Why Mike Tunison cannot quit Stampede Blue

If there were degrees of falsehood, then this is at the top.

The stuff I read here reporting about what’s printed over at ksk cements my decision to never give that site another pageview. I know I’m only one person, but I do what I can. The “humor” over there is actually less creative than the Stanford band… and that is REALLY hard to top (or undershoot depending on your perspective).

I know the intention of KSK is humor. I get that, I really do. But at one point you were a legit journalist, so maybe you can help me out. Tell me how absolutely bush league the following scenarios make your site look:

Scenario 1: Peter King, a well-known, and widely criticized national football pundit puts out a weekly column, which is often rife with absurd non-football ramblings. KSK makes a point to butcher him every chance it gets because, let’s face it…King’s a blowhard and insulting him is both fun and easy. Then a KSK writer (you) asks King to contribute to the site at a Super Bowl media event (which said writer-you still-was inexplicably invited to; I guess they let anyone into those things). King refuses, calling KSK “nonsense” and saying he wants no part of it. The writer (again, if you don’t remember, it was you) then proceeds to, in an ironically timid fashion, giggle and politely back away with a pathetic little “thanks anyway” whimper.

Scenario 2: Peter King, a well-known, and widely criticized national football pundit puts out a weekly column, which is often rife with absurd non-football ramblings. BBS makes a point to butcher him every chance he gets because, let’s face it…King’s a blowhard and insulting him is both fun and easy. Then, BBS runs into King at a Super Bowl media event. King agrees to have a beer with BBS, and gives him a long, exclusive interview which BBS turned into a large, two-part contribution to the site (and generates lots of hits and comments in the process). BBS was up front with him about the criticism, and conducted himself professionally during the interview. King was honest and sounded real. He still struck many as a douchebag, but at least he was genuine. The result was BBS giving his readers a rare, raw, humanistic look at a guy most of them will never get a chance to meet.

THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED, for those of you who didn’t see Tunison’s weak attempt at securing a Peter King feature for his Web site, or those of you who didn’t see BBS’s interview.

Now which one of those two, Tunison from Scenario 1, or BBS from Scenario 2, sounds like a former journalist with training and experience?

I think King’s refusal to contribute to KSK speaks to the fact that he doesn’t appreciate the level of aggression with which his column is assaulted every week; maybe he can’t handle that kind of criticism very well. But moreso, to me anyway, and I would assume any objective reader (because I’ll admit, I’m not), it speaks to KSK’s general lack of professionalism. It’s a fun site. At times it’s a funny site. But at the end of the day, if it can’t draw in outside perspectives, legitimate sources (it couldn’t even get Suzy Kolber in for a comment!) or interesting changes of pace in any way, whatsoever, what good is it? Eventually, the schtick’s going to get old. The writers are going to start getting boring. There will eventually be no reason for new people to go to the site, other than to respond to insults or join other people who root for teams other than those which KSK bashes.

What is the point? What is the strategy for obtaining new readership? At what point do the clones who frequent KSK’s comment sections get tired of reading the same old things? Because, let’s face it, at the end of the day, Tunison, you’re not really that funny.

To your comment about how much you respect your readers, I think we both know that’s a lie. If you respected your readers, you wouldn’t insult them in every column. If you wanted more readership you’d generate something other than the same, boring old crap that appeals to the extremelly limited fanbase you’ve already created.