when the union wants Freddie to shut up, ostensibly through a democratic process, as opposed to… when the boss does, just because he said so? Seems like an easy choice to me, whether you fancy yourself left or right.
“Just get another job” ain’t exactly easy. Freddie himself has written more than one time about how his success in the industry is the exception, not the rule. I heartily disagree with your characterization of labor unions as “groupthink” organizations. Run by some corrupted leadership, perhaps. But I have more faith in working people and their ability to make democratic decisions than I do in this market to give someone a decent wage for their work if they just walk out and try to find another gig.
This is a serious question and I need the answer before I make any other comment. How do people have so much time to listen to podcasts? Do they read one thing and listen to another? I am a reader so when would I have time to listen to podcasts w/o taking away from reading? (I realize commutes and exercise but outside of these?)
That's what keeps me from getting into them, and I have no idea how anyone really keeps up with more than one recurring podcast at a time anymore and gets anything out of them beyond background noise.
People are always recommending podcasts, and a lot of them are more than an hour long. Even if you speed them up 1.5x, that's still a lot of time. It's why I often prefer just to read, which is much easier to do in bursts when pressed for time.
Same. I actually prefer podcasts to music. If I miss a chunk of a song because I'm focused on work, there's kind of no point. If I miss number 6 and 7 of "top 10 board games of 2021", I don't give a shit
I can't even listen to music while doing something else. I love music too much. If there is good music playing I want to stop everything and listen to it. It's too distracting to do anything else. If there's bad music playing (and holy shit do the boys in the warehouse play some crap music most of the time) it's much easier to ignore it.
If I want to listen to music, I have to stop everything and sit back and stare into space. Or take a long drive down a desert highway (fortunately, we have a lot of desert highways around here).
Same! Somehow podcasts are the easiest way to get me into a flow state at work (digital design). It’s only when you find yourself writing a complicated email while simultaneously listening to (and tracking!) a discussion of Chairman of the Board starring Carrot Top that you realize you have a problem.
Oh, I don't really listen intently to podcasts--mostly I just want the noise of people when I'm home alone all day. I kinda vaguely absorb a little of what they're talking about and only check in if they say something that flags my attention.
Also, like Klaus points out...software devs can have a lot of downtime, often. If I'm waiting on an answer that I need to proceed on my work, or waiting on a build to finish, or on tests to finish running, etc I am essentially doing nothing else. It's why I'm up in Freddie's comments rn--I need a build to finish.
I also read quite a bit, but have times I prefer to listen to something while doing something repetitive with my hands. My wife and I will put on podcasts and do a jigsaw puzzle, or I’ll start a cross-stitch project, or do the dishes.
I don’t know if that counts as “doing 2 things at once” for your purposes - I can’t listen while concentrating on reading something else, so I never listen at work even with data entry or other “mindless” tasks.
I work at home all day too, but with meetings all day long that don't allow for listening to and being distracted by background music, let alone podcasts. Listening in my leisure time is an option, but competes with a bunch of books I'm already behind on, movies I'd want to watch (re-watch), language study, and so on.
Despite everyone gushing about podcasts, I still get the sense none of them are outstanding enough where I'd reliably want to set aside an hour or more to listen to them regularly. I check them sporadically, like when someone whose writing I like is being interviewed, but that's about it. Just content and choice overload all the way.
I'm the same, I can't listen to podcasts while I work unless it's a mindless task. I actually don't even listen to music with words while working because I can't concentrate. I stick to instrumentals, new age, and ambience type stuff when I need to focus.
I listen while I drive or while I walk my dog. Unless I take a long trip or a long walk I can't finish most episodes in a single turn, but that's the beauty of podcasts. You can pick up where you left off.
"(I realize commutes and exercise but outside of these?)"
That captures my podcast consumption. I do more of these two things per week than I have podcast content per week, so it hasn't really been an issue. And as Sarah said below, if I'm doing some relatively mindless physical task, I'll sometimes choose a podcast instead of music (though I usually choose music).
I absolutely agree. Freddie said, "I have a hard time listening to podcasts thanks to my medications." Well, I'm not on any medications and I have a hard time too. Seriously, who has time for that? There are actually several interesting-sounding podcasts I have waiting in the wings for me to find the time to sit at my desk and stare into space while I listen to them, but they've been waiting for weeks and it might never happen.
I suppose commuters like podcasts. But I wouldn't know about that personally because I tried typical American commutes 35 years ago and gave it up, saying "never again." I hate commuting so much I worked hard in the last three decades to organize my life so that I lived close to work or worked close to home. No time to sit in traffic listening to podcasts.
This weekend I have to spend most of two days driving to Vegas. If I could figure out how to download the podcasts I have queued up to onto a USB drive, maybe I'll have a chance to listen to them.
I used to listen in the car a fair amount, but nowadays I rarely go very far alone. Almost exclusively it's while I do laundry, cleaning, or go walking -- anything when it's tough to read (not that I haven't tried). Frankly, I used to listen to more of them, but since many were WNYC or otherwise NPR-adjacent, the propaganda got so irritating I had to drop most of them. (Some history one closed with an offhand remark about how quoting Faulkner would be "too problematic." A quote! Faulkner! Problematic! Aaaarghh!)
I listen to podcasts while I'm doing household chores, so cooking, cleaning, etc. I don't have a commute but do listen when driving somewhere. I listen to 6-10 podcast episodes a week.
I listen to podcasts BECAUSE my reading time is limited and I can do it while making my coffee & getting ready and showering (usually NPR Up First and the Daily), during my commute on days when I go into work instead of working from home, and when I go on walks. Sometimes I listen while I’m working if it’s not something that takes a lot of concentration and is just a background conversation. I usually listen to music while cooking dinner but once in a while I’ll listen to a podcast then too.
I used to read The Ringer a lot but drifted away over time. I find their good work to be too buried in insufferable content (their banner includes "MCU" and "Star Wars") but I guess as you point out that is what you have to do.
As someone who has listened to a lot of podcasts over the years I somehow never got into any of the 7,000 they offer. I feel like it is a choice overload problem.
I appreciate the thoughtful opinion though as opposed to just dunking on their shitty content/Bill Simmons as that would be far too easy.
Speaking as someone who checks The Ringer multiple times a day - as I did Grantland before it - (and God, I hate people who can only say "speaking as someone who" and now I'm doing it) I think you're spot on here. Simmons is clearly a canny guy, but there's never the slightest hint that he recognizes that he makes a very comfortable living being a professional fourteen year old. I should love his Rewatchables podcast, but I can't stand it. I don't expect him to do deep dives on silent classics or Ingemar Bergman, but all the "greatest ever" blather from guys who apparently think movies didn't exist before 1972 gives me a huge pain.
My final break with Simmons was when I tried to read his book. It is rare for me to quit a book. I could not continue slogging through that collection of nonsensical trash. It is a neverending source of annoyance when people do the "okay, so he doesn't actually know anything about the other sports, but the man knows basketball." Citation needed.
In fairness to him, part of his problem is his own success. 20 years ago his schtick was fresh. Then about 1/5 of all white dudes born 1978-84 decided to become him and spend decades regurgitating his thoughts and opinions and annoying little catchphrases and verbal tics. It's like [insert reference to a not particularly good movie that places on cable a lot]. He's a sneaky good candidate for the Mount Rushmore of Guys I Hate Because of Obnoxious Fans. Are we sleeping on how annoying these fans are? [Poorly concieved trade between two teams that would never happen and probably benefits the Celtics] Who says no?
This comment was brought to you buy Stamps.com. Use code BS2022 to get 20% off your first month's membership.
Can’t arugue with Simmons-as-talent-spotter but I don’t check the Ringer as often as I did Grantland. The former has a couple of writers I enjoy but the rest is formulaic and uninteresting and I regret having spent time reading it too often.
What analytics tell you to go for on your own 18 yard line? If you miss, the other team is basically guaranteed at least 3 points. if you make it, you're still 80 yards from the goal, not a good a field position. I agree with going for in the Red Zone etc but that seems bizarre.
I haven't read much about that one specifically, but teams convert on 4th and 1 such a high percentage of the time that you're almost always "supposed" to go for it according to most analytics. Agreed that your own 18 is a very aggressive place to do it during a game that's still close, and that's why Jeff's response here shows such a miniscule difference between the decisions. I myself would definitely punt it.
This is going to be a bit rambly, so fair warning in advance. It's what happens when Simmons/Ringer/Grantland are mentioned.
For me, The Ringer is to Grantland kind of how Gawker 2.0 is to old Gawker. That's a little harsh to The Ringer, of course, but I just don't check it with the same frequency and excitement that I did Grantland. I'm not totally sure why, but I think part of it is that Grantland didn't read like everything else on the Internet did at the time. It wasn't especially politically progressive or socially conscious, and its pro-analytics voices like Lowe and Barnwell in particular had not yet totally won the battle for the soul of sportswriting. To illustrate the former point, take a look at this Wesley Morris Grantland piece from 2013: https://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/black-panties-drops-the-nearly-perfect-new-r-kelly-album/
I'm not saying this is a good review, but I think it shows effectively just how different 2013 was. There were plenty of Grantland-esque sites and publications in 2013 where one could read a discussion of R Kelly's art that focused mainly on the accusations of him as a sexual predator, but it was also possible to write something like that review without becoming Twitter's main character for a week. The Ringer, to me, feels like a product of the dominant voice and way of thinking for the media in 2022, which is safe, and generally fine. But if they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss the written articles at all.
Regarding Simmons: what can I say, I like him, despite myself. He is a bit of a hack, full of himself, endlessly mockable. Whenever the Deadspin / Defector guys would come after something he had written, they would usually draw blood precisely because the passage they were quoting was essentially gibberish. But despite all of that, when I would read his writing in the past, there was a certain happiness and excitement in it. The man loved covering sports and pop culture, and he wrote in a way that, even for me, was infectious. He never, thank God, woke up. The ideal Bill Simmons article, for me, would be a piece written in the aftermath of a sporting event that had gone my way.
For example, the 2011 Mavericks-Heat NBA Finals. Today, if you're writing about post-Decision LeBron and the Heat, you may well take the angle that says for the most part only white fans were pissed at him about the whole thing. The vitriol he received was either racist or racially-tinged, and the Mavs were not the "good guys." There is probably some truth in this, but honesty compels me to point out that during that finals, I was strongly rooting for the Mavs and was absolutely thrilled when Dirk won his ring and Finals MVP. In the aftermath of the game when the Mavs sealed it, still a little delirious with excitement over the fact that the team I was rooting for had won, a piece like Simmons' recap was the perfect cherry on top: https://grantland.com/features/nba-finals-game-6-retro-diary/
OMG that Finals would be culture war hell today. Fwiw I had no problem with LeBron joining the Heat. You're a free agent and can go where you like. I just hated the narcissistic, reality TV-esque way he did it.
i think readers in general often struggle to consider that the world around them has changed but they, too, have changed. across the board many ppl -- writers, readers -- interact with the internet quite differently than they did ten years ago. and readers are responding to shifts in writing as much as writers are responding to shifts in reading. clickbait, wokeness, hyperpolarization, whatever ppl want to talk about -- these aren't things writers "did" to readers any more or less than they are things readers "did" to writers. everyone is in the same boat here.
I like Klosterman too. I remember an appearance on The Watch pod years ago now, when he talked about how so much of popular culture, sports, entertainment, etc. is processed through a political lens first and foremost, and how weird that is. His example was the Falcons-Patriots Super Bowl, which I experienced as a personal tragedy as a Falcons fan, but which was admittedly an amazing game..
Sadly I don't think Klosterman had much to do with Grantland after the first year or so. But I've always loved his podcast appearances. I also wonder what he actually thinks of Simmons, behind closed doors..
For some reason I've been made to feel embarrassed about this, but Klosterman is my favorite living author. I think his last two books (the short stories and What if We're Wrong?) are fantastic. If nothing else, you can always count on him to have an interesting take. I remember him on Simmons podcast saying we should nationalize Star Wars once. I think he was heavily involved in starting Grantland and you could sort of see his DNA in it even after he left. I think the Ringer is worse off for his not being there at the beginning. Less interesting.
> I firmly believe that the Chargers and Raiders should have gone out there, snapped the ball, and stood around for 60 minutes. When an NFL team starts the season, their no. 1 goal is to win the Super Bowl. They live for this goal. They fight for this goal. They suffer brutal injuries for that goal. To achieve that goal, you have to make the playoffs—and both teams could guarantee that would happen with a tie. Why risk ruining that opportunity? As a display of fealty to the integrity of the game? The ultimate goal of the game is to win the Super Bowl—not win individual games—and clearly, tying maximized that possibility. Wouldn’t it show more integrity to do whatever it takes to ensure the highest possible chance to make the playoffs?
I'm sure Rodger Sherman would consider himself "pro-player." His columns are filled with digs at Roger Goodell, the NCAA, and the usual cast of villains. In this very column, he refers to the new Week 18 as a "cash grab."
But I think this attitude betrays such a fundamental understanding of athletes. These guys have short careers and only a limited number of games in which to apply their chosen craft. And they should just waste one because it won't help them make the playoffs?
My least favorite one of these is the lament that a bad team won a game and weakened their position in next year's draft. It's not bad enough that these guys are on a bad team. They're also supposed to embarrass themselves on the field so their team will have better players next year (when they will very likely no longer be with the team). Yeah, really "pro-player"
(Also, put aside that the ultimate purpose of a sports league is an entertainment business, and teams trying not to win might be occasionally interesting, but is, in general, lousy entertainment).
I'd also be interested in the thoughts of the non-LeBron members of the 2018 Lakers on the "player empowerment era."
"professional sports is an entertainment business" is an observation banal in its obvious inarguable correctness and yet blazingly controversial for the refusal of people to act like it's true.
The John Madden documentary and then his passing really brought home how sports commentary has changed in my lifetime from a players' perspective to a GM's perspective.
Madden would have absolutely loved Sunday night's game, and that both teams were going all-out to win. It is impossible for me to imagine him spending the overtime speculating on whether the Raiders should play for a tie as Cris Collinsworth did. And either team did appear to be going for a tie, he would have been all over them for it.
I spend way too much time with the Ringer, but here are some thoughts.
I fell in love with Brian Phillips a few years ago and engraved his name among the best Internet writers. His appreciations of sports and culture are sincere and unpredictable. In the average Ringer piece, the paragraphs seem to reiterate the byline without developing insight or evidence, but Phillips builds and develops his work. He asks searching questions about the sports world without self-righteousness.
Also, I have a strong bias toward literary sensibilities online, and for my money Phillips is the sharpest literary mind for miles at the Ringer and sites like it.
Still, I have been feeling lately that his writing is a little too topical, less original than it has been in the past. That could be because my early appreciation was infatuation which of course wanes. It could be because I came to his work after Grantland folded, and so devoured his archives at a distance from the events that inspired them. Regardless, I feel fatigue, and I think it comes from the Ringer habitat more broadly. Like Pete mentioned above, I have lost the excitement I had when browsing Grantland or early Ringer. Something in the air at the Ringer is exhausting: the chattiness, the cleverness, the trappings of wisdom. I used to read Adam Nayman and Alison Herman eagerly, but I don't anymore, and I don't think it's because their quality declined. They are both perceptive critics and solid writers. Maybe it has something to do with their mere presence in an environment that's wearisome?
Another reason I'm itching for more/different from Phillips is that his book, Impossible Owls, is so smart and exciting and at points even ingenious, that his regular articles online look pretty skinny in comparison. I know some of the Owls essays appeared first online, but Phillips almost never writes pieces like that anymore. So, here's to hoping more great work, more books, are ahead of him.
P.S. In the spirit of praise in the podcast world: Ditto Re Chris Ryan--he is smart and likable. Wosny Lambre on the NBA podcast is a great personality. Chris Vernon is often a kind of a caricature, but he endears me and I prefer him to the knowitalls. And I kind of embarrass myself to say this, but I love Russillo. He's often a jock and a bro, but with real keenness and even sensitivity at times. He distrusts easy puffy "narratives" and tries to work with evidence and detail.
Fwiw, in regard to that response to your article, I didn't take it as you saying not to be an artist. I took as you saying not to be a journalist for a click farm. If your aspiration as a writer is to create art, then I don't think you care if the pay sucks. And I don't think you were denying that.
It's a little hard for me too understand how you could like Justin Charity's work. I read a few columns that epitomized the dim, cowardly wokery we find everywhere and never bothered with him again. The Ringer is fine for sports, ok for pop culture, but is fully Orthodox Woke on politics and culture war stuff.
glancing at your subscriptions i'm going to venture a guess that you have a very specific and narrow interest in any criticism short of anti-wokeness. i say this not to dispute your distaste -- read who you want, obv -- but just to reinforce my point in another comment here.
i've written/broadcast a mix of "woke" and "anti-woke" positions in recent years (not to mention positions that have nothing to do w wokeness one way or the other). but part of the transformation of the internet in recent years is a sort of critical entrenchment among readers and writers alike: you're either with us or against us, in general, in the culture war. anything short of exactly where you're standing is the exact opposite of where you're standing. that, more than anything else, is the mindset that's killing writing.
My Substack subscriptions are not reflective of narrow interests - I get here what is not available elsewhere (sadly). Until Substack came along there was almost nothing on offer representing left-antiwokeness, especially as every heterodox liberal got run out of the legacy publications over the last ten years. There are many writers I read with whom I am in only partial agreement on culture war matters.
Blog reading is my sport, with a bit of computer gaming and lots of friendly chatting with my best friend - my wife, tho she's more into books (in Slovak) than blogs. Neither of us like podcasts, not even when I'm walking alone or doing dishes or basically ever - prefer a readable transcript. My kids are OK with podcasts, but even more into short videos, even tho they often play some computer game while "watching" / mostly listening, to the video. So much infotainment; tho a good amount of info is there with the 'tainment.
The Pharmacon album cover is certainly provocative. But background screaming is, how did you phrase it about Galef, "not for me". I'd prefer "underappreciated" music, like The The:
There's more room for professional writers than for singers - and there continue to be tons of singers hoping to become pros. Which I think is fine, and also for writers - but have serious plans for a Plan B- a real job. Better yet, make becoming a pro the Plan B as a hobby. Not for 10,000 hours, but for hundreds of serious hours trying to get better, not just doing what you like.
While it's tougher to be tops, there's more folks with more time looking for cool things / fun things / thoughtful things. Maybe often even rude things. Ain't this the right place?
bizarre comment on many levels
when the union wants Freddie to shut up, ostensibly through a democratic process, as opposed to… when the boss does, just because he said so? Seems like an easy choice to me, whether you fancy yourself left or right.
“Just get another job” ain’t exactly easy. Freddie himself has written more than one time about how his success in the industry is the exception, not the rule. I heartily disagree with your characterization of labor unions as “groupthink” organizations. Run by some corrupted leadership, perhaps. But I have more faith in working people and their ability to make democratic decisions than I do in this market to give someone a decent wage for their work if they just walk out and try to find another gig.
What are the "next steps" you are referring to in this context?
Not gonna lie: "Analytics-Humping Typing Penis" made me snort my coffee out my nose. Ow.
I came here to say something to this effect :)
I came here, again, to read this kind of cool rudeness that is nevertheless on point.
This is a serious question and I need the answer before I make any other comment. How do people have so much time to listen to podcasts? Do they read one thing and listen to another? I am a reader so when would I have time to listen to podcasts w/o taking away from reading? (I realize commutes and exercise but outside of these?)
Office jobs
Long commutes too
That's what keeps me from getting into them, and I have no idea how anyone really keeps up with more than one recurring podcast at a time anymore and gets anything out of them beyond background noise.
People are always recommending podcasts, and a lot of them are more than an hour long. Even if you speed them up 1.5x, that's still a lot of time. It's why I often prefer just to read, which is much easier to do in bursts when pressed for time.
My podcast intake died with my commute. Now I really only listen when I'm doing things like cutting the grass or chores around the house on weekends.
Be a software dev stuck working from home.
Same. I actually prefer podcasts to music. If I miss a chunk of a song because I'm focused on work, there's kind of no point. If I miss number 6 and 7 of "top 10 board games of 2021", I don't give a shit
but that means you can do 2 things at once.
Nope, just means we don't actually do 8 hours of work per day.
I teach online so have a set amount of papers to grade. I tried to listen to podcasts but found I wasn't paying attention to both.
I can't even listen to music while doing something else. I love music too much. If there is good music playing I want to stop everything and listen to it. It's too distracting to do anything else. If there's bad music playing (and holy shit do the boys in the warehouse play some crap music most of the time) it's much easier to ignore it.
If I want to listen to music, I have to stop everything and sit back and stare into space. Or take a long drive down a desert highway (fortunately, we have a lot of desert highways around here).
Same here. I can work with music on but I feel like it’s got to be the perfect zone of engaging but not too interesting.
Same! Somehow podcasts are the easiest way to get me into a flow state at work (digital design). It’s only when you find yourself writing a complicated email while simultaneously listening to (and tracking!) a discussion of Chairman of the Board starring Carrot Top that you realize you have a problem.
but that means you can do 2 things at once.
Oh, I don't really listen intently to podcasts--mostly I just want the noise of people when I'm home alone all day. I kinda vaguely absorb a little of what they're talking about and only check in if they say something that flags my attention.
Also, like Klaus points out...software devs can have a lot of downtime, often. If I'm waiting on an answer that I need to proceed on my work, or waiting on a build to finish, or on tests to finish running, etc I am essentially doing nothing else. It's why I'm up in Freddie's comments rn--I need a build to finish.
That makes a lot of sense....so not while you do your work. I was thinking podcast listeners had 2 brains.
I feel like I have two brains, sort of. Podcasts somehow engage just enough of my brain to keep me focused on my work.
I had a student once who did coding. He listened to books and podcasts...I know a very few people can do this. I knew there were two-brainers on here.
I also read quite a bit, but have times I prefer to listen to something while doing something repetitive with my hands. My wife and I will put on podcasts and do a jigsaw puzzle, or I’ll start a cross-stitch project, or do the dishes.
I don’t know if that counts as “doing 2 things at once” for your purposes - I can’t listen while concentrating on reading something else, so I never listen at work even with data entry or other “mindless” tasks.
I work at home all day too, but with meetings all day long that don't allow for listening to and being distracted by background music, let alone podcasts. Listening in my leisure time is an option, but competes with a bunch of books I'm already behind on, movies I'd want to watch (re-watch), language study, and so on.
Despite everyone gushing about podcasts, I still get the sense none of them are outstanding enough where I'd reliably want to set aside an hour or more to listen to them regularly. I check them sporadically, like when someone whose writing I like is being interviewed, but that's about it. Just content and choice overload all the way.
This is a very helpful conversation. After reading today's post I finally decided to ask and who better than this group of people?
I'm the same, I can't listen to podcasts while I work unless it's a mindless task. I actually don't even listen to music with words while working because I can't concentrate. I stick to instrumentals, new age, and ambience type stuff when I need to focus.
This is all helpful. I guess reading is what I do the most and what I was wondering if people read while listening. Maybe I'll do more cleaning.
I listen while I drive or while I walk my dog. Unless I take a long trip or a long walk I can't finish most episodes in a single turn, but that's the beauty of podcasts. You can pick up where you left off.
"(I realize commutes and exercise but outside of these?)"
That captures my podcast consumption. I do more of these two things per week than I have podcast content per week, so it hasn't really been an issue. And as Sarah said below, if I'm doing some relatively mindless physical task, I'll sometimes choose a podcast instead of music (though I usually choose music).
Music when concentrating:
-Work (IT)
-Reading/browsing
-energetic exercise
Podcast/audiobook for rote work
-Cooking
-Housework
-garden work
-walking
-driving
Read for relaxation
-Before bed with phone in another room
-with coffee
-with meals
-commuting
I absolutely agree. Freddie said, "I have a hard time listening to podcasts thanks to my medications." Well, I'm not on any medications and I have a hard time too. Seriously, who has time for that? There are actually several interesting-sounding podcasts I have waiting in the wings for me to find the time to sit at my desk and stare into space while I listen to them, but they've been waiting for weeks and it might never happen.
I suppose commuters like podcasts. But I wouldn't know about that personally because I tried typical American commutes 35 years ago and gave it up, saying "never again." I hate commuting so much I worked hard in the last three decades to organize my life so that I lived close to work or worked close to home. No time to sit in traffic listening to podcasts.
This weekend I have to spend most of two days driving to Vegas. If I could figure out how to download the podcasts I have queued up to onto a USB drive, maybe I'll have a chance to listen to them.
I used to listen in the car a fair amount, but nowadays I rarely go very far alone. Almost exclusively it's while I do laundry, cleaning, or go walking -- anything when it's tough to read (not that I haven't tried). Frankly, I used to listen to more of them, but since many were WNYC or otherwise NPR-adjacent, the propaganda got so irritating I had to drop most of them. (Some history one closed with an offhand remark about how quoting Faulkner would be "too problematic." A quote! Faulkner! Problematic! Aaaarghh!)
I listen to podcasts while I'm doing household chores, so cooking, cleaning, etc. I don't have a commute but do listen when driving somewhere. I listen to 6-10 podcast episodes a week.
I listen to podcasts whenever I'm not doing something that's mentally taxing. So:
* Cooking
* Cleaning
* Walking my dog
* Driving
* Showering
* Working out
Turns out there's a decent amount of available time if it's your thing!
Agreed. Some people also do 2x or 1.5x speed listening. I personally find that tough, but it is indeed a thing.
I need to walk my dogs more.
I listen to podcasts BECAUSE my reading time is limited and I can do it while making my coffee & getting ready and showering (usually NPR Up First and the Daily), during my commute on days when I go into work instead of working from home, and when I go on walks. Sometimes I listen while I’m working if it’s not something that takes a lot of concentration and is just a background conversation. I usually listen to music while cooking dinner but once in a while I’ll listen to a podcast then too.
What I am learning is that people integrate these into daily routines. That changes the way I think about them. Thanks!
Dog walks, yard work, cooking/cleaning are usually when I catch up on them.
I used to read The Ringer a lot but drifted away over time. I find their good work to be too buried in insufferable content (their banner includes "MCU" and "Star Wars") but I guess as you point out that is what you have to do.
As someone who has listened to a lot of podcasts over the years I somehow never got into any of the 7,000 they offer. I feel like it is a choice overload problem.
I appreciate the thoughtful opinion though as opposed to just dunking on their shitty content/Bill Simmons as that would be far too easy.
Speaking as someone who checks The Ringer multiple times a day - as I did Grantland before it - (and God, I hate people who can only say "speaking as someone who" and now I'm doing it) I think you're spot on here. Simmons is clearly a canny guy, but there's never the slightest hint that he recognizes that he makes a very comfortable living being a professional fourteen year old. I should love his Rewatchables podcast, but I can't stand it. I don't expect him to do deep dives on silent classics or Ingemar Bergman, but all the "greatest ever" blather from guys who apparently think movies didn't exist before 1972 gives me a huge pain.
The basketball is great, though.
Bill Hader once said to Bill (paraphrasing) "I get the feeling you only watch movies that are on TNT."
Savage.
My final break with Simmons was when I tried to read his book. It is rare for me to quit a book. I could not continue slogging through that collection of nonsensical trash. It is a neverending source of annoyance when people do the "okay, so he doesn't actually know anything about the other sports, but the man knows basketball." Citation needed.
In fairness to him, part of his problem is his own success. 20 years ago his schtick was fresh. Then about 1/5 of all white dudes born 1978-84 decided to become him and spend decades regurgitating his thoughts and opinions and annoying little catchphrases and verbal tics. It's like [insert reference to a not particularly good movie that places on cable a lot]. He's a sneaky good candidate for the Mount Rushmore of Guys I Hate Because of Obnoxious Fans. Are we sleeping on how annoying these fans are? [Poorly concieved trade between two teams that would never happen and probably benefits the Celtics] Who says no?
This comment was brought to you buy Stamps.com. Use code BS2022 to get 20% off your first month's membership.
Can’t arugue with Simmons-as-talent-spotter but I don’t check the Ringer as often as I did Grantland. The former has a couple of writers I enjoy but the rest is formulaic and uninteresting and I regret having spent time reading it too often.
Since this post mentions analytics...
What analytics tell you to go for on your own 18 yard line? If you miss, the other team is basically guaranteed at least 3 points. if you make it, you're still 80 yards from the goal, not a good a field position. I agree with going for in the Red Zone etc but that seems bizarre.
I assume you're talking about the Chargers on Sunday?
The analytics in question are win probability models. See, e.g.: https://twitter.com/NextGenStats/status/1480383946718203905?s=20
Plus also the Chargers defense is terrible; the best thing they could do in general is not let their defense onto the field.
Oh, interesting.
I haven't read much about that one specifically, but teams convert on 4th and 1 such a high percentage of the time that you're almost always "supposed" to go for it according to most analytics. Agreed that your own 18 is a very aggressive place to do it during a game that's still close, and that's why Jeff's response here shows such a miniscule difference between the decisions. I myself would definitely punt it.
Damn, that guy really did not care for your piece. I hope he did not quit his day job to start the "fuck you Freddie" Substack. :(
This is going to be a bit rambly, so fair warning in advance. It's what happens when Simmons/Ringer/Grantland are mentioned.
For me, The Ringer is to Grantland kind of how Gawker 2.0 is to old Gawker. That's a little harsh to The Ringer, of course, but I just don't check it with the same frequency and excitement that I did Grantland. I'm not totally sure why, but I think part of it is that Grantland didn't read like everything else on the Internet did at the time. It wasn't especially politically progressive or socially conscious, and its pro-analytics voices like Lowe and Barnwell in particular had not yet totally won the battle for the soul of sportswriting. To illustrate the former point, take a look at this Wesley Morris Grantland piece from 2013: https://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/black-panties-drops-the-nearly-perfect-new-r-kelly-album/
I'm not saying this is a good review, but I think it shows effectively just how different 2013 was. There were plenty of Grantland-esque sites and publications in 2013 where one could read a discussion of R Kelly's art that focused mainly on the accusations of him as a sexual predator, but it was also possible to write something like that review without becoming Twitter's main character for a week. The Ringer, to me, feels like a product of the dominant voice and way of thinking for the media in 2022, which is safe, and generally fine. But if they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss the written articles at all.
Regarding Simmons: what can I say, I like him, despite myself. He is a bit of a hack, full of himself, endlessly mockable. Whenever the Deadspin / Defector guys would come after something he had written, they would usually draw blood precisely because the passage they were quoting was essentially gibberish. But despite all of that, when I would read his writing in the past, there was a certain happiness and excitement in it. The man loved covering sports and pop culture, and he wrote in a way that, even for me, was infectious. He never, thank God, woke up. The ideal Bill Simmons article, for me, would be a piece written in the aftermath of a sporting event that had gone my way.
For example, the 2011 Mavericks-Heat NBA Finals. Today, if you're writing about post-Decision LeBron and the Heat, you may well take the angle that says for the most part only white fans were pissed at him about the whole thing. The vitriol he received was either racist or racially-tinged, and the Mavs were not the "good guys." There is probably some truth in this, but honesty compels me to point out that during that finals, I was strongly rooting for the Mavs and was absolutely thrilled when Dirk won his ring and Finals MVP. In the aftermath of the game when the Mavs sealed it, still a little delirious with excitement over the fact that the team I was rooting for had won, a piece like Simmons' recap was the perfect cherry on top: https://grantland.com/features/nba-finals-game-6-retro-diary/
OMG that Finals would be culture war hell today. Fwiw I had no problem with LeBron joining the Heat. You're a free agent and can go where you like. I just hated the narcissistic, reality TV-esque way he did it.
i think readers in general often struggle to consider that the world around them has changed but they, too, have changed. across the board many ppl -- writers, readers -- interact with the internet quite differently than they did ten years ago. and readers are responding to shifts in writing as much as writers are responding to shifts in reading. clickbait, wokeness, hyperpolarization, whatever ppl want to talk about -- these aren't things writers "did" to readers any more or less than they are things readers "did" to writers. everyone is in the same boat here.
I think that's totally right. Great point.
Grantland was more unique because they had Klosterman, imo. A big loss
I like Klosterman too. I remember an appearance on The Watch pod years ago now, when he talked about how so much of popular culture, sports, entertainment, etc. is processed through a political lens first and foremost, and how weird that is. His example was the Falcons-Patriots Super Bowl, which I experienced as a personal tragedy as a Falcons fan, but which was admittedly an amazing game..
Sadly I don't think Klosterman had much to do with Grantland after the first year or so. But I've always loved his podcast appearances. I also wonder what he actually thinks of Simmons, behind closed doors..
For some reason I've been made to feel embarrassed about this, but Klosterman is my favorite living author. I think his last two books (the short stories and What if We're Wrong?) are fantastic. If nothing else, you can always count on him to have an interesting take. I remember him on Simmons podcast saying we should nationalize Star Wars once. I think he was heavily involved in starting Grantland and you could sort of see his DNA in it even after he left. I think the Ringer is worse off for his not being there at the beginning. Less interesting.
I’m also a fan of Justin Charity.
The part of the analytics heavy NFL analysis I don't care for is this, "why don't they just take a knee?" analysis.
Here was Rodger Sherman (https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2022/1/10/22875358/winners-and-losers-week-18-chargers-raiders-colts-49ers) on last week's Raiders/Chargers game:
> I firmly believe that the Chargers and Raiders should have gone out there, snapped the ball, and stood around for 60 minutes. When an NFL team starts the season, their no. 1 goal is to win the Super Bowl. They live for this goal. They fight for this goal. They suffer brutal injuries for that goal. To achieve that goal, you have to make the playoffs—and both teams could guarantee that would happen with a tie. Why risk ruining that opportunity? As a display of fealty to the integrity of the game? The ultimate goal of the game is to win the Super Bowl—not win individual games—and clearly, tying maximized that possibility. Wouldn’t it show more integrity to do whatever it takes to ensure the highest possible chance to make the playoffs?
I'm sure Rodger Sherman would consider himself "pro-player." His columns are filled with digs at Roger Goodell, the NCAA, and the usual cast of villains. In this very column, he refers to the new Week 18 as a "cash grab."
But I think this attitude betrays such a fundamental understanding of athletes. These guys have short careers and only a limited number of games in which to apply their chosen craft. And they should just waste one because it won't help them make the playoffs?
My least favorite one of these is the lament that a bad team won a game and weakened their position in next year's draft. It's not bad enough that these guys are on a bad team. They're also supposed to embarrass themselves on the field so their team will have better players next year (when they will very likely no longer be with the team). Yeah, really "pro-player"
(Also, put aside that the ultimate purpose of a sports league is an entertainment business, and teams trying not to win might be occasionally interesting, but is, in general, lousy entertainment).
I'd also be interested in the thoughts of the non-LeBron members of the 2018 Lakers on the "player empowerment era."
"professional sports is an entertainment business" is an observation banal in its obvious inarguable correctness and yet blazingly controversial for the refusal of people to act like it's true.
The Raiders have played the Chiefs twice and lost by an average of 87 trillion points. They need to win that game
The John Madden documentary and then his passing really brought home how sports commentary has changed in my lifetime from a players' perspective to a GM's perspective.
Madden would have absolutely loved Sunday night's game, and that both teams were going all-out to win. It is impossible for me to imagine him spending the overtime speculating on whether the Raiders should play for a tie as Cris Collinsworth did. And either team did appear to be going for a tie, he would have been all over them for it.
I spend way too much time with the Ringer, but here are some thoughts.
I fell in love with Brian Phillips a few years ago and engraved his name among the best Internet writers. His appreciations of sports and culture are sincere and unpredictable. In the average Ringer piece, the paragraphs seem to reiterate the byline without developing insight or evidence, but Phillips builds and develops his work. He asks searching questions about the sports world without self-righteousness.
This piece about analytics as a cultural movement is a good example of his ability to crisply and convincingly make an argument, and easily transcends the average discussion about analytics in sports: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/10/16/21519756/daryl-morey-billy-beane-moneyball-sports-analytics-stepping-away
Also, I have a strong bias toward literary sensibilities online, and for my money Phillips is the sharpest literary mind for miles at the Ringer and sites like it.
Still, I have been feeling lately that his writing is a little too topical, less original than it has been in the past. That could be because my early appreciation was infatuation which of course wanes. It could be because I came to his work after Grantland folded, and so devoured his archives at a distance from the events that inspired them. Regardless, I feel fatigue, and I think it comes from the Ringer habitat more broadly. Like Pete mentioned above, I have lost the excitement I had when browsing Grantland or early Ringer. Something in the air at the Ringer is exhausting: the chattiness, the cleverness, the trappings of wisdom. I used to read Adam Nayman and Alison Herman eagerly, but I don't anymore, and I don't think it's because their quality declined. They are both perceptive critics and solid writers. Maybe it has something to do with their mere presence in an environment that's wearisome?
Another reason I'm itching for more/different from Phillips is that his book, Impossible Owls, is so smart and exciting and at points even ingenious, that his regular articles online look pretty skinny in comparison. I know some of the Owls essays appeared first online, but Phillips almost never writes pieces like that anymore. So, here's to hoping more great work, more books, are ahead of him.
P.S. In the spirit of praise in the podcast world: Ditto Re Chris Ryan--he is smart and likable. Wosny Lambre on the NBA podcast is a great personality. Chris Vernon is often a kind of a caricature, but he endears me and I prefer him to the knowitalls. And I kind of embarrass myself to say this, but I love Russillo. He's often a jock and a bro, but with real keenness and even sensitivity at times. He distrusts easy puffy "narratives" and tries to work with evidence and detail.
Fwiw, in regard to that response to your article, I didn't take it as you saying not to be an artist. I took as you saying not to be a journalist for a click farm. If your aspiration as a writer is to create art, then I don't think you care if the pay sucks. And I don't think you were denying that.
I wonder what the certification process is for oafs…
I've always wondered why the plural of "loaf" is "loaves" but the plural of "oaf" is "oafs", and not "oaves".
This keeps me awake at night sometimes.
Well, you have your believes and I haf mine…
But seriously, I think in Ireland they cut “turves” (from “turf”) from peat bogs.
In America, waiting for your bread to rise is proofing, but in Britain you’re proving. But both places you’d say the dough need to proof.
Yes, and in the US dough is pronounced “doe,” whereas in the UK it’s pronounced “doff.”
Ironically, the Draught House is full of liquid over there.
It's a little hard for me too understand how you could like Justin Charity's work. I read a few columns that epitomized the dim, cowardly wokery we find everywhere and never bothered with him again. The Ringer is fine for sports, ok for pop culture, but is fully Orthodox Woke on politics and culture war stuff.
glancing at your subscriptions i'm going to venture a guess that you have a very specific and narrow interest in any criticism short of anti-wokeness. i say this not to dispute your distaste -- read who you want, obv -- but just to reinforce my point in another comment here.
i've written/broadcast a mix of "woke" and "anti-woke" positions in recent years (not to mention positions that have nothing to do w wokeness one way or the other). but part of the transformation of the internet in recent years is a sort of critical entrenchment among readers and writers alike: you're either with us or against us, in general, in the culture war. anything short of exactly where you're standing is the exact opposite of where you're standing. that, more than anything else, is the mindset that's killing writing.
My Substack subscriptions are not reflective of narrow interests - I get here what is not available elsewhere (sadly). Until Substack came along there was almost nothing on offer representing left-antiwokeness, especially as every heterodox liberal got run out of the legacy publications over the last ten years. There are many writers I read with whom I am in only partial agreement on culture war matters.
Blog reading is my sport, with a bit of computer gaming and lots of friendly chatting with my best friend - my wife, tho she's more into books (in Slovak) than blogs. Neither of us like podcasts, not even when I'm walking alone or doing dishes or basically ever - prefer a readable transcript. My kids are OK with podcasts, but even more into short videos, even tho they often play some computer game while "watching" / mostly listening, to the video. So much infotainment; tho a good amount of info is there with the 'tainment.
The Pharmacon album cover is certainly provocative. But background screaming is, how did you phrase it about Galef, "not for me". I'd prefer "underappreciated" music, like The The:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bErFXjUGvQ
There's more room for professional writers than for singers - and there continue to be tons of singers hoping to become pros. Which I think is fine, and also for writers - but have serious plans for a Plan B- a real job. Better yet, make becoming a pro the Plan B as a hobby. Not for 10,000 hours, but for hundreds of serious hours trying to get better, not just doing what you like.
While it's tougher to be tops, there's more folks with more time looking for cool things / fun things / thoughtful things. Maybe often even rude things. Ain't this the right place?