Kravitz: I'll say I'm wrong
We all have a love/hate relationship with Bob's work, although I've typically found myself appreciating the position he's been in and his ability to write exceptionally well even if I disagree with his opinions. Since he's been predicting the possible breakup between the Colts and Manning many have ratcheted up their attacks on Kravitz, in some cases unfairly. Bob has even gone on the offensive himself a few times.
It's the complaint about his critics that will prompt discussion today:
My radio friend JMV has been saying I’ve put my reputation on the line with this thing. I guess I just don’t see it. Didn’t John say Tom Telesco was going to be named GM and Jim Caldwell was going to be retained? I don’t see or hear anybody saying he needs to pay for that with his reputation. Didn’t my other radio friend Jake Query tweet that Bill Polian was going to be kicked upstairs (like he didn’t already have one foot out the door) and Chris Polian was going to be retained? I don’t see or hear anybody saying he needs to pay for that with his reputation.
I vaguely remember writing that there was a great chance of there being a clean sweep — no more Polian, no more Caldwell. Think I was right.
I can only tell you that nobody has done more reporting on this story, has better sources, more insight into the machinations surrounding this story. I talk to Irsay. I talk to Manning — although, not recently.
Do we hold Kravitz to a higher standard than say JMV or Jake Query? Do we expect too much of a professional journalist? Are we unfair?
What a Jackass. I came here just to say that. Other journalists tend to report things like "Person x will stay, person y will go" because they here it from a source. Being really vocal about what you think can, will, and SHOULD happen does tend to pull your reputation into question. There's a difference between being wrong for the right reasons and right for the wrong reasons.
1 Like
Wormtongue Kravitz is a self professed liar. He publicly admitted that he brought a personal agenda to his feelings and coverage of Bill Polian. He issued a mea culpa and said he was only trying to be "funny" when he described Peyton currently having a "noodle arm".
It amuses me that he talks about putting his "reputation" on the line. What reputation is that... of being a lying, self-grandiose jerk? I would say that Wormtongue successfully adheres to his reputation with every damn thing he writes.
3 Like
No, we are not unfair. Speaking for myself, it's not that I hold him to some different standard of accuracy than I do other writers, it's that I find his method of opinion writing to be heinous. Like Brad Wells, his style is the opposite of responsible opinion writing in that he aims to generate heat rather than shed light. He's less informative than he is instigative. It's true that his function - any opinion writers function - is to provide opinion and provoke thought; however, he takes the cheap route of throwing heat around instead of challenging people to truly think in his writing.
The best opinion writers manage to handle controversial topics by informing readers while giving their opinion, bu the informative parts come first. In sports, SI's ex writer Doc Z (Paul Zimmerman) was this way; so's current writer Joe Posnanski. Contrast that to "shock jock" type columnists like Jason Whitlock. Which writers do you walk away from feeling informed? And which just make your stomach burble?
You want other examples of writers who are better at shedding light than generating heat? Look at political writers. Contrast the works of liberal columnists like David Broder, Elanor Clift, or Michael Kingsley - or even someone who was nominally famous for being an agitprop like Christopher Hitchens - and compare them to other opinion peddlers who's purpose is to blast: Bill Maher, for example, or Markos Zúniga who pretty much epitomizes the angry left. On the right, compare Victor Davis Hanson, Richard Fernandez, or George Will to agitprops like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. In the best opinion generation, you still get informed even in controversy; Hitches being the best example of this. Whereas with the worst, all you get is heat and blast; Maher is an example of that.
The most relevant criticism of Kravitz is not his accuracy; all writers will have a hit/miss rate. It's how he approaches topics. It's worse than cynical, it's openly manipulative. He takes cheap stances not to inform, but merely to provoke. And his writing suffers because of it.
I could stand a writer who's 100 times more controversial if he was informative and let the information form the controversy, instead of attempting to form the information *to* the controversy. For all my political differences with Hitchens, I appreciate his work BECAUSE he works to inform over working to inflame; he does aim todo the latter, but you at least get a firm grasp of *why* a given controversy exists, why he stands where he does, and what you *can* think about it. Whereas the cheap opinionists basically write as if you should think the way they do, instead of trusting you to come to the proper conclusion with a reasonable exploration of the actual substance behind the controversies. And that's the real issue here. Does the work constructively add substance to the debate, even when the opinon is clear and possibly controversial? Or does the work serve only to inflame?
That's why I don't hesitate to criticize Kravitz. He serves only to inflame. Not to inform. That's the cheapest form of opinion writing that's out there. He could take a lesson from his betters. He *should* take lessons from them, but I imagine he's too stuck in his ways to change.
Sometime, Kravitz seemed to read like he was resentful of the Colts' continued success, and I'm not sure I blame him. If your job is to look for the interesting story lines, and the lines keep being the same, I would get frustrated too. I think with all this fervor he is as giddy as a little school girl writing about the Colts because it is something interesting to him again. Maybe he just likes covering the controversy more than the same old story.
@theinfelix This. And he obviously enjoys the attention. I just don't read him often, because I generally know what I'm going to get: unjustifiably angry (I suffer from sportsfan-itis). His Manning interview was the first and only good thing he's ever written, probably because Manning did all the talking. Watching him try to wring column-inches out the only real convo he's had with Manning, weeks after the fact is just gross. His last column is actually about himself. I know a blog he should write for. Fuck Bob Kravitz right in the ear.
Kravitz is a columnist, not a journalist. The same rules don't apply because he's allowed/encouraged to interject with opinions.
That said, he has gotten quite a few primo scoops on all this lately, which makes him sort of a reporter as well.
Dare I say I've even enjoyed reading him since Polian was fired? His mood and voice are noticeably different.
