As a journalist it’s impossible not to root for Grantland, the long-form ESPN spinoff site captained by logorrheic NBA junkie Bill Simmons. Three cheers for any venture that begins by throwing money at Writers, by gum, actual Writers, those miserable lickspittles who have been search-engine-optimized into near-oblivion in the past decade.
Simmons wouldn’t be my first pick to lead a literary renaissance, even if he has managed to assemble editors resembling an Algonquin Round Table as envisioned by an airport Waldenbooks: Dave Eggers, Malcom Gladwell, and Chuck Klosterman all have their fingers in the goulash, with editorial talent plucked from GQ (Dan Fierman), Harper’s (Rafe Bartholomew) and New York magazine’s Vulture (Lane Brown). A thick enough checkbook can give even a cave mole a jeweler’s eye for talent, but in this case you have to concede that Simmons knows from quality people.
His poaching spree did include one misstep that spawned a teapot-tempest: reneging on a job offer to Deadspin senior editor Tommy Craggs, following an impolitic blog post Craggs wrote about an ESPN senior editor who shows off his toy aisle of an office to ESPN’s in-house blog. When tempers calmed, ESPN executive VP John Walsh doubled back to re-interview Craggs for the position. Craggs smelled Bristol’s sweat-breath and demurred, to remain at Deadspin, which once had been so sure of his departure it threw him a going-away party. As Craggs this week explained to New York magazine: “I didn’t like what Walsh’s involvement in my hiring augured for the site. He’s a brilliant guy, obviously, but I’m not sure he gets that Grantland’s appeal, not least to Simmons, is its seeming independence from the Borg.”
I consider Craggs a friend and a bit of a badass, but bias or no, I side with him here perhaps because we both came to journalism through newspapers, and are both one-time editorial employees of different ESPN editorial tentacles. Allow me to echo his skepticism. ESPN is a dangerous place for a scrupulous person to work because the network’s M.O. is to favor the sanitized and shiny over the nuanced or disturbing; to promote profit over novelty; to carnival-bark athletes into celebrities, then siphon riches off the fame it fathers.
This isn’t to say that ESPN doesn’t make some damn fine television or employ a great number of talented writers and editors; it does. But the corporate-editorial ethos views the world as a team venture waiting to happen, as one big happy cross-promoting locker room. Worthwhile journalism, which is at turns caustic and grim and vulgar and hostile, is too messy to venture in great quantity. At ESPN, one must play ball. The fact that Simmons had the good sense and gall to brand Grantland as far away from ESPN as possible fueled hope among readers and writers that we could turn to the site for something more independent, more truthful and exploratory, than what a boob-tube ethos usually allows.
Wednesday’s Grantland debut both justified this optimism and pointed to the risks of the solipsistic Simmons running without a leash. The New York Times Magazine made an apt comparison between Grantland and Martha Stewart Living, “a magazine similarly constructed around a single person’s market-tested sensibility.” Grantland likely will rise or fall on the appeal of its guiding persona. So there we have it. At best, Grantland so far is jaunty revelry for the sporting life and for culture at large. At worst, it threatens to go down as the Manhattan Project of navel-gazing.
The opening of his introductory essay begins with a paragraph that conforms to every knock on the Simmons scouting report: that he writes his life as one continual inside-reference, carries names in a sieve, and sprinkles enough references to Vegas-grade misogyny and frat-tastic juvenilia that your teeth squeak after reading him, sort of like when you chug a Coke.

While I appreciate the scope of your vocabulary, you seem to be missing the central tenant of ESPN's business model - speaking to the audience. Grantland will succeed as much from Simmons' established celebrity as it will the writing talents of its other contributors. The thing you seem to find so annoying - Simmons' eternal focus on self as the prism through which he describes the world - is the very thing that has given him the cache to create Grantland in the first place.
Simmons hasn't succeeded because he writes about sports, or that he does it particularly well. Lots of people write about sports, and quite a few do it better than him. What sets Simmons apart is his persona. While that may cause many to dislike or disparage him, it is also responsible for him being arguably the most popular online sports columnist in the country. It would be foolish of him to launch Grantland and then switch up the style that has proven such a success. He knows how to play to his audience. It just doesn't happen that audience isn't you.
#1 Posted by Joshua Duffy, CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 03:29 PM
If I use big words,people willl think I'm smart!
#2 Posted by bobsaget, CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 03:49 PM
That's "slathered" to you, CJR. I will give it a try, but my concern is it may be too self-consciously unresponsive to the immediate, and that there will be more think pieces than advisable or enjoyable. Sanctimonious baseball blather stuff.
#3 Posted by Mark J. McPherson, CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 06:30 PM
'Tone poem' x 2? Really? Is the cabaret voltaire really THAT applicable here?
That aside, the navelgazing is getting a bit out of hand. Here's hoping they get the message
#4 Posted by stephen, CJR on Sat 11 Jun 2011 at 11:35 AM
Not that I'm a 2011-era Simmons fan, but to write a perspecitve piece on this site after less than one week seems a little silly.
The whole problem with the Intenet is there's no space for nuance, longview or perspective, and I think this piece - while well-written and pretty observant - is part of that problem.
Good points, but would have been better a couple months down the road. In the first days of Huffington Post, it was regarded as an immediate failure - and that didn't quite happen, did it?
Again, though, good article all the same.
#5 Posted by NS Webster, CJR on Sat 11 Jun 2011 at 12:37 PM
Did the pot just call the kettle black?
The following definition took me 1 second to look up on Google.
Tone poem
Musical work for orchestra inspired by an extramusical story, idea, or “program,” to which the title typically refers or alludes. It evolved from the concert overture, an overture not attached to an opera or play yet suggestive of a literary or natural sequence of events. Franz Liszt, who coined the term, wrote 13 such works. ...
#6 Posted by Phred, CJR on Mon 13 Jun 2011 at 11:09 AM
Just read that little "tone poem" about Wrigley Field. Utter hooey in any media era. In the new world, apparently, anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
#7 Posted by steve daley, CJR on Mon 13 Jun 2011 at 11:14 AM
Exactly what part of that first paragraph is misogynistic? Obviously, Simmons does do that occasionally, but there's no reason to point it out in a paragraph where it doesn't exist. Great journalism.
#8 Posted by jay, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 04:13 PM