UNHAPPY AT LARRY

The journalist below, who probably didn't do the headlines, is John Ralph. Ralphy was on SEN this morning trying to suggest that Trevor Grant (News) and Richard Hinds (Fairfax) were well within their rights to criticise David Schwarz's commentary on SEN and Seven because they put their names to their articles, but that Leaping Larry L (Fairfax) has no right to criticise Schwarz because he hides behind a nom-de-keyboard.

"At least people who take issue with Grant and Hinds can ring them up at their papers and ask to speak to them." If someone like Schwarz has a problem with Leapster, surely they can pick up the phone, call the Age, and ask to speak to Leapster.

"Grant has been a well credentialled journalist for 40 years and has earned the right to make criticisms." If a pundit has something worthwhile to add, it doesn't matter how long they've been at the caper. Nevertheless, Leaping Larry L has been around as Leaping Larry L for at least 20 years and his opinions, always backed up, are every bit as valid as Grant's.

For the record. I happen to agree with Leapster's column on Schwarz:

Tough nut in the cliche clinches, or thrilled to be skilled

Special comments man Schwarz was unambiguous about the latter, making sneering reference to one section of the ground as "the worst stand ever designed for spectators" (who else, giraffes?), and taking the sneer up to Warp Factor 12 in describing the local supporters as, quote, ferals, unquote. Right. Lead us out of feral-dom, oh Great One.

Over the course of the day, Schwarz also managed to disparage the level of courage shown by certain players, the umpiring (frequently), cited Steve Johnson atop his half-time list of the most disappointing players, complained about "stupid" actions that one gathered were being committed by everyone outside the commentary booth, possibly including the pie-boys, and inserted a bizarre swipe at the courage of Richmond players, a reference that seemed starved to the point of malnutrition for anything resembling context. During this broadcast, Schwarz frequently manifested a tone of nose-lofting disdain like he'd just discovered a Great Dane turd nestling atop his prize begonias. The last football notable to perfect this approach on the airwaves was Sam Newman, and it's interesting that you don't hear him so much on the radio any more.

Schwarz is an ordinary commentator, offering nothing in the way of insightful analysis. He is much better as a cheeky oaf, which he uses to good effect on SEN's drive program.

Anyway, Trevor Grant is Trevor Grant just as Leaping Larry L is Leaping Larry L. The journalist IS the name on the byline. It would only matter if Leapster was an alias for another journalist, say, Catherine Deveny.

Maybe there is more to it. "There are a few people out there very unhappy with this Leaping Larry." A few people. Has Ralphy been talking to a mate with a grievance? You probably won't be surprised to know that both Ralphy and Schwarz work at SEN. Because I'm wondering WHY he's is even slightly interested in taking aim at Leapster. It's not as if the Herald Sun isn't full of pseudonymous writers. Come to think of it, 3AW have had loads of people working under an alias: Ross Stevenson, Sly of the Underworld, Truth Serum, Doctor Feelgood, even Caroline Wilson used to operate as Anne Tenna.

And apart from anything else, if anonymity is a problem, wouldn't The Age step in and insist Leapster use his real name, Jumping Johnny J.

(Mind you, the Age just sacked their sports editor, so who knows.)

Comments

[carneagles]

Aside from the fact that I have a vested interest on this score, it's an argument as bogus as the what-would-you-know-you've-never-played-the-game one that the likes of Sheedy is so fond of. (As a wise man once said, you don't have to be a chicken to be on the Egg Board, after all)

The thing about Larry's view - once you cut through the irrelevant point that his name doesn't match his passport - is that he's absolutely spot-on.

Our game doesn't need "colour", as Rex seems to be slowly beginning to understand, and as Dennis seems to be furiously trying to forget; it needs analysis, it needs insight delivered from people with real football experience and who understand it innately. That's their job, as well as telling us who did what and what's the score.

It's usually the only way that many of us poor punters on the pie side of the fence can learn why what happened, just happened.

Schwarz shows no sign of being able to deliver on this score. None.

I don't need inane comments when I watch the footy, thanks Davo. I can do that on my own.

[Tony T]

You don't need to be a chicken to smell a rotten egg.

It's been a long time since an ex player has told me something I don't already know. Of the newbies, Bucks is good, Liam Pickering is good, but Luke Darcy is a case of style over substance. (Dermot is the king of style over substance.)

Surely. Someday. Someone will tell me something.

[Adsy]

There has to be a balance between colour and analysis for me. I used to enjoy Rex and 3AW before they went all musical, and enjoy them even more that they have toned it down considerably.

I think Schwarz suffers from being stuffed into a role and into a commentary box that doesn't suit him (on Channel 7) Sitting next to two of the top balance commentators in the game in Dennis and Bruuuuuce, he sticks out like the proverbial. SEN is a much better fit.

Bucks is a much better special comments man than I thought he'd ever be, Darcy is passable, but Dermott is the Bruce Yardley of football commentating;

He comes across as the be all and end all, but does anyone really take anything he says seriously anymore?

[Tony T.]

With so many outlets now covering footy, there isn't enough talent going around.

Hopefully, the exposure that some of the new people are getting strengthens the current situation, but I'm not holding my breath. And it's a rough deal for us viewers and listeners when the networks are trialling so many work experience callers.

A side issue with the large number of outlets is that each is looking for ways to outdo the other by branding themselves with so-called innovations. Trouble is, few of these innovations are worthwhile, despite the people talking them up. Case in point is the Tribute Match. The consensus among the pundits was that the cameras on the umpires were dodgy, while the camera at the interchange bench and the conversations with the coaches were a bonus. I suggest NONE of those innovations were any good. The coaches gave us nothing apart from a little banter and the camera at the I/C bench offered precisely ROCK all. The umpy cams and goal post cams were a complete waste of time, when they weren't making me dizzy.

Nice comparison regarding Roo and Dermot. Both deliver commentary as if they are the font of all things cricket/footy, but they give you nothing and are bloody irritating to boot. And Dermot's hipster delivery... "Yep. Good call. Nice catch." Get. Stuffed.

Bruce, Dennis, Schwarz and Watson are OK on Sundays when they are afforded a little latitude to have some fun, but Dennis is still the most incisive by far, which is not the way it is supposed to be with TWO special comments blokes on rotation. Watto and Schwarta are the ones who are suppose to give us the goods, but they are more likely to give us the shits instead.

[Adsy]

Special comments are a bit of a minefield. The balance aspect I mentioned before is a lot more relevant than normal calling because you get less of a chance to get it right. Commentating is just calling the action, where as the SC's have to provide insight that isn't condescending to those who know a bit about the game, but isn't complete ass to the casual viewer.

Dermott sways wildly between being condescending and when he occasionally has a good point you have to trawl through the minute of crap he spews forth before you get to it. Bucks is fairly straight to the point and easy to understand, while Schwarz gives nothing of value to the regular watcher. I don't mind Timmy Watson, although he has grown on me courtesy of the SEN morning show I listen to with him, Billy Brownless and Andrew Maher (who is in the same bullshitter/occasional gem category as most of them)

[Anon]

Why doesn't someone ask Schwarz when he is going to pack back all the people he rippped off prior to declaring himself 'bankrupt'. He must be on at least 200k now and yet he makes no effort to pay back the money he stole from people when he had his gambling addiction. I'm not talking about corporations or bookies here, I'm talking about individual people he 'borrowed' money from, some of whom are still up to their necks in debt because 'the ox' thieved their money like a dirty punting addict.

[Leaping Larry L]

It's going to come as a terrible blow to the likes of Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain and George Orwell - at least the last two of whom wrote well-known material of a journalistic nature in addition to their fictional pursuits - that, at this late stage of the day, they and their work are to be completely discredited because they chose to be published under a pseudonym. They must have thought they'd got clean away with it.

It's beyond my patience, my interest - and possibly beyond the mortal limitations of the number of years I have left on the planet - to attempt to explain to aggrieved yayhoos snatching frantically at straws that there is a long-established, and apparently ethical, basis for the use of a nom-de-plume in the media/public eye.

As others have pointed out, the presumable real objection is nothing to do with a nom-de-plume in the first place - it's someone squealing because they (or in this case, a mate) got caught out doing something they arguably shouldn't have, and got called on it. Like bleating kids, they lash back using the first attack that comes to mind, which in this case, happens to be an entirely ineffectual one. However arguing the issues wouldn't have been all that effective either.

My reasons for writing/broadcasting as Leaping Larry L are my own, and none of these people's business, nor should it be of the slightest concern to them. However, I will volunteer the information that, as I've been "trading" in the media as Leaping Larry L since 1984, my take on the matter is that that's the name I'm publicly known under - such as I'm known at all - and that switching to given name, or any other, at this stage would be confusing to the general public, and counter-productive in terms of my career, such as that is.

No-one who wants to meet/praise/argue with/stir me in a friendly manner seems to ever have any great difficulty finding me in pubs, at gigs, at the footy etc. If I'm "hiding" I've been hiding in plain view for 24 years. I would gently suggest that I'm a lot more accessible to, and have a lot more contact with, members of the general public than most of the media folk who occasionally lurch for the "He's a shadowy, deceptive figure hiding under a pseudonym" garbage in attacking me.

I also ask, purely for information, whether the folks who go this particular route and get all high and mighty about pseudonyms plan to continue this high-minded battle to its logical end and ensure that their newspapers, radio and television stations, if ever referring to the likes of John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe, Tom Cruise, Hulk Hogan etc etc, no matter how fleetingly, always also include their given names with such references.

The answer to that will reveal once again that pseudonyms/noms-des-plumes were never the issue.

[m0nty]

This is a non-issue. The pseudonym thing is a straw man.

Geez, News Limited is covering itself in glory today. You've got Jon Ralph being the hired gun in a character assassination attempt, and Mark Robinson doing a hatchet job on independent Web sites. The hypocrisy in both cases is breathtaking.