Bill Simmons Suspended from Twitter, ESPN Grounds Naughty Grantland Chief
Bill Simmons was reportedly suspended from Twitter by ESPN for his critique of the network's popular debate show First Take. There is no word as to whether he was also sent to bed without supper.
Deadspin's John Koblin reports the editor-in-chief of Grantland has been suspended from Twitter for the criticism he offered on the very social media site:
ESPN has suspended Simmons from Twitter for a few days after he called the Skip Bayless-Richard Sherman First Take meltdown last week awful and embarrassing. An ESPN source told me that the tweets violated ESPN's social media guidelines; Simmons was told to lie low for a few days. He hasn't tweeted since
TuesdayMonday, and he'll apparently be allowed to return to Twitter tomorrow, making it a three-day hiatus. An ESPN spokesman declined comment, and Simmons didn't respond to an email.
For those of us well aware that being highly critical of your employer is not always a good idea, you can now enjoy your moment of schadenfreude.
For those of us who found it refreshing that someone from ESPN would actually speak out against the shouting match that is First Take, savor what you just saw.
As noted, Simmons took to Twitter in a few instances following the awkward moment between Richard Sherman and Skip Bayless.
Here are some remarks that still remain active on Twitter.
It's amazing to me that people get so worked up about First Take. Who cares? Just don't watch it. There are like 800 TV channels.— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) March 8, 2013
I am not defending this segment - youtu.be/j6x-O3kb1sI - I thought it was awful and embarrassing to everyone involved. Seriously.— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) March 8, 2013
But what bothers me about the reaction to that segment is people saying Richard Sherman "won." Nobody won. Everyone lost. Including ESPN.— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) March 8, 2013
Again, this was a moment that many fans found wonderful. When someone from ESPN blasts the show that seems to annoy more than entertain, you are going to win over some appreciative fans.
Still, the moment Simmons tweeted his critique, most of us had to take a step back and consider the backlash. It was like being a kid all over again and watching one of your buddies tell off their parents in a rare act of defiance.
The only thing to do in that instance is grab a seat and stick around for the fireworks.
We have to agree with a couple of B/R personalities in this regard: Matt Miller and Rollin Herold. One does not simply bash their own employer.
And we also get to put that Ewing theory to the test.
This isn't the first social-media suspension for Simmons, who is arguably the biggest name at ESPN. Back in 2009, he was suspended for two weeks for tweeting the following at an ESPN Radio affiliate.
Hey WEEI: You were wrong, I did a Boston interview today. With your competition. Rather give them ratings over deceitful scumbags like you.— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) November 10, 2009
The network has somewhat of a history of asking its writers to cool it on Twitter when things heat up.
CBS Sports' Bruce Feldman famously described his enforced Twitter hiatus when he worked at ESPN "for his participation in a book with former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach," via Big Lead.
Feldman said when the story hit, he was told he couldn’t Tweet, blog, go to the SEC media day and other restrictions. He said that he was on a “do-not-book list.”
The lesson here, if you are looking for one, is to think before you tweet.
It doesn't matter if you are some random blogger looking for fame or a household name offering but a voice to an already loud and raucous discourse on Twitter.
Tweets may be small, digestible pieces of opinion that are so easily published and later forgotten, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't practice safe tweeting.
Now, we will wait outside until Billy can come back out to play.
Hit me up on Twitter for more safe tweeting.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?