Kiszla hearts Sakic, Dater does not heart ESPN

NOTES: to those of you coming from the Big Lead (via Deadspin or not), NHL fanhouse, or Offwing, Dater's full post is available here. Unfortunately his follow-up blog post was lost, but has responded to Jibblescribbits' friend Dear Lord Stanley as well

My personal thoughts on all of this are available as well.

Normally I'm not a fan of Mark Kiszla of the Denver Post. Sometimes I think he has trouble finding a topic to write about so he uses "The Shaugnessy Trick" of digging up dirt where it doesn't really have any and being overly negative.

Every once in a while he writes a gem, and this tribute to Sakic is one of them

Oh and our favorite beat reporter, and friend of our friend Dear Lord Stanley, lets loose on the 4-letter

Here's a little clip:
And here’s my answer to my still respected friend, that I should have said right away: hell yes, I’m glad I’m not some ESPN stooge, who might make more money than me, but spends his/her entire day preening around the athletic arena, microphone in hand, makeup case in hand, hair spray in hand, ready to ask an inane, suckup, kiss-butt question to a player that, at the end of the day, at the end of this life, at the end of this universe, HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RESONATING IMPACT ON THE MEMORIES OF ITS VIEWING AUDIENCE, AND ABSOLUTELY NO LASTING IMPACT ON ANYTHING REMOTELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ART CALLED “JOURNALISM” WHICH YOU FALSELY ATTACH YOURSELVES TO.”

So if you don't hear from Adrian Dater for a while, well I think we all know what happened to him.... oh and Amen Mr. Dater, Amen.

UPDATE: Check out Dear Lord Stanley's take on the smackdown

UPDATE: The Big Lead has gotten a hold of this story too. Thanks for the link

Another UPDATE: Dater has a follow up blog post about this morning rant, and clarifies his comments (not an apology)

ONE MORE UPDATE: This has gone from entertaining to weird. Both of Dater's posts have been taken down by


  1. You beat me too it! Dater's post today was quite an eye-opener.

  2. Oh, and that should be "beat me TO it". Not sure where the extra o came from.

  3. yeah, I am curious who he talked to. I chanced you to it.. I happened to be checking the Post and went "What the hell is this?" As I was reading I went "Holy Crap... THAT's a smackdown"

  4. That post of his was absolutely beautiful. Wow.

  5. Yeah I thought it was a fantastic rant.

  6. Man, I'm getting a shit-ton of residual hits off of this. Congrats on the Big Lead link. And thanks for including me in the click orgy.

  7. Yeah, it's safe to say that my "hits"counter is going to be off the charts (for this modest hockey blog) by the time the final stats come in.

  8. I'd respect the whole thing more if he realized he is interviewing the SAME players that will never have any resonating impact on the memories of the viewing audience. And don't they all ask pretty much the same (inane, suckup, kiss-butt) questions? I am reminded of the age-old Harvard/Yale/Stanford vs everyone else argument. I do not believe that if ESPN offered this guy 6-figures and a featured segment on Sportscenter that he would turn it down.

  9. In his follow-up, which has since been yanked, he mentions that obviously not everyone at the 4-letter does bad work, and that there are some very talented journalists there. He also said there's a talent for being on TV that he doesn't have.

    I think one of his points was the just because they are at ESPN, doesn't mean that their stories are any better or their place in journalism is any better than a beat reporters. Pedro Gomez is a beat reporter with a mic, that's all. He thinks ESPN personalities think they are more important because they work there.

    Also is other point is that it's very disengenous, and unethical, for them to basically steal scoops from newspaper beat writers and claim them as their own, which ESPN has done before.

  10. This is sweet reading, so more power to the bloggers of hockey. I'll keep reading West Coast.


  11. Not to fear, I have a copy of the original post, in handy-dandy jpg format! Go here.

  12. While I love that he had the balls to stick it to ESPN, there's one other thing that really stands out to me: he's not all that fond of bloggers.

    from his Blood Feud interview:
    "if you're going to get a real credential in the press box to a real big-league event, you've got to put in the hours, the time and the money getting the job done - not just sitting in your underwear and delivering sermons from the mount."

    and in his rant, he chides Simmons for "never doing the real work of journalism".

    I get what he's saying, and it's at least consistent with the ESPN rant (which, at it's root, is an attempt to defend his profession).

    but, if you're going to rail on us lazy you really want to start things off by throwing your question to "Blog Nation"?