Basically, your comment suffers from the classic “X hasn’t changed, and there’s no reason to care that X changed anyway” inconsistency.

So which is it? Is it that there hasn’t been a moral collapse or is it that it’s not important that there has been one?

The reason I address your comment this way is because it’s the only way a productive conversation can be had. There couldn’t be a good discussion with the DeadSpin author because he was unwilling to admit reality.

The reality is that there has been a moral collapse. A generation ago nobody would have said we “can’t expect everyone to have a moral compass”. A generation ago, a moral compass was an expectation. If you want to refute that, I guess you can try, but it seems self-evident to me. However, it is a logical truth that any argument that also includes a “it doesn’t matter” component, is an implicit admission of the collapse.

As such, in my view, the only proper discussion point is whether the moral collapse is a bad thing. Obviously you know where I stand on that. Nevertheless, I think it is an acceptable topic on which to have a conversation that is both productive and profitable.

I’m going to comment on this later on my site, but I don’t think it’s as big a deal. Deadspin attracts a certain type of sports fan (those of us who grew up in the 90s who enjoy irreverence and scoff at deification) provides a suitable counterbalance to the MSM-types like Bob Costas and Jim Nantz, who poeticized sport into an artform. People write the way they write.

We can’t expect everyone to have a moral compass in the blogosphere. We just have to write well enough for others to find our analysis and entertainment.

In any case, I whole-heartedly agree that the publishers can and do influence society and so should not be let off the hook.

I don’t personally take in such sites (I’ll admit, I’ve only visited Deadspin once or twice) not because I find them morally reprehensible (although I’m not terribly happy it goes on), but because I simply don’t find it interesting. I could not care less what Matt Leinart does in his spare time and if it might involve beer bongs and groupies or whatever. For me, sports are a delightful (and often intellectual) pastime, and I have some trouble understanding the sort of hero worship/role model paradigm that gets attached to it. It’s hard to cheer for a guy if he’s a jerk, but if he’s able to restrict it to his private life (and I maintain strict boundaries regarding what constitutes “private”), I can certainly make it work.

However, much as I might try and blame society for this sort of coverage, I can’t pin all the blame on them. Producers of content, as you point out, *are* responsible for what they put out. Talented journalists and authors have the ability to sway the public and its tastes; by taking the high road in their coverage of sports (or anything else), they can influence the public and help decide what is deemed important and newsworthy. Certainly, its a quality I appreciate about your own site. I don’t want to tell people what they should and shouldn’t like, but I do want to put out content that I can be proud of, and I trust that the public will recognize quality when they see it.

As for Bissinger, I think he was way off base and came off sounding like a bitter man ranting about the neighborhood kids ruining his precious lawn. Being an “official” journalist makes him no more of a devotee to the craft of writing than a dedicated blogger. Yes, Deadspin is profane and often offensive. But that’s kind of the point. It’s like renting an X rated movie and complaining about the nudity.

There are all kinds of blogs for all kinds of people, and the media world is a far better place with them around. Take the Cal blogosphere: there are many different voices offering many different perspectives. My takeaways from your site and TwistNhook’s will be very different but just as valid as the information I would take away from the Chron or the CC times.

Go bear! Go blogs!