ABOUT US
Does the blogosphere REALLY need another sports media monitor website? The answer is YES!!! Despite a number bloggers already providing intelligent, thought-provoking, critical and socially responsible analyses of our mainstream sports media (for starters put "The Starting Five", "The Edge of Sports", and "Stop Mike Lupica" in your web rotation), the sum total of these efforts are still David to mainstream sports media’s Goliath. To those sites who have long been in the trenches, COSELLOUT sees itself as Knick’s 6th man David Lee, always ready to set some picks, tap in some put-backs, and grab some key boards. COSELLOUT embraces all other like-minded blogs as partners in a common cause. 
COSELLOUT’s name pays homage to the late great sports journalist Howard Cosell who is undoubtedly turning over and over and over in his grave. Of course, Cosell was quite the controversial figure himself. Concurrence with all of Cosell’s positions is completely irrelevant to understanding the man’s true legacy. Whether we agree with his then-wildly-unpopular stance of speaking out for Muhammad Ali’s constitutional rights in the 1960’s, or disagree with his then-AND-now unpopular stance of banning boxing in the 1980’s, one thing could always be counted on by Mr. Cosell: An unquestionable, sincere, and genuine commitment to F.A.C.T. or fairness, accuracy, consistency, and truth in sports reporting. Although he mastered his journalistic art-form at its highest level, his integrity may have been his single greatest credential. COSELLOUT has absolutely no illusions about even trying to duplicate his journalistic eloquence and craftsmanship, it will only strive to match his integrity.
What Happened to Sports Journalism? Due to corporate consolidation (see 1996 Telecommunications Act), the explosion of 24 hour sports news cycles, individual careerism by-any-means-necessary, and personal/institutional biases, the sports journalism field has been in rapid decline for some time. COSELLOUT aims to expose individual "Cosellouts" and institutions who sell their souls to the highest advertiser. It also will shine a light on those journalists who are credits to their profession. Simply put: COSELLOUT’s mission is to "tell it like it is" when the mainstream sports media won’t.
.
It’s primary author, Charles "MODI" Modiano can be contacted at: modi (at) cosellout (dot) com
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·sell·out
|
1. |
an act or instance of selling out. |
|
2. |
Informal. a sports journalist who betrays their cause, organization, or the like; traitor. |
|
3. |
Informal. a sports journalist who compromises his or her personal values, integrity, talent, or the like, for money or personal advancement. |
MORE INFO for the Uninitiated:
-
“Cosellout” in lowercase = above definition.
-
“COSELLOUT” in CAPS = Name of this website.
-
“Cosellout” Examples: Mike Lupica, Jay Mariotti, Jason Whitlock, Skip Bayless, Mitch Albom, etc. (Too bad about Albom - I really loved Tuesday’s with Morrie!)
-
How to become a “Cosellout”: One must put together a consistent record or portfolio of blatant bias, sensationalism, careerism, or blowhardism. Since we all have off days the ”Cosellout” label must be earned beyond one, two, or three bad or biased articles or reports.
- “Cosellout-in-Training”: Cosellout wannabees in the process of building their resume!
- Cosellout Redemption? Yes, we believe in it! Any branded “Cosellout” has it within their power to shed their label over time by coming back over to the responsible side of sports journalism. Unlike the common treatment of athletes, COSELLOUT won’t hold long-time grudges against any journalist who finally decides to enhance their profession by being “part of the solution”.
-
Cosellout Redemption Example: Less than a year ago we may have branded New York sports writer Marc Berman a “Cosellout” for his one-sided and shoddy negative treatment of New York Knicks players culminating with the Knicks-Nuggets fight in December 2006. However, when the rest of the mainstream sports media was virtually silent, he was one of the lone reporters informing its readers of Stephon Marbury’s almost legendary off-court community-driven achievements. Almost inexplicably or to justify their relative silence, some writers charged Berman with “bias”. The actual bias was the 95% of reporters willing to ignore Marbury’s off-court exploits while covering every last ongoing detail of any off-court athlete’s legal proceedings down to traffic tickets. In a span of 7 months Berman went from Cosellout to leader in his profession.
“noogies”…hmmm…I vote for nuggies because of the nudge factor.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:12 amI hated Sports Illustrated from the start, even when it was still getting my Dad to teach me how to read the sports section (green sheet of the SF Chronicle) at age five or six. It stunk, big time. (Sports Illustrated not the Green Sheet.) “Sport” was much more informative about how games were played and who was playing them the best. What ever happened to it?I got to watch Willie Mays play! And thought I’d seen it all. Then Bonds comes along. The big problem with sports writers today is that they don’t seem to enjoy going out the ballpark anymore. Television can’t capture it all, The complete, utter chaos of baseball! BTW, Good work.
[…] Tommy Craggs explained how “the media abuse baseball’s homerun king.” (H/T, Charles Modiano’s Cosellouts blog). Craggs writes: This baseball season, it fell to the sporting press to drag a reluctant Hank Aaron […]
July 29th, 2007 at 1:56 pmhttp://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/cosellout/
This exchange that I just had with Andy at the excellent website Baseball Think Factory (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/) has been reprinted below because of its relevancy. Andy took me to task on Howard Cosell being the standard-bearer for all that is right with sports journalism. He made some excellent points, and I did my best to respond:
19. Andy Posted: August 16, 2007 at 09:04 PM
MODI, Much as I’m unwilling to overlook Bonds’s steroid use, I think you’ve made a pretty good case in your contrasting of Verducci and Ballard. I’m no fan of Verducci either. But your take on Howard Cosell himself could only be shared by his press agent, if he had one. That man was the purest embodiment of “me” journalism that the sports world has ever seen, not to mention the fact that he positively prided himself in not knowing the first thing about some of the sports—baseball in particular—that he was ostensibly covering. You should introduce yourself to Leonard Koppett someday if you want a much better role model.
20. COSELLOUT Posted: August 16, 2007 at 09:31 PM
Andy, I am a big fan of Leonard Koppett! I have his book “The Rise and Fall of the Press Box”, but admittedly have only referenced it at this point (it has been on my to do list for some time). I will also accept your criticism of Cosell in stride. You are correct that he is a ME journalist. And there is plenty of criticism that can be flung his way, but he was selected more for his fierce social consience first, and journalistic balance second. That was big for me. He is also the professions most recognizable figure which played a factor. Throw-in the pun of “COSELLOUT” and I just couldn’t resist. He showed that it is possible to be famous, self-promoting, AND a credit to the profession. Gary Smith from SI is an excellent writer but only hardcore sports fans know who he is…
21. Andy Posted: August 16, 2007 at 10:20 PM
MODI, Glad to see that someone else appreciates Koppett, who I maintain in the most underappreciated sportswriter within modern memory. To me it seemed as if every argument he made contained the beginning of a followup question, fueled by a neverending sense of curiosity about factors he hadn’t thought of. Not only did he know a hundred times as much about sports as Cosell, and not only was he infinitely more curious, but he was also every bit as modest as Cosell was vain. And I seriously wonder how much of Cosell’s vaunted social conscience was more a product of timing and career advancement. But since I don’t know the answer to this question, I’ll ask you: Did Cosell defend Joe Frazier to Ali’s face when Ali was going around spreading that “Uncle Tom” shlt? Did he argue back with Ali on that? As I said, I don’t know the answer to this, but if he did, it would go a good way towards redeeming Cosell, at least in my eyes.
22. COSELLOUT Posted: August 16, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Andy, you state: “he was also every bit as modest as Cosell was vain.” Agreed. I guess my thinking is, that in a world now populated with vain journalists, I want Cosell on my team… warts and all. You need the Koppetts AND the Cosells. Both play a necessary role. I believe that while definitely a self promoter, “career advancement was secondary to integrity. His backing of Ali’s legal rights in the ’60’s was tantamount to potential career suicide for a journalist. it was no small chance. Even being the first to call Ali by his new name was a very unpopular political statement. …To the Frazier question, I don’t know the answer off of the top of my head, but you have made me curious to check out. For what it is worth to you, I know that Cosell was very critical to Ali after both the Ernie Terrel and Floyd Patterson fights where he felt Ali was unnecessarily brutal and mean-spirited… He squarely took him to task on those…
24. Andy Posted: August 17, 2007 at 08:00 AM
MODI, I believe that while definitely a self promoter, “career advancement was secondary to integrity. His backing of Ali’s legal rights in the ’60’s was tantamount to potential career suicide for a journalist. it was no small chance. Even being the first to call Ali by his new name was a very unpopular political statement. …You may be right, but to me this is where it gets a bit murky. It’s not as if the whole country was against Ali back then—the sentiment was definitely NOT against Ali among what advertisers refer to as certain “key demographic groups,” namely the young. It’s not as if there weren’t other strong countervailing social forces. And it’s not as if it wasn’t pretty clear that the feeling against the Vietnam war wasn’t rising, in spite of the backlash against the protest movement itself.
My memory of the specific chronology of Cosell’s rise is hazy, and I’m sure you know much more about it than I do, but my sense is that the ABC executives saw in Cosell two things: A personality that would polarize viewers, but not make them switch the channel; and a man who was intimately connected with a fighter who was more than likely to become an iconic figure himself. Both of these judgments proved correct, and with Monday Night Football neither Cosell nor the TV executives ever needed to look back. And maybe I’m just being too cynical about the man, but his whole self-important, self-centered persona suggested to me that at least a certain percentage of that vaunted social conscience of his was little more than an ability to sense which way the wind was blowing, and act accordingly. And I’m also pretty sure that only Cosell himself knew what that proportion of honest conviction to shrewd calculation was.
I have to admit that it would be interesting to hear Cosell’s take on Bonds. Not the obvious and cliched takes like “Bonds is Satan” or “Cheating has been with us forever, yada yada yada, so what Bonds (and other juicers) did isn’t really that big a deal.” No, what would be interesting to me is whether Cosell would use his chips in order to force both Bonds and Selig to answer the sort of questions that they’ve both been able to duck so far, and not take “go away” or “I can’t talk with a court case or an investigation is in progress” for an answer. In other words, would he play the role of an I.F. Stone—a political journalist who confronted his allies as well as his enemies—or would he simply ask the questions in a perfunctory manner and then go on to the next subject?
Admittedly, getting Bonds or Selig to agree to such an interview would be difficult—probably impossible—but that wouldn’t stop a truly independent journalist from using his many forums to address the salient questions—did he juice, what should we do about it, and what does the evidence tell us about the owners’ and the Commissioner’s complicity in this sorry episode? These questions go to the heart of the matter, but the way it’s played out in the media so far, it seems as if you’ve got one side only wanting to ask one set of questions (and make one set of points) while the other side only wants to ask the other. Both sides seem equally afraid of what the answers to the other set of questions might imply, at least to a person who values the integrity of the game. And I wonder how Cosell would have handled this.
28. COSELLOUT Posted: August 17, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Andy, It is less murky to me. Ali came out against the war, pockets of support withstanding, when it was extremely unpopular. Let me remind you that Ali was part of the Nation of Islam back in the 1960s, and that was when NOI had the belief system that white were “devils”. And Cosell backing both constitutionally AND calling him by his new name broke new journalistic ground. To me, that is what I call a leader. Cosell wouldn’t follow the wind, he would CREATE the wind. Remember that in the 1980’s after the Larry Holmes-Randall Tex Cobb brutal beatdown, Cosell began to favor the ban on boxing. Everyone now thought he was crazy. While I disagree with Cosell, that it what his conscience now told him, and I have nothing but respect for that. In summary Andy, yes, I believe that you, despite some well-made points, are being too cynical!
Great question about Cosell on Bonds. I really don’t the answer except for this: he would be consistent. I see four possible scenarios: In one scenario, I can see Cosell as an outspoken critic against PEDs. But would separate him from the rest is that you would have heard him crowing somewhere back in the early 1990s (like Tom Boswell). So if he were morally indignant, then you would have to respect his sincerity. In scenario #2, I can see him in his lawyer mode protecting Bonds because he has not been proven guilty by a drug test or a court of law. I can see Cosell putting this principle above all. Scenario #3: I can see him take a reasonable stance like Buster Olney, which is to say, listen all of us have blood on our hands, let’s not conveniently scapegoat Barry Bonds. The 4th scenario is that he is from the “it is not THAT big a deal” and remind everyone about baseball history, segregation, amphetamines and the like. Okay, so i basically mentioned every scenario except the most popular one by sports writers, which I can assure you that he would not have: remained silent for 10 years until Barry Bonds started breaking every single record and then jump on the moral bandwagon. Cosell DEFINITELY would not have done that.
29. Andy Posted: August 17, 2007 at 11:51 AM
MODI, Good response, though I still think you give Cosell a bit too much credit and not enough credit to the rapidly evolving state of opinion on both the Vietnam war (which overnight gave Ali a new set of admirers, myself included) and the acceptibility of an outspoken black man. But perhaps I have underrated Cosell’s contribution within the sports world if nowhere else, and you’ve given me something to think about. At the time I was far more involved in those social movements myself than I was following sports on any day to day basis, and between the second Liston fight and the first Frazier fight I didn’t even really pay much attention to Ali himself. His treatment of Frazier left me more than a bit cold, anyway.
As to Cosell’s take on Bonds and steroids, we’ll of course never know, but the four scenarios you lay out all sound perfectly plausible. My own scenario is a variant of Olney’s take, which is that while we all have blood on our hands, and while we shouldn’t single out any individual player, we also shouldn’t exonerate any juicer just because he happens to possess an historic talent. Where I differ from many other people who take that line is that I also don’t think that the role of Selig, and owners like Steinbrenner (with that stricken Giambi contract clause), have gotten nearly as much attention as they deserve. Maybe it’s time we started plying them with a few bottles of schnapps. But all in all, good website and good responses. It would be nice if more people like you were willing to come on here and elaborate on what you’ve written. Preaching to the choir is the one sin that’s truly boring.
30. COSELLOUT Posted: August 17, 2007 at 01:39 PM
Andy, I can respect your take. Admittedly, I have always had a bit of take #4 in me. I viewed steroids as “spitball-squared” back in the late 1990’s and still do now. I haven’t changed that much, but it seems like a whole lot of other people have. There is a part of me that resents the media telling me to be angry this week, but not last week. The other thing is that I also believe in a system of due process. Do I believe Bonds roided up? Yes, I do. But I also believe that of more than 60- 70% of the players including just about every future HOFer outside of Griffey, F. Thomas, and, POSSIBLY Pujols and AROD (I base this on various circumstantial evidence around sudden and simultaneous increases/decreases in muscle mass and run production). So if I were to apply the “I THINK he is guilty test” across the board, then the whole era gets punished. But we have two systems in place: 1) drug testing; and 2) our courts. Bonds has not been proven guilty in either. I have to respect that OR be consequently forced to punish EVERYBODY I think has been using. I just don’t see a middle ground on this one.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pmJust wanted to say this is the first time I’ve checked out your site (linked to it after McCallum’s Steve Nash article) and it’s some excellent journalism. Very thought provoking and brings up issues that the mainstream media wouldn’t want to touch with a 30 foot pole. Keep up the good work!
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 pmThanks Chris and welcome.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:48 amI’m absolutely digging your work man. The sports world needs this blog. Stay up!
October 26th, 2007 at 1:18 amI hate espn they always write something bad about Zeke.
I mean, he deserves some hate but this all goes back to the Larry Bird quote. In addition, Zeke holds on to grudges too long. That is why you will not see Pat Ewing or Charles Oakley in any positions with the knicks. They hang out with Jordan. Say what you want to say about Zeke, he did not pick Kwame Brown with the #1 pick. Nuff said.
I mean they beat the celtics and all you see on ESPN is Crawford giving Allen a foul. Ugh!!!!
The sports left espn when they did not renew playmakers for another season.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:31 amIn point of fact, Cosell was Johny-come-lately with positive Ali banter. It was Ali who didnt allow the negative press that Howard was handing out to affect him and continued to be a mischeivous annoyance to Cosell. Their tit-for-tat antics eventually welled into a form of friendship that few athletes had with sports journalists. However, initially, Howard Cosell was an Clay/Ali hater as was the majority of sports writers of the day who hated his predictions and brashness. He vilified him in the [press and predicted he would get his head handed to him on many occasions. I was always left with the feeling that Cosell wanted Ali to lose on his back. I was also always left yelling at the TV “I told you so”!
November 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pmAt this writing, I cannot remember succintly the actual incidents, but i have a vague memory of a few gaffs made by Cosell then that would cost sports writers today their livelihood givin the political correctness of our time.
So, before we bestow sainthood and name a boulevard after Howard Cosell I say we take a closer more measured look at whether or not he really was an advocate or if in fact he was just riding the crestand being catapulted to greatness in the boxing storm that was Muhammad Ali.
Cobillion, you are not the first to question the selection of Cosell (see post #3). Cosell wasn’t perfect as you point out. But Cosell stood by his social conscience and he stood by Ali when almost no one else would. There are many other examples… perhaps a reason for another article which should give more credence to the homage that is paid to him at this site.
As for “gaffes”, his most famous was calling a Redskins wide receiver “a little monkey” on air. A gaffe, certainly. Expression of racism? No. There is videotape of Cosell calling white football players “monkeys” as well as the fact that he used the term to all his own children. Should Cosell have been more aware of the interpretation of the word. Absolutely. My take on many “word gaffes” is that it is time to explore the larger record of that person. Cosell passed that test easily.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pmModi,
Would that I could have this reparte with other writers. I enjoy this tremendously and your site is a gift.
I’m not sure about an “easy” pass for Mr. Cosell. Although I never intimated his gaff was racial, it did feel that way when it was said. But since you raise it in his defense, he didn’t say bulldog,imp,leprechaun mighty mouse or many other small quick, smart agile likenesses. He used “Monkey” which has repeatedly been used historically to denigrate black men. He got sent to the woodshed (wrist slap) for a reason. I don’t think you should categorically rule it out as an expression of racism conscious or unconscious. I like Howard Cosell a lot and I assign to him the rapier wit and acidic tongue necessary to get the job done. With that comes an occasional flap that needs light shed on it. Be the beacon not the shade.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:32 pm“He used “Monkey” which has repeatedly been used historically to denigrate black men. He got sent to the woodshed (wrist slap) for a reason. I don’t think you should categorically rule it out as an expression of racism conscious or unconscious.”
Your point is well-taken. Of course, I can never “rule it out”. I wasn’t in his head. It is certainly always a possibility. I can only give my best interpretation which has factored in his usage of this term with white players and his history of challenging racism.
For better or worse, my general rule for gaffes is to check the larger record for consistency or inconsistency. A counter example would be Imus defenders saying that “nappy-headed-hos” was a bad joke gone awry. While I find this logic ludicrous, any doubt on this point is removed by going to a 20 year record of similar statements.
Having stated all of that, if there is more information on Cosell that challenges the social consciousness that this website gives him credit for, I am willing to listen.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pmWell taken.
November 26th, 2007 at 3:11 pmI know Douglas Michael. He is my boss here at verizon. He has turned me on to your website. Thought you would be interested in this article. You probably have already seen this.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 amModi,
October 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pmWe meet a few months ago in Vegas at Eric’s bachelor’s party. I was the one who was on your side when the room was heavily divided on the whole Ali vs. Tyson debate
Anyways, I would love to add your link to my basketball site (www.onemanfastbreak.net) and wonder if you could return the favor. FYI…Muhammad Ali is the greatest of all time!
Modi, You and Joel are out of your minds.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 pmE