ON THE DL

Josh Zerkle, the Talented Monday Morning Punter, Talks With Leather, KSK & Terrible Sports News We Must Cover

Josh Zerkle, aka Monday Morning Punter, from With Leather and Kissing Suzy Kolber joins the show in an episode that should have taken place a long time ago.

Yes, this interview is long overdue, and somewhat unfortunate that all of the stories we have to talk about in sports seem so terrible right now. Criminal voyeurism, whatever Ben Roethlisberger is being sued for, ESPN’s refusal to cover Big Ben’s story, Michael Vick being released...the list goes on. It’s odd, because in a way there aren’t many other people I’d rather have on the show than Punter to talk about these issues. I’m not sure what that says about either of us.

We start, however, with talk about his career and rise from the comments section of Deadspin to running one of the most widely-read sports blogs in the country. Zerkle was writing at KSK before Matt Ufford, fellow KSKer and proprietor of With Leather, had the opportunity to run the new Uproxx Media site Warming Glow. With Ufford moving to cover television, Zerkle was given the opportunity to run With Leather. We talk about that transition and how many of the KSKers have gone on to bigger and more prominent things. Does he ever see them all sitting around on their virtual porch swings talking about the days when they used to write that old NFL humor blog? Is the KSK clan a blog-version of a supergroup?

Ufford was once quoted in the Washington Post about how he roots against athletes because it make his job easier (and more fun). This quote has always caught the ire of people like Tony Kornhesier -- who on more than one occasion has brought that up to me -- so we pose the same question to Zerkle, who is running the site now. Does he root against athletes?

He points out that, like we discussed earlier in the week, Tom Watson failing is simply a better story. Athletes are put up on a pedestal enough, so when they do falter, it makes them more like us. And that’s where some of the coverage comes in. Is there a sense of schadenfreude that comes with it? Sure.

We also discuss the notion that sports bloggers aren’t just internet dwellers who make a living in smut trafficking and that there’s this deep social commentary to what they post. Is this true, or is it bullshit? And even if there is a level of subtlety in the writing or the juxtaposition of the posts throughout the day, are the readers (the bulk of the hop-in-hop-out readers) paying enough attention to figure those subtleties out?

As someone who made a name, then a career, from reading and commenting on blogs, we ask a completely loaded question in wondering if readers have too much input in the overall commentary of sports. Is there too much noise out there and the area between commenter and blogger is far more gray than that between MSM and blogger? Zerkle had perhaps the best answer I’ve heard on the topic.

“Do we recognize demand for a certain story or a certain sports figure or do we create it? I think more often than not, we just recognize it. In other words, we’re saying something that other people already believe -- already think. That’s why blogs are so much more popular than traditional media who apparently have to maintain a relationship with a Ben Roethlisberger or a Tiger Woods and is not going to say some of the things that me sitting on my couch in Virginia has no problem saying. Because I’m not affiliated with those people. I don’t care if i hurt their feelings. A lot of people who comment, a lot of people who watch sports, they don’t care about hurting their feelings. There’s no gray area for them at all.

“I don’t think it’s anything that we do. I think it’s stuff that we point out that people already believe. And I think that’s what makes the blogosphere so wonderful.”

The part that isn’t wonderful is, often, the stories we have to cover. Rather than run down a full description of what we discuss, and honestly struggle through, I’ll note that we talk about the Erin Andrews situation with as much tact and courtesy as we can.

We talk about the need to cover the story and how WL decided to do so. We discuss the fact that sites like his have made a living off of Andrews images and videos in the past and question where the line is? Is it the unwilling participation? The nudity? Both?

And we discuss where this will go in the future. Are sites like Busted Coverage and Sideline Hotties (if that still exists -- sorry, neither in my Google Reader) going to disappear? No. They won’t. So what do we do now? Again, I hope if you listen you understand that the discussion on all parts -- Josh, Nick and myself -- was as honest and candid and difficult as it sounds.

We touch more on the Big Ben story and try to figure out why ESPN refuses to cover the story. You can read both my take and Josh’s at The League over at the Washington Post. It’s frankly inexplicable, and leads us to believe that ESPN is more concerned with deciding what the news is than reporting on it. Nick even wonders if there are racial undertones at play, and we address the fact that while ESPN is refusing to cover a big, sorry THE big, NFL story of the week, they are blacklisting the New York Post for running the photos of Andrews on their cover.

First, we agree that it’s good work by ESPN to do so. What the Post did was despicable. But if you read the comments on Neil Best’s blog when he reported of the blacklisting of Posters at the WWL, people are questioning ESPN’s ethics as much as the Post, wondering why they get to decide what’s news and how people can cover it. Some are claiming that the Post should retaliate at ESPN, running constant exposes on the companies staff.

That notion is silly at best, but does it bring up a point? Will ESPN be facing some mainstream media backlash similar to what the blogs have given them? And why won’t they cover the story? (Note: they are now covering the story).

We shift to Michael Vick talk. I can’t believe I’m in the group defending Vick, but hasn’t he paid his debt to society? Shouldn’t two years away from the game be enough? We ask Zerkle his thoughts on the situation and if he thinks Vick can rehabilitate his career as well as his reputation.

And while we had planned to talk about Favre, the topics on the show are depressing enough. So instead we talk about POKER! Zerkle played in a blogger poker tournament at Carbon Poker that we may be playing in soon. We talk about the game, and somehow delve into the fact that most of our friends are virtual and we never leave our houses, or talk to anyone other than our families. Seriously, I go days without speaking to another person, other than the show. I’m not sure I’d have it any other way.

We thank Josh for coming on the show in a much-overdue interview. Thanks again for listening and sorry about yesterday’s absence. Blame Verizon. Maybe a show tomorrow. We’ll see. Follow us on Twitter for updates on that, and a lot more.