The Press Box - The Athletic and The New York Times. Plus: The Year in Media.

Episode Date: December 22, 2021

Bryan and David touch on the news that The New York Times might be buying The Athletic. They discuss the potential deal and what place The Athletic could have at the Times (1:19). Then they hand out 2021 Year in Media awards for Image of the Year, Sports Media Story of the Year, Disgraceful Exit of the Year, and more (15:21)! Plus, the Overworked Twitter Joke of the Week and David Shoemaker Guesses the Strained-Pun Headline.  Hosts: Bryan Curtis and David Shoemaker Associate Producer: Erika Cervantes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Listen up all you New York fans. Veteran New York Sports Talk host, John Dostromski gives his unique take on all the big stories in the Big Apple and beyond, including guest conversations, gambling picks, and reactions from you, the listener. Check out New York, New York with John Dostromsky on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

Before we get going today, a quick disclaimer, I'm in a New Hampshire bed and breakfast hotel room with my almost three-year-old son, so there might be some young child, is in the background as this podcast goes on. Aubrey, say hi. Let's get going. Parental indulgence is required. Hello, media consumers, Brian Curtis and David Shoemaker of the ringer here, along with producer Erica Servantes. Coming up on today's show, David, you know, journalists are doing their

annual evaluations right now. You'd get on a Zoom call with your boss and talk about all the things you did. We are going to get to do our evaluations of them. Okay. You know, state your accomplishments. What did you do this year? We get to do our version. But first, I want to talk to you about a story that is preoccupying all of sports media

and certainly all the texts on my cell phone right now, which is about the athletic. A favorite subject here on the press box. Will someone please buy the athletic already? Well, the sports website is in the news again, thanks to an article by front office sports is A.J. Perez and Michael McCarthy. You remember, David, we heard rumors the athletic and Axios were a thing. We heard gambling websites. Back in June, we heard the Athletic and the New York Times were a thing. Well, now the New York Times is apparently back. Perez and McCarthy report the New York Times has reemerged as a potential buyer for the athletic. And I can tell you, talking to a few writers at that site over the last couple of days. that they expect this deal to happen, at least reading management's responses or non-responses, they think the athletic is going to be sold to the New York Times. What do you make of such a deal?

It feels like, it feels like a sort of appropriate target for the New York Times, given the sort of acquisitions they've made over the past several years. This feels like a very, it just in the abstract, a very timesy acquisition. And certainly they have the money to pull it off, although it does feel like in some sense, a much bigger, larger scale acquisition than,

then, you know, you might assume. It feels like a lot of, just, it just feels like bringing that in house is going to require so much work. And doing, and making any sort of changes to the athletic product is, it's going to be quite a task for whatever New York, I mean, New York Times management figures are going to be tasked with it.

It makes a lot of sense, I think, for both parties. I think we don't know what the dollar figure is going to be or whatever else. I mean, certainly this is a different sort of scale of acquisition, of plotting the future of whatever you want to say, then I think probably some people associated with the athletic and certainly many outsiders would have expected a couple years ago, right? I mean, they were trying to change the journalism. industry, now they're being swallowed up by, well, sort of the top line of the journalism industry.

So, I mean, it makes some sense. It'll be interesting to see where they go with it. Let's unpack, if we can, for a moment, the way it makes sense. I mean, I guess one way to think of it is as a product of the New York Times, right? The New York Times has the crosswords thing that is its own separate thing. It has cooking. So is the athletic in the way you see it, a number? another one of those things, not exactly part of the times itself, but this kind of adjacent

business that they use to get subscriptions? Yeah, I think so. It's also, I mean, I think I would probably compare it more to some of the podcast properties they've brought on. You know, they've been trying, they were trying to build their own in-house stuff and had some success with that, obviously. But then they started just acquiring existing podcasts. And they've had, I think, I think they've realized it's a lot easier to sort of get a, to

establish a footprint, you know, bringing on some with some, with some, with by bring on some established properties. I think they will probably largely keep it separate, although it's really easy to imagine the ways that they kind of seep into the regular product, right? I mean, the Athletic does enough national stories and certainly has people in place to cover national stories in a way that in the sports world,

the New York, the Times isn't always fully staffed to do, although people in house, I'm sure, would take exception to me saying that. But it's easy to imagine, you know, an op-ed column in the sports world now and then that would sort of lead you to subscribe to the athletic, the New York Times version of the athletic or whatnot, but to still keep it separate. I don't know. What do you think?

Yeah, I think the adding extra bodies part is really interesting because when we first heard this during the summer, I thought, this doesn't make any sense because sports is such a tiny, tiny part on purpose of the New York Times. It's a small part of the Times as it is, you know, a smaller part of the Times than it is than just about any newspaper in America. You know, they, they don't, and they don't have a huge number of people.

Have a lot of good people working in that section, but they don't have a lot of people working there. So if there were a story that, let's say, was in San Diego or Seattle, could you imagine the times, you know, say, hey, can you write something that we would run in the paper also, in addition to whatever you're writing for the athletic there? I could totally imagine that. And, you know, the other thing is I was looking at the athletics best of 20, 21 list that they sent around today. And the first thing on the list, and I suspect the thing that they are as proud as anything of, is their investigations. You know, those big investigations that people like Katie Strang have done, the Astros sign stealing thing way back when we could go through some of the greatest hits.

We had Tim Cato and the big piece he did on Mark Cuban and Haralabob and that whole situation. And you could imagine when the Times does a big. investigative piece with like ProPublica, right, on other subjects? Could they also do the New York Times and the athletic kind of a co-branded, big investigative story that runs on both sites? Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean, it does, you talk about the scale of the athletic. It's hard to imagine anybody buying the athletic and not to some degree trying to refashion

it, whether that's streamlining it, cutting the number of bodies or, well, I mean, you acquire something of that scale, something that's still in a lot of ways and sort of formative stages. And it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want to make some pretty big changes. So in that sense, I mean, I think that's a question on it. So, you know, in and of itself, whether the, really how the times envisions the athletic going forward. Yeah. And just about everybody I talked to there expects it to be paired down in some way. What's an interesting thing? because both, I mean, the scope, the breadth, the size of the athletic is its greatest asset. And also, you know, I'm sure from a bookkeeping point of view, it's biggest, biggest albatross, sort of, you know.

I mean, so it's, it'll, it could, I don't think anything would really surprise me. Yeah. And it feels like that's, by the way, something they've realized over the years. Remember at the beginning, it was like, we're going to cover every beat. We want somebody here. We want somebody here. oh wait, there are no fans of that particular team or very few fans that would pay for stuff. We want a, we want a writer there, and often it's going to be a really highly paid writer. And it feels like the last couple of years they're like, yeah, not so much.

And we're still going to try to have a big, wide, cover big wide swath of the sports world. But we're going to make those choices a little bit more strategically like every other media company on the planet. Yeah, I think to a more general question about what the Times is going to do, I mean, I think there has to be some realization. within the New York Times, that sports is not a separate category, right? That, like, sports news is national news. And this is, you know, everything from, like, you know, big, I mean, the way COVID, like, kind of was an NBA story in a lot of ways at the beginning, you know, all the way through to that big Bishop Sycamore write-up that the Times did recently where they had, like,

four staffers on it and made it, it was like a big, big investigative piece, you know, with like, it was really well written and really well-conceived. these are stories that are sports stories, but they're bigger than sports, you know? And it's, I mean, you can even look at like TMZ, who they tried to launch TMZ sports. What was it? Five years ago, 10 years ago, and it just was a, it just totally fizzled. But now you look at TMZ and half their content of sports. It's because it's not a vertical.

It's, it is the entertainment world, right? And I think to the times, there's a lot of, there will be a large degree to which covering sports news is just covering news, you know? And so it makes sense to be staffing up in that area and to be a, requiring, you know, something like this to get you going. If there's a strength to the New York Times sports section, it's exactly those stories you're talking about, those big stories that seem to cross over into something else. NBA in China, Bishop Sycamore, you know, NFL behind the scenes business, right? The sort of league business, those Ken Belson scoops.

Like that is what they do well. So, yes, like imagine a future where the athletic is part of the New York Times solar system, and they can just do those, but do. them more often and do them with more bylines on them and more expert bylines on them. I could absolutely imagine that. And we should also say, the athletic is very New York Timesy or at least very newspapery in its approach to stories. Like the athletic is not the ringer. No offense to either party, right? But the athletic is not the ringer in the sense of, oh, this is about, you know, these kind of podcasts and about this kind of writing and about this kind of, you know, sort of zaniness.

Now, the athletic spirit is very newspapery. So if you can just imagine something that the New York Times would look at and go, oh, that reads kind of like us or that is conceived in the same spirit that we conceive, you know, articles and podcasts and other things in, I can totally imagine that aesthetically, a lot more than I can imagine just about any other sports site on the planet. Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, the Times has had some sort of, you know, issues with, as an institution of its type, naturally will, has had some issues sort of adapting to a lot of what the Internet is doing right now, right? And part of that is that you bring in the luminaries of the current world and whatever Internet genre you're talking about, and they don't always mesh with the Times infrastructure.

This is an example that you're right. It could be a big win in the opposite direction. I still find it weird, though. If you told me a couple years ago, you know, the athletic will finally get sold. They're going to find that buyer they've been looking for. It's the New York Times. What is that?

What? Like, I actually could imagine Axios or the gambling company or whatever a lot easier than I could have the New York Times. It's just funny. And I just, you know, that is not a marriage that I could wrap my mind around. I also do think that like, again, in a weird way, and I said, talking to Bill Simmons on his pot about this earlier today, the smallness of the time staff in a way kind of allows this, I think, the sports staff that is, because you're not duplicating something the Times already does.

Like Politico was just for sale. The Times about Politico, it's, oh, wait, you've got your White House correspondence. We've got our White House correspondent. You know, what are we doing here? that's just really not the case with the athletic in the New York Times. Like there's just, there's going to be very little overlap. I was trying to think like who at the New York Times covers something like what the

athletic already does. It's not very many people. So no, I mean, you would have said Mark Stein, but he's not there anymore. No, yeah,

Mark Stein. I was like Tyler Kepner on baseball and Jason Stark and Kenny Rosenthal over at the athletic. Okay, right, but they'd probably, you know, take all three of those people covering baseball.

it's really interesting. David, let's do the overword Twitter joke of the week where we celebrate a gag that was so obvious that all of media, Twitter made it at exactly the same time. Send your nominees to at the press box pod

where they are always, always gratefully received. Headline from Bloomberg, David, and I want you to pay attention to this new and exciting invention. Giant kites, I'm quoting here, giant kites that drag cargo ships across the ocean.

will be trialled next year as the industry attempts to decarbonize giant kites dragging cargo ships it was an overwork Twitter joke to write I'm sorry haven't you just invented sales thanks to Dennis Reichold for that one from the world of entertainment David

there is a new Netflix biopic about Saints coach Sean Payton and in this biopic Peyton will be played by Kevin James the star of the King of Queens There's an overwork Twitter joke to write Wait, is this part of the Bounty Gate punishment? Are we still dealing that out

To be in a Kevin James biopic? Thanks to Lorenzo Cuyogue For that one. Finally, David, a COVID-related headline from News Hub About a story that's on everyone's mind Quoting here, Scientists fear Omicron could team up with Delta

to make a super variant. Amacron could team up with Delta to make a super variant. It was an overwork Twitter joke to write well. All this to beat a 37-year-old LeBron James. Thanks to Nels McLaughlin and Scott Tobias, if you predicted the week when NBA teams would in fact be battling Amicron more than their opponents, congrats. You made the overwork Twitter joke of the week.

By the way, I'll just stick this in here. You and I were doing those 80s-90s commercial fiction power rankings last week. Mm-hmm. Not 90 seconds after the episode went up, I cannot tell you how many tweets we got that said, guys, Tom Clancy belongs in these rankings. We didn't mention Tom Clancy? We didn't mention Tom Clancy. I've been modeling my glasses choices after him for most of my life, so I feel terrible about that. Tom Clancy had some awesome glasses. Anyway, apologies to all friends and family of Tom Clancy. you are a top five

top five commercial fiction author of the 80s and 90s. Clive Custler is off the list. That's what we're doing here. All right, David, time for the notebook dump. And we're going to do our year in media awards.

I threw this open on Twitter and said, give us some suggestions. What should we talk about? And Adam Zalanka suggested Joe Biden's digital divide. I'm sorry, we're not doing Joe Biden's digital divide. The actual year in media awards.

first off for you David, image of the year. Let's call it images of the year because how about Officer Eugene Goodman trying to hold off the insurrectionists at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th and really every image that came out of the Capitol that day that has got to be,

I mean, the most arresting thing we saw on television or in print in 2021 and maybe a long time before that. Yeah, I mean, it's, when you think, back on the last year, I mean, it's still current news. So I guess you could categorize as reason to see bias, but it's not. It's the most important story of, I mean, the past decade. I mean, it's, it's just incredible to even think back on. And those photos that you referenced,

you know, we're part of the, we're part of the experience, you know. We're part of the, were part of the fear and the the just the kind of uncertainty that the that the whole thing was tied up in. So yeah, I mean, it was just arresting, no pun intended. I remember I was sitting in my office that day and I had this little TV on that was on behind me and I kind of had it on the news that day because that was the day the election was being certified and just kind of wanted to have it on his background noise and I'm thinking something mildly interesting will happen today or there'll be some kind of perhaps will be some little hiccup in this process. And then just hearing it behind me as I was looking at my computer and turning around and seeing those people massing

outside the Capitol and then the people entering the Capitol and texting you and being like, dude, I don't know what the hell is going on. But, you know, there are people that are pouring into the capital right now trying to change the result of the U.S. election, trying to basically potentially harm U.S. officials that are saying that Joe Biden won the presidency. And it almost is so crazy and so awful that it's still just saying, first of all, just saying that this happened in 2021 is kind of mind-blowing. And then saying that this happened at all.

I don't know where you are, but I almost cannot get my mind around it. Yeah. I mean, just reliving, revisiting it so much now, the congressional investigations and all the coverage that's getting, the release text messages, everything else. You know, I mean, it's, it's, I mean, what a lot of the text messages have been released from various congressmen and senators have done is, you know, remind us all that we're not being gaslit about this whole thing, that it did actually happen the way that we felt it in the moment and everyone else felt it the same way and it'll be a part of our, you know,

collective memory hopefully forever. And, and, you know, who knows it'll happen again, but, but let's hope not. That walks us right up to our next entry here, which is the story placement question of the year, which is, wait a second, you have a threat to American democracy, one that didn't just end, as you point out on January 6th, but one that is now happening through various means, right, of, you know, trying to pass new election laws, trying to take over the state apparatus of elections, which refused to steal the election on behalf of Donald Trump in 2020. How do you cover that? I mean, we understand you cover it a lot. You cover it vigorously, but, you know, how do you basically have something, a story that is about the foundations of American

democracy and weigh that against all the other things you're supposed to be covering on a daily basis. Oh, yeah. I mean, listen, that's been since in the entire Trump presidency, that was, I mean, people cited that as one of his kind of great,

the great revolutions of governance that if you just, that if everything's crazy, if every day something crazy happens, then you can kind of, you know, it's impossible for the media to cover it in a coherent way. This is obviously the kind of the apex of that. You have just enormous thing, something so

significant going on. It's almost like, the journalism infrastructure doesn't quite have the tools to put, I think I mentioned before that, that onion headline just like, holy fucking shit, man walks on fucking moon. Like there's not the ability to do that. And so in some ways,

an event like that almost gets inherently downplayed because it's not, because they don't have the font size or whatever to make something seem that as significant as it needs to. That is exactly what it is. it's not like people aren't covering this. It was the on the Atlantic's cover and the most recent issue or the issue before that. And it's in the newspaper every day. But you're right.

It's almost like you just lack this permanent onion headline, red warning like Kiron on cable news to just be like, we really can't do anything if you, if you, if the democracy of the United States is not functioning. A lot of what we're doing right now and stuff about. what's happening in the Biden White House and what's happening in Kamala Harris's office and even some of the stuff about the coronavirus, like if our democracy doesn't function, it's not going to matter. It just really isn't going to matter. And again, it's like journalists are doing a fantastic job covering the story. But it's almost like, you know, the, I don't want to say it, the language of

journalism, the tools of journalism just inherently almost balance other stories out. I'm looking at the New York Times' website right now, and I see like 18 sports highlights from 2021 worth watching again. I would like to watch some sports highlights. I also like democracy to survive into 2022 in the United States. So, who. Sports media story of the year, David. This is an easy one. Rachel Nichols and Maria Taylor by Kevin Draper of the New York Times. Is there anything that's even close, and I count the athletic and everything else in that? No, there's nothing else that's even close. And I mean, the piece was excellently reported, well written,

um, and just sort of poignant, right? Like it came, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, um, it, it, um, and at a time in, and our, at a time in just kind of political and social history, um, it was a really significant piece when it came out. And it was, and it, and it, um, you know, obviously it's still something we're talking about now. It's just, It's a really excellent, it's a really excellent, really important piece. Yeah, let's just count the things that it touched on, right?

Like the general sense of newsroom reckonings, as we've been calling them, that have been happening across the country, ESPN's own questions on that very same front. You know, if you want to get into this whole thing, too, of, you know, just the weirdness of what happened, right? Rachel Nichols is having, again, not to defend anything she said, but she's having a private conversation. and by this strange quirk of technology, that conversation winds up being downloaded from her hotel room in the bubble to the ESPN mothership where it is then accessed and shared at ESPN.

I mean, I still, again, it's just one of those things, even saying that part out loud, we've almost processed it so much. It's saying it out loud again, it is an absolutely bizarreo and wild story. And now both of them are gone from ESPN. and ESPN is still figuring out the aftermath of that thing. Media, media story of the year, David.

I went with the fall of Ozzy by Ben Smith, also of the New York Times. Anything else on the level of that absolutely weird story? No, and it was a multi-part story, right? I mean, where it was, you know, the big, the thrust of it was a two-parter. It was a very modern story, at least in my reading in the sense that the first half of it wasn't the death now. The first half of it was like, there's a story here, a story, right? Which is something that you see a lot kind of emerging out of the internet, right? I mean, it was a sort of story that like a blog, that something like Gawker would have written, you know,

where it's just like, I don't know, I don't know why, but all these sources are pointing me in this direction, and I'm going to write 2,500 words about it, right? And then the story starts to materialize out of it. You saw a lot of that in the Me Too movement, too, where major stories were being written that would require multiple follow-ups to tell the full story because it was hard to get people on the record, you know? And this isn't the same story in that sort of sphere, but it is interesting that it kind of,

it was a, it was a, you know, the sequel came, followed closely on the heels of the, of the first film, to stretch the metaphor. It was a, it was just an incredible piece. It had everybody talking. And again, speaks to the media age that were in an entirely different way, right? I mean, it was a media world that we've all sort of felt like that we've seen from a distance and had questions about, not specific to Ozzie.

There's definitely other people, other outlets that fall into a similar category. And but this one was a real, Ben Smith's pieces were real TikToks of the just sort of inanity of the whole enterprise. And yeah, I mean, I'm still, I'm still sort of enthralled by that story. magazine media story. I thought the most about David. I went with a tie here. The bad art friend by Robert Colter. Yeah.

And also Peter Kiefer's piece about Yashar Ali. Oh, yeah. Both of those are really fantastic. Also both felt very of the moment. I mean, the whole Yashar Ali thing, I think was, I mean, you and I had Peter on the podcast. And part of it is that's just this whole explainer, even for those of us who were consuming it all in real time of who is, who is, you know, you know,

yeshaar ali and what is he doing you know something a question that wasn't i don't think really explained satisfyingly until kefir's piece and then the bad our friend piece man talk about something that just touches on things on ownership of stories on all these kinds of things that that was such a well done and such a just a very strange i say that in a as a compliment strange kind of magazine piece the way it was written because it just unfolded in front of you and seem to kind of open up like a flower, but I am still, I still think about that and I'm jealous of both of those pieces. Same here. Bad art friend goes without saying that it, you know, I can't think of a piece in my lifetime that lent itself to more debate, but also lent itself to more

like, like dispassionate. Not the word passionate sort of both sidesy debates. Like how many times did you talk about the story and just kind of talk yourself into the, like the, the, the, the, the opposite point of view by the time that you were done making your, making your case. I mean, it's, and that's what the story is about, you know, I mean, it was, it was, it was, um, just a wild story that everybody was talking about and still is, you know, I mean, it's, it's, it gets to a lot of questions that are sort of unanswerable. And on that, on that, on those terms alone, it was really important. Um, to take something, I mean, just to go on your, your, your, your point about the Yashara Lee piece, I, the, I, the, the, I, the, the

explainer aspect of it was really was really central and we've seen a lot of pieces like that over the past year multiple years we're in a new world in in a lot of ways with journalism where you know it used to be 10 years ago or something we would all be writing pieces that were like explaining why this thing that you weren't aware of was important but it would always be a little bit tongue in cheek right it was like let me explain why why uh balance beams or changing the NBA or like you know something you know that it would be, it would be an argument in favor of something. Now it's like the explainer is so necessary to so many of the important stories that we read because there are just increasingly central parts of our political and social world that are not,

that we're not, that we don't have a grasp on, right? They're not being covered in the daily newspaper, on TV or anything like that. And so, um, Kiefer's piece is a great example. It was just so, it was one of those pieces that you read and you're like, I didn't realize, I didn't know going in how important this was going to be when I came out of it. You know, and it's, it was, you know, just a fantastic piece of writing. Yeah. I mean, in all these case, here's this figure who's on Twitter, break in it and in, in other publications too, breaking news, who is both boosting the work of other famous legacy media reporters and being boosted by them.

Mm-hmm. And you and I are reading this piece going, we really don't have a. idea who this person was the whole time. They just become part of our media ecosystem. And, you know, if you had asked us, either one of us before that, like, who is you, Charlie? I think we could have offered a pretty good, you know, a pretty good summary and named a few of the scoops and things like that. But then just to have that all been like, oh, wow, we don't know anything about this person. Yep. And a lot of the people who were interacting and, again, getting work boosted by Ali on Twitter, didn't know anything about him either. Really, really, really.

interesting story. This nomination comes from nephew Kyle Crichton, David, the mandatory explainer of the year. Oh, here we go. Nephew Kyle says how everyone explained NFTs. Kind of a great moment in like we're talking to you old person media. Like we know you don't understand what this means. Yeah.

We know you're seeing this term. We are going to, you know, hold your hand. And by the way, as I get older, I feel more sympathetic to this kind of thing. But we are going to hold your hand and explain to you what NFTs are. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I mean, listen, I still don't entirely know, but I am indebted to every explainer that's been out there that's like tried to get me halfway there. It's a very bizarre, but like so perfectly apt example of something that just comes from

utter oblivion into being just part of the parlance. and you know, our journalism world did a, did a valiant job of trying to make sense of it all. Please keep explaining to David and I, what NFTs I still haven't gotten the choice. I do want to come back to your point about explainers because I was having this conversation on the pot the other day with Dan Diamond. I think it's so fascinating. We were talking about the usefulness of explainers versus the usefulness of straight up newspaper articles the other day because he's reporting on COVID for the Washington Post. and he wrote this big Omicron story with a couple of other co-authors that was really long, really detailed, very eloquently hedged between here's what we know, here's what we don't know.

This is pretty early in the Omicron news cycle. Here's what we know. Here's how dangerous it might be, but we're not sure. And I was joking with him because he had literally put the money quote from the story in the 31st paragraph of the story, which was comparing Amacron to a Frankenstein a variant. Okay. Then the very same Dan Diamond writes up this thing for his Facebook page the other day about what I'm explaining to my family about Amicron.

So this is like the entirely, the completely separate journalistic approach. One is the formal Washington Post news article. This one is what I'm telling my family and friends about Amicron right before the holidays when people are traveling and seeing other people. Yeah. The second thing went absolutely bonkers traffic wise. Like Pierce Morgan is retweeting it. Every media you figure you know is retweeting it.

And again, there's no right or wrong answer to this, but it's so interesting for a story like Omicron to me and really, and a lot of stories that are similarly complicated, what's the best way to do it? Should you have that hedge thing? Or should you have somebody who's smart like Dan going, you know what? Here's what I think I know.

here is the plane language, you know, print it out and laminate it and put it in your wallet thing that you can take when you're getting on the airplane this winter. It's a really interesting question. It absolutely is. And I mean, and I don't think it has to be

in either or. The question is like, you know, about if it's a, you know, a value question, there's certainly value to both. But the sort of ways that those two things interact, I think will be one of the sort of most interesting kind of subtextual stories of journalism moving forward.

Absolutely. All right. I got a couple more for you, David. Entrance of the year. Media entrance of the year, Peyton and Eli Manning. Oh, yeah. That was an easy one.

The Manning cast on ESPN2. Really, really cool and innovative, and I still love watching it. The graceful media exit of the year, David. I'm giving it to Nick Christoph, New York Times columnist, who finally officially announced he is running for governor of Oregon.

Yeah, remarkably smooth exit, right? I mean, even when people leave with the best of intentions now, it seems like there's always some sort of trailing story that, well, whatever. But it's, but it, it, it, he went and ran for governor. I mean, that's it, I mean, it's, it was a, it was a, uh, seemingly very, like, uh, you know, ethically positive thing to do. And, and he, and he's, he's still doing, he's just doing it.

It just all seems, it seemed like a very normal move. So yeah, in 2021, to make that kind of transition so, I don't know, seamlessly, that's as graceful as you can get, man. But now it's time to scuff him up. Now it's time to send the reporters after him when he tries to hedge on controversial issues. They're going to call him on it. We're going to get the first, is it the first Nick Christoph hit piece? I'm sure there's been one or two or three or four out there. But let's say from a big newspaper, the first to really go after and report something embarrassing or,

you know, sort of annoying about Nick Christoph, now the graceful exit become, we get some friction to it. That's journalism, right? Nick Christoph, of all people should understand. And disgraceful media exit of the year, David, it could only be the Cuomo brothers, but especially Chris Cuomo, since he's in the media or was in the media,

former CNN host leaving after advising his brother as a side hustle as his brother dealt with issues of sexual misconduct. Yeah. I mean, we covered it recently, so it seems like, you know, we've said all that we have to say. But yeah, it's, I mean, I think, I'll say this for the third time. It certainly felt like after, you know, over the past, like six months or so, that there was a sort of implicit agreement. And this is not based on anything. But it seemed like one of those, you know, situations were like, yeah, Chris Cuomo was probably going to make his exit from CNN at some point in the not too distant future.

And he was just kind of trying to do it in the least problematic moment in time possible. And then, of course, this tidal wave comes and he's got to just get out. It just felt like, I mean, disgrace is certainly one word for it. It was a disgraceful exit from CNN and obviously much more disgraceful exit from New York politics for his brother. Do we want to go ahead and do our New Year's resolution right now that we will not do any Chris Cuomo segments of any kind in 2022? Oh, man. I mean, I would love to. We'll see if that's possible.

When he's a new host of Fox News Sunday, it's going to be a whole different thing, though. It's possible if we decide it's possible, damn it. No Chris Cuomo segments. It's time for David Shoemaker guesses the strained pun headline. All right. Last Monday's headline about a man who got a COVID shot in a fake arm was, dot, dot, dot, was worth a shot.

Today's headline comes from Susan McSweeney. It's from the New York Times, David. It's a review of the new movie. mother android. I've been a little, a little slow in my movie watching lately, so I had not seen mother android, but I'll read you the subhead here.

In this sci-fi thriller, a pregnant woman and her boyfriend try to outrun hordes of vengeful robots. I'll give you a hint. Think of a popular new parent manual. What was the New York Times' Strain pun headline? Wait, new,

new, new meaning the book is new or new just meaning it's like for new parents. Yes, for new parents. Not new parents. Oh, um,

gosh, what is the big one? Classic. Classic. I know, I know, I know. I'm right.

It's, what to expect when you're expecting? Is that it? There we go. Okay. So what to expect when you're expecting,

uh, woman? Trying to outrun the vengeful, the hordes of vengeful robots. what to okay it's got to be expect deflect

um uh inspect uh it's gonna guard the baby from harm protect what's it is it when you're protecting or what to protect

there we go there we go what to protect what to protect when oh she's pregnant oh okay sorry what to protect when you're expecting what to protect when you're expecting.

What to protect when you're expecting there we go that's great work. He is David Chewmaker. I'm Brian Curtis. Production Magic is always by Erica Servantes. Let me give you a little holiday schedule here before we shove off. David and I are off Friday and Monday for the holidays. Then I'm going to be back next week. David, with a new inductee into the non-fiction pantheon here on the press box. It's J.R. Moringer's book, the Tinder Bar. Oh, yeah. Now a movie starring Ben Affleck and directed by George Clooney. Man, I have been rereading

this over the last week in preparation for the interview, holy cow, that book is good. I mean, just one of those sentence by sentence, you know, push it into somebody else's hand, which I did with my wife, and it's like, you just need to read this. And it's an absolute trust me, and you will just, you know, whatever you think of this book, you're just going to love the sentence by sentence writing of the tender bar. Holy mackerel, it's good, isn't it? I'm going to have to reread it, I cannot wait to dive in. David and I are then are back after the new year with more lukewarm takes about the media. Happy holidays, David.

See you later, Brian. Happy holidays to you too and to everyone listening to this. It's going to be a fun one. No more Chris Cuomo segments. We promise. Let's do it.