Abram Sauer Online

I’ve tagged this with the “this could be longer” tag. And there really isn’t enough emphasizing that. This could be SO much longer by including Gawker.com.

But Deadspin’s recent activity is a perfect example of Gawker Publishing’s convenient mix of self-righteousness and page-view fishing.

Non-sports fans finally got interested in sports (esque) content recently when ESPN reporter Erin Andrews was filmed, Porkeys style, through some kind of peephole in her hotel room. Now, there is debate over how this criminal behavior was driven by a sexual obsession with Andrews that exists in the sports community and how Andrews’ rise to fame on ESPN clearly played on and leveraged this phenomenon.

But this is about Deadspin. Deadspin semi-broke this story, which is to say they brought the existence of the video to a mass audience of Erin Andrews fans who would love to see such a video, legality notwithstanding. Ironically, Deadspin was a key player in stoking the fires of Andrews obsession, posting camera phone pics of Andrews from readers, photos of Andrews shapely ass in a tight pair of pants. Deadspin even played up a story, with piss-poor sourcing, of Andrews’ sexual liasons with an athlete.  (My personal favorite was Deadspin’s posting of Andrews open-mouthing a dick sandwhich. Burger King owes her royalties.)

Of course, Deadspin always uses the claim of not being a true “news” organization, and thus not confined to pesky thins like journalistic ethics. We’re just a blog, they claim. (Except, of course, when in scraps with mainstream news organizations that blow off Deadspin as a sewer of gossip and misinformation; then the site plays itself as legit and in need of respect.) Anyway, for her own benefit, Andrews shrewdly played along to some extent, calling Deadspin “hilarious,” certainly knowing that Deadspin, in all its self-aggrandizing fashion as a Gawker site, would play to the nines.

Clearly, Deadspin is not directly responsible for Andrews getting photographed naked in the privacy of her hotel room. The Andrew debacle pageview windfall has even allowed Will Leitch, Deadspin’s founding editor, to do a crossover-worlds post by penning a Deadspin column in the self-absorbed and overly-introspective spirit of his old My Life as a Loser personae.

Deadspin readers are hardly the knuckle-dragging sports fans that can be found at many sites. But they are hardly the most refined Gawker readers either, given to terribly sexist and crass humor and very harsh “observations” which they protect under that old excuse of “just being honest.” It is not a forum for an impressive show of reason and rhetoric, reasonable or not, is popular.

A perfect display of Deaspin’s selective conscience and how the site stokes pageviews when convenient, and self-righteous piety when it’s not, is the comparison of the recent Rothlesberger rape charges and the Steve McNair homicide. Both quarterbacks were embroiled in off-field sexual controversy. McNair’s affair ended tragically, with him being shot by his girlfriend (who then shot herself). Deadspin ran with the story, posting photos of the woman, even video of her getting a DUI. But then when CBS ran a photo of the woman in a bathing suit, Deadspin put on the disapproving daddy hat, and, displaying a complete lack of self-awareness, accused such sites of leveraging such a irrelevant photo for pageviews: “offers nothing but a glimpse of a dead woman’s cleavage.” Deadspin the next day ran the (apparently very relevant) video of the woman’s earlier DUI.

Then this week, Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Rothlesberger was accused of rape by a woman working at a Las Vegas casino. Under the title “What Exactly is Ben Rothlesberger Accused of Anyway?” (hint: rape), the site included a full-face photo of the woman in question.

When a commentor brought up the fact that the woman’s photo, especially at this stage, was unnecessary, Senior Editor Bennett offered the non-explanation: “The photo came from TMZ, not us. (The source link was missing and that’s my fault.) Clicking on any of their links would take you to her name and picture, so it didn’t seem necessary to pretend we’re protecting anyone.”

So, running a photo of a woman who shot a quarterback and then herself is “dumbass” behavior but running the photo of a woman who many have been raped by a quarterback is defensible (by evoking TMZ of all sites?!)? You stay classy, Deadspin.

Another example is Deadspin taking CBS to task for showing, momentarily, a blurry bit of the Andrews video by embedding that very CBS video in the post. Outrage and an opportunity for its readers to catch a glimpse, same tactic used by, say, Fox News when it runs a segment on how terribly lurid spring break has become in conjunction with video of half-naked co-eds on spring break. Of course, Gawker is double teaming the effort by scolding the media about how news organizations are exploiting the Andrews story. Gawker’s post does not at all mention Deadspin.

Of course there is a through-line and one thing that all of these stories have in common: Loads (and reloads) of pageviews. All of the Deadspin posts in question, both the lurid ones and the high-horse ones, blew up that little fireball icon that denotes tens of thousands of view, an icon that I can only assume is attached to a bell in Denton’s bedroom, which, when rung, results in the Pavlovian response of Nick getting a massive boner.