As a part of BallHype's ongoing Spotlight Series, we asked several bloggers to participate in a roundtable on the issue of "humanizing athletes." Do drunk athlete photos bring fans closer to the players? Or has the blog age pushed them even further away?

Tom Ziller moderated the panel, which included:

• Nik Richie, TheDirty.com
• Will Leitch, Deadspin
• Brooks Melchior, Sports By Brooks
• Michael David Smith, FanHouse and elsewhere
• Miss Gossip, a FanHouse producer/blogger
• Dan Steinberg, the Washington Post's D.C. Sports Bog

--------------------------------------------------------

BallHype: All blogs who do any sort of original reporting have some sort of mental standard they need to meet before posting a tip. Obviously, these vary. Will, what goes into your consideration before posting an original rumor (or even the Dark Side of the Locker Room posts)?

Leitch: Well, obviously, these things have to be somewhat vetted; if I were just throwing up junk whenever I felt like it, I would lose the trust of the readers. There are blogs that don't do that, and that's their prerogative; it's not my position to tell someone else how to run their site. I can only speak to what I try to do on mine.

BallHype: Nik, you and the other proprietors of The Dirty have repeatedly insisted the site isn't a journalistic endeavor, and that you aren't an investigative reporter. But just a few days ago, you told NPR about how you sat on the Kobe rumor for 30 days. If you're just a vessel for reader news, what made you wait a whole month on the Kobe stuff? What standard of proof were you waiting on?

Nik: I really didn't pursue the story until she was removed from the Laker Girl squad. Also, at the time my source was trying to sell the story and I was not interested in purchasing anything. TheDirty.com in my eyes in as an entertainment site, but with the Matt Leinart photos I started to get flooded with emails of sports scandal.

BallHype: How did you pursue the (Kobe) story (in between the time you got the tip and the first post)? By going through your other sources? Isn't this the sort of behavior a reporter engages in? Why do the reporting work on this one -- and insist you have 100% rock solid proof -- and not others?

Nik: We received the Kobe story from a close source over a month ago. As I said, the source was looking to sell the story. In general at The Dirty, we do not pay for images and/or stories. We followed up on the story with other credible sources close to the principals as well as certain individuals directly involved. We have learned with the posts that we feel are of national merit, especially stories of the controversial nature, we have the responsibility to accurately report prior to our postings. Posts that are just pure images speak for themselves (a picture speaks 1000 words).

As a site we are evolving to becoming a source for controversial stories. The controversy around the Kobe story is similar to what magazines and newspapers have faced and been challenged by throughout the years. We stand behind the story and know it to be true.

BallHype: Deadspin and With Leather certainly feature drunk athlete and T&A photos (respectively), but the writing on each blog is phenomenal and seems like a priority. That's not the case with a lot of blogs who also do the drunk athlete and T&A thing. Will, as an arbiter of import in the blogdome as the top site (like it or not), do you consider it your responsibility to link to great writing as often as funny/wild/stupid things? Or is your responsibility only to your reader, who might prefer the funny/wild/stupid things?

Leitch: Of course: The goal of the site has always been to promote great writing/photos/whatever to fans that might not be seen otherwise. Some of that is great writing. Some of that is stupid drunk athlete photos. Some of that is "highbrow," and some of it isn't. I don't think it's my role to foist my taste on everybody else's. There are tons of different viewpoints, and I try to reflect as many as I can.

BallHype: Do you think there is some point in which the "humanizing of athletes" actually hurts the fan by pushing the athletes further away? Or has that already happened?

Leitch: It happened long ago. If anyone looks at a drunk photo of Ben Roethlisberger and says, "Jeez, I can't root for that guy now because he drinks with attractive women," I don't think I recognize where that human being is coming from in any conceivable way.

BallHype: Do you mean it (the fans being pushed away) happened pre-Internet boom?

Leitch: Yeah, I think he happened long before blogs.

BallHype: Do blogs do anything to bridge the gap, in your opinion? Or do they drive the wedge deeper? Or do they not matter in this relationship?

Leitch: I do think they do help, in a lot of ways; they can look a lot more like regular human beings. Which, after all, they are.

BallHype: Brooks, you were the first sports blogger to mix T&A into the links and commentary. There are a ton of imitators now, but most (like The Dirty) seem to focus on the pictures and pay little concern to being funny, eloquent, or insightful. Is it something you resent, or are you a proud papa, or is it somewhere in the middle?

Brooks: I don't look at sites consistently that aren't intelligently-written (funny or otherwise), so I really can't comment thoroughly on what the crazy picture sites are doing. I don't really know who is coming and going in that area. I first saw the most recent Leinart pics on Deadspin, and that was it. Likewise for most of the other drunk athlete pics that are out there.

We don't troll Flickr or steal Facebook or Myspace photos, which it appears is common practice now. If I end up with a drunk/goofy photo, I hope to write something intelligent or amusing around it. I'm not sure if it always comes off that way, but I do have that in mind.

We've been doing this since 2001. So it's safe to say that if the site was built solely on posting the occasional crazy photo, we wouldn't have lasted this long or have the consistent traffic that we do. I think I can say the same for the other long-term, successful sports blogs.

BallHype: Do you think the fact popularity is now often tied to the number of drunk athlete posts you can dig up is bad for the medium as whole, in terms of keeping some modicum of popular respectability?

Brooks: In observing my traffic numbers for the past seven years, I can tell you that we're to the point where very few single posts (photo-based or otherwise) move the traffic needle. Yes, we've had some spikes over the years (mainly from Google searches and main electronic media mentions), but generally the drunk athlete pic isn't something that makes a huge difference in our daily numbers.

For smaller sites, I'm sure it does make a difference. But that kind of traffic is fleeting (unless you have resources to continue to churn out daily, original content, like TMZ.com).

As for "popular respectability", everyone has their own idea of what that is. It varies widely. From Bob Costas to a sports blogger to a picture-driven website owner. I don't care what people think is "the standard" for a sports blogger. I just do what I do and the users and advertisers decide if we stay in business.

BallHype: Dan and Michael, as bloggers who do a ton of original reporting: do you feel the average athlete (not Curt Schilling, not Cris Carter) have an idea of what blogs are, or even have an opinion on blogs?

Steinberg: Not to be too obvious, but it's impossible to imagine an "average" athlete. From my vague experience, I'd say American-born MLS soccer players almost always know what blogs are, American-born NBA players almost always have a pretty good idea, and beyond that, I'm really not sure. I know several athletes I've talked to would not have an easy time distinguishing blogs from message boards from web sites. I haven't had many in-depth discussions about this with athletes, but one guy on the Washington Capitals, Matt Bradley, once asked me, "Because you have a blog, that means you can just make up whatever you want to, right?" and he wasn't joking. At least, I don't think he was. I think it's hard to define for bloggers, so it's even harder to define for athletes who aren't focused on media definitions.

MDS: I think Braylon Edwards pretty much represents the average athlete -- he has a general idea what a blog is, but doesn't read them, doesn't blog himself, and doesn't have any particular insight about blogs.

Obviously, Dan is right that there's no such thing as the "average" athlete, but to the extent that we can generalize, I think it's pretty similar to the populace as a whole, with younger athletes more likely to know about blogs than older athletes.

BallHype: Does the fact you're coming from a blog angle ever hurt or help in getting the athlete to open up, or does it not even matter?

Steinberg: The athletes who I've gotten to know at all (chiefly guys on the Wizards and D.C. United, plus maybe a few Redskins) sort of understand what I'm looking for: offbeat, humor, wise-cracking, off-the-field wackiness, etc. They associate me with those stories, and many then help provide future stuff along that vein. "Open up" might not be the term as much as "play along." But my impression is they're thinking more, "hey, there's the goofy guy" rather than "hey, there's the blogger." But for me, it also matters that my items are repurposed on page 2 of the Washington Post sports section four to five times a week. I think they associate me as "Washington Post funny dude."

MDS: In my experience, for the most part it doesn't matter whether I'm coming from a blog or a newspaper or whatever as far as getting sources to talk to me. From most of what I've seen TV reporters usually get better access than writers, but among the writers, they tend to all get the same level of access whether they're writing for a newspaper or a blog or a magazine.

BallHype: Does the medium and its reputation get in the way?

Steinberg: I'd say this is an issue more with PR people than it is with athletes. With athletes, I just say I'm from the Washington Post and I'm ok. With PR people, when I explain "This is for my washingtonpost.com blog, maybe it'll show up in the paper, maybe not," I get a lot of long pauses.

I do worry that I'm contributing to giving blogs a bad name. A lot of people do very serious work with sports blogs, but because I'm probably the most well-known full-time sports blogger among D.C. pro teams (as of right now, anyhow), I think some people may be conflating "blog, the publishing medium" with "offbeat humor, the D.C. Sports Bog theme." I'm not trying to give us all a bad name.

MDS: I definitely agree with Dan that some people conflate "blog, the publishing medium" with a certain type of writing, but I think within one or two questions you ask a source, they get a pretty good idea of who you are and what you're about.

Steinberg: Celebrity journos get access even if it's not for TV. For example, when wilbon shows up to do a column for the Washington Post, with no cameras anywhere in sight, he still gets amazing access. Real plugged-in beat writers get whatever access they want. People will tell things to our Wizards beat writer, maybe in private or on the phone or whatever, that they would never tell to a random blogger who showed up. That doesn't mean bloggers couldn't make news through building a rapport or asking the right questions, but people who are there every day making their reputation definitely have an advantage.

BallHype: Gossip, you confronted Greg Oden with the pink dress picture, and his response was classic. Do you think it would have been the same if a guy took your place? An older reporter? Was Oden a special case, or do you think other athletes would respond as graciously when placed in a similar predicament?

Miss Gossip: I think it's fair to say that I generally get away with more as a woman ... especially one who doesn't look or act like a typical reporter. That said, G.O. was such a friendly, goofy guy, I can't imagine he would have reacted badly to anyone who came at him with the same joking attitude. It honestly hadn't even occurred to me at the time that Oden might get upset by my question.

Other athletes have generally reacted well to my crazy questions, although I can usually tell who's too serious to make it work. I've only had one interview that didn't go very well and afterwards the athlete asked me not to use a portion of it. I had touched on something personal that was actually pretty funny, but I respect his wish to not put it on front street. That clip remains in my digital vault.

Steinberg: I think some guys could have pulled the G.O. thing off, but I've often seen athletes way more willing to open up and play along with female reporters than with male. Which makes sense, really; I would be more likely to say something outrageously entertaining if Erin Andrews was interviewing me than if, say Will Leitch was. Maybe I should start going to games in drag.

BallHype: Are standards with regards to posting rumors, gossip, or "drunk athlete photos" important to the blog medium? Or is the medium self-policing in that those who post bad rumors and unredeeming content eventually fail?

Steinberg: Maybe bad rumors would make you fail, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. As for "unredeeming content?" I think it's pretty obvious that most of what we all do is "unredeeming content," in the grand scheme of things, and that the more unredeeming it is, the higher the clicks go. As Brooks and Will hinted at, once you establish yourself and your niche, you'll be less reliant on the wacky drunk athlete picture, but people will never ever stop wanting to see those pictures, and if there's a standard for when to post them and when not to post them, I'm unfamiliar with it.

BallHype: Do blogs bridge the gap between athletes and fans, or do they make the relationship worse? The gulf between a Gilbert Arenas (bolstered by blogging) and a Matt Leinart (buried by some timely photos) -- where in between those poles does reality fall for the majority of athletes?

Steinberg: Both, I guess. If I had to pick one, I'd say "make the relationship worse." Will argues that photos of Ben R. with booze and hot girls won't make fans like him less, which is true, but it has to make him like the world less. None of us would want our worst (or most private, anyhow) moments on the Internet, and even if it doesn't happen to all athletes, there have to be a bunch who trust the world less. But this is less about "blogs" than it is about the Internet, cell phone cameras, YouTube, etc. I know before I die, something highly embarrassing to me will show up on the Internet, and I won't be happy.

(Ed note: No sense in keeping you looking over your shoulder your whole life, Dan.)


Keep track of the Spotlight Series at the BallHype hub or via the RSS feed. To get involved in future Spotlight Series, contact Tom Ziller.