys, than I am angry or disgusted with her for being so naive and uninformed about serious issues in our society. And various historical struggles.
Now who I do have disdain for after watching that show is Katie.
I thought the way Katie handled the matter was shameful. Katie is old enough, and worldly enough, to understand some of the Lo Lo controversy, even if she doesn't agree with it. But instead of trying to help make sense of some of it for Lo Lo, she just fed into Lo Lo's "poor me", victim mentality about this entire thing.
Marlow wrote:Ohferheavensake. If we had to call BS on every man's Smack Talk, we'd run out of hours in the day. Let a women do it, and she's a B-yotch??!! Whatever.
Part of the thing with "Smack Talk", is that there's actually a chance in hell you can do what you say you can...
Guru just can't wait to hate on Lolo. You have no shame. If you know Lolo, you know she is one of the smack-talkingest athletes you are ever going to find. If she was a guy it would be no big deal. You smack talk for two reasons; to get into somebody's head and just for the sheer fun of it. This is an obvious example of having fun.
Paul Swangard, Managing Director at the University of Oregon's Warsaw Sports Marketing Center, tweeted this about Lolo's smack talking:
decafan wrote: If you know Lolo, you know she is one of the smack-talkingest athletes you are ever going to find.
So, as the original subject of this thread attests, she can dish it out, but she can't take it.
If you're going to "talk smack", dont whine and complain when someone does it to you.
Guru, are you being serious right now? Do you have any idea what smack talking is? I don't think you do. The New York Times calling her "the Anna Kournikova of track" is NOT smack talking. Newspapers don't talk smack. Generally, athletes talk smack to each other. Had the New York Times said, "Lolo couldn't even beat Anna Kournikova in a race", I could maybe agree with you. Lolo has no problem taking it and dishing it out with other athletes. She's good at it and it's funny to watch. The bottom line is; you hate her and have zero sense of humor.