Stones. Glass Houses.

If you haven’t figured it out by now, working in the media is a pretty nice gig. Barring outright plagiarism or committing a crime, you don’t have to be accountable if you don’t want to. You can say what you want when you want and you don’t really have to answer to anyone.

Curt Schilling, in a post entitled "Ignorance Has Its Privilieges" on 38pitches.com, 4.27.07.

I mean, he admitted that he used steroids. I mean, there’s no gray area. He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, and cheating on the game.

Curt Schilling, on WEEI’s Dennis and Callahan, 5.8.07. Bonds has not ever admitted to doing any of those three alleged actions.

54 comments… add one
  • Yeah, not cool, I mean, I don’t actually think of Bonds as a human being, but I guess pond scum has rights too.

    LocklandSF May 9, 2007, 11:06 am
  • Yeah, I mean, I don’t really have much of a problem with Curt’s sentiments in general, but if you’re gonna rip the media for a perceived lack of accuracy and accountability, then you leave yourself open when you turn out to be less than accurate. And who’s going to hold him accountable?

    Paul SF May 9, 2007, 11:13 am
  • “I don’t really have much of a problem with Curt’s sentiments in general”
    The guy is lying to the press – you don’t have a problem with that?
    No matter what you think of Bonds, this crosses a line.

    Andrews May 9, 2007, 11:17 am
  • No surprise here. Paul still on his one man crusade to restore legitamacy to the media while presenting no facts of his own. You’ll make a great media member indeed!

    jim - YF May 9, 2007, 11:18 am
  • Bravo Paul. Way to come through and show everyone, Yankees and Sox alike are open to criticism. Nice work.
    “It’s 2007 and this team has got a great thing going. The last thing we need is an idiotic distraction that shouldn’t even exist.”
    -From my other post but that is such a great Schilling quote from what 2 weeks ago?

    Anonymous May 9, 2007, 11:18 am
  • That was me, sorry.

    Triskaidekaphobia May 9, 2007, 11:20 am
  • That was me, sorry.

    Triskaidekaphobia May 9, 2007, 11:23 am
  • Thank you, Trisk, for not being an idiot. Good catch on that other quote, as well. He’s clearly creating his own distractions now.
    When I say “Curt’s sentiments,” I was pretty clearly referring to his answer that we should be holding our noses as Bonds approaches the record, and that it’s pretty clear he used steroids.
    Not sure how my criticism of his actual words could be much clearer.

    Paul SF May 9, 2007, 11:32 am
  • Good catch, Paul. Maybe a nice lawsuit will finally shut the big gaping hole that is Curt Schilling’s mouth.

    Andrew May 9, 2007, 11:37 am
  • Uh, there’s something to be said for taking things out of context. From the looks of things, Paul, you’re perfecting that art. Well on your way to being a member of the 21st century media.
    Whereas Schilling was actually a victim of the media bullshit machine, you’re trying to say that Bonds is being slandered by him? The difference of course is that Schilling had to know what he said was false when he said it.
    Nah, there’s no evidence to suggest Bonds took steroids, cheated on his wife, or on his taxes. Sure, crucify him over the use of the word “admitted”, but if that’s the best you got, and you’re publishing it here, the future of the media is in a sorry state if you can’t see that.
    Meanwhile, Callahan in the Herald calls out Big Stein for “talking to coatracks”. No comment here necessary.
    Yup, 21st century media at it’s best! But continue to wage your one man battle (or two if you count Mnookin) against Schilling. There really aren’t better stories out there. Keep up the “inspired” work.

    jim - YF May 9, 2007, 11:44 am
  • Uh, there’s something to be said for taking things out of context. From the looks of things, Paul, you’re perfecting that art. Well on your way to being a member of the 21st century media.
    Whereas Schilling was actually a victim of the media bullshit machine, you’re trying to say that Bonds is being slandered by him? The difference of course is that Schilling had to know what he said was false when he said it.
    Nah, there’s no evidence to suggest Bonds took steroids, cheated on his wife, or on his taxes. Sure, crucify him over the use of the word “admitted”, but if that’s the best you got, and you’re publishing it here, the future of the media is in a sorry state if you can’t see that.
    Meanwhile, Callahan in the Herald calls out Big Stein for “talking to coatracks”. No comment here necessary.
    Yup, 21st century media at it’s best! But continue to wage your one man battle (or two if you count Mnookin) against Schilling. There really aren’t better stories out there. Keep up the “inspired” work.

    jim - YF May 9, 2007, 11:44 am
  • Apparently Jim has an axe to grind with Paul. Jim I think you are way off base here, but I will stay out of this argument.
    The issue here is that he presented his statements as fact. Barry Bonds is NOT an admitted cheater. He has never said I am a cheater, I have cheated X,Y,Z. Just because we as fans suspect otherwise doesn’t mean someone has the right to make accusations like that.

    Triskaidekaphobia May 9, 2007, 11:51 am
  • FWIW, I wasn’t trying to defend Schilling for putting words in Bonds’ mouth last night. Just more along the lines of what Paul said, which is that while I agree with the sentiment and his right to express it, he shouldn’t have presented those accusations as fact.

    desturbd1 May 9, 2007, 11:52 am
  • Jim, has it ever crossed your mind to simply state your point without being insulting? Ever. I mean, try it, just once, I think it will feel good.

    LocklandSF May 9, 2007, 11:55 am
  • Jim-
    Saying that Bonds has “admitted” to any of these things is slanderous. It takes what are, in essence, Curt Schilling’s opinions on Bonds and transforms them into a statement of facts.
    It’s irresponsible and stupid.
    Considering the fact that Curt Schilling is a very large figure in Red Sox (and Yankee) lore, considering that Barry Bonds is the center piece of one of the largest scandals in Baseball history, considering that Bonds is also within reach of breaking the most famous record in all of professional sports, and considering that Schilling just started a blog and continues to make himself widely disseminated throughout the media and baseball world, I think this is very much an important story for a blog about baseball and about the Yankees and the Red Sox.

    walein May 9, 2007, 11:57 am
  • SFs, don’t take the bait. Again, if you see the magic author at the end of the post, don’t even read it. That’s what I’ve done. It works great.

    Paul SF May 9, 2007, 11:59 am
  • My guess, however, is that there is only ONE story Jim wants to hear about. There’s only ONE truly important, truly “topical”, “in context” piece to discuss…and that’s Jim.
    I wonder what Jim will say next.
    I wonder what Jim thinks about me.
    I can only imagine how Jim is going to react to Jim’s opinions of things.

    walein May 9, 2007, 12:01 pm
  • “The difference of course is that Schilling had to know what he said was false when he said it.”
    tort of slander can be found in negligence. intent is not required.

    Ric May 9, 2007, 12:02 pm
  • “I think this is very much an important story for a blog about baseball and about the Yankees and the Red Sox.”
    I agree completely

    Andrews May 9, 2007, 12:03 pm
  • I realize that Paul, but it’s annoying and kind of fascinating at the same time, I mean, how could one person be such a useless sack of dung?
    The real way around this is to just ban and or delete him, it’s not like he has any YF supporters either, he’s just wasting space.

    LocklandSF May 9, 2007, 12:05 pm
  • I don’t think that’s true, Ric. In the States, I thought when public figures were involved there had to be proof of actual malice. At least, that’s what I’ve always heard, and what Wikipedia says…heh.

    desturbd1 May 9, 2007, 12:09 pm
  • I’m confused about timing here. Did Curt post that about Bonds before or after Big Papi defended him in the ESPN interview?

    rootbeerfloat May 9, 2007, 12:10 pm
  • I think they’re unrelated, RBF. Papi’s interview was in the Herald yesterday morning. Curt went on the air yesterday morning. I assume Curt had not read the paper yet because the show is usually the first thing he does…

    Paul SF May 9, 2007, 12:20 pm
  • Same day, yesterday and it was an interview not a post.
    I hate to say this but the amount of annoying, useless Yankee posters outnumbers that of the Sox annoying and useless posters. I know sometimes it seems like we are outnumbered here, but for Pete’s sake don’t be nasty and rude. These guys here are really good duys, Sox fans or not. This is here for amusement, people don’t deserve that type of treatment.

    Triskaidekaphobia May 9, 2007, 12:21 pm
  • ” I thought when public figures were involved there had to be proof of actual malice.”
    no- someone can cause harm by being grossly negligent which is considered reckless under a reasonable person standard! malice is actually going way beyond the requisite for intent anyway…

    Ric May 9, 2007, 12:26 pm
  • Trisk is right, and the few vocal obnxious YFs give the rest of us a bad rap!
    Sometimes I wishe there were an ignore function for certain posters (coughJimcough).

    yankeemonkey May 9, 2007, 12:32 pm
  • Terry Francona is actually ripping him on EEI as I type this…
    some interesting quotes:
    “for a guy not talking to the media, he sure talks a lot”
    “I’ve told Schilling to keep his mouth shut on this matter”
    It was a pretty good interview. Terry simply said that it was an area that Curt should have stayed out of, and while he’s never short on offering his opinion, he should have kept this one to himself. When he (Curt) won’t answer to the media about the things he says, those questions are asked of me (terry), and I’m getting tired of it, so I’ve had a talk with him about what he says. If he’s going to say these things, he has to stand behind them when asked by the media, because I have better things to do than explain his opinion on a daily basis, so we’ve had a talk.
    Terry left it alone after that.
    Sorry for the (first to third person) confusion there, but I’m in a hurry…
    Nice post, Paul.

    Brad May 9, 2007, 12:36 pm
  • Ok, I’m an unabashed SF and Schilling really gets on my nerves. But I don’t think it’s my imagination that he sticks out like a sore thumb on that team. The rest of the guys seem pretty laid back and fun to be around and he seems so uptight.

    rootbeerfloat May 9, 2007, 12:40 pm
  • When I heard the Schill interview on D&C, I was under the impression that Bonds had admitted to one or a couple of the things Curt mentioned (“He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, and cheating on the game.”) in an interview or a book or something. As is not the case, I expect (in some order) 1. a rebuttal from Bonds (possibly threatening suit), 2. Attempted intervention from Bud, 3. Additional threats of suit, 4. Retraction from Schill.
    There is a possibility (depending on how long this drags out) that BB meets and passes Aaron’s record while all of this nonsense is running its course. Considering all of the scandal that has surrounded Bonds in the past 3-4 years, how ironic would it be if him reaching said milestone was overshadowed by a lawsuit?
    Regardless, if Schill pitches when SF is in town next month, I expect fireworks.

    Nate=Soxfan May 9, 2007, 12:48 pm
  • There is another side to the bonds situation and it is this…
    Even if he does break the record, will anyone actually recognize it? I know I won’t. I mean, even if it ends up in the actual record books, when I tell my kids about the HR record holder, his name will Aaron not Bonds.
    As far as I’m concerned, he doesn’t actually exist and never has.
    It really is that simple.

    LocklandSF May 9, 2007, 12:58 pm
  • wow.

    Brad May 9, 2007, 1:03 pm
  • Jim. You are no longer welcome on this site.

    YF May 9, 2007, 1:10 pm
  • Last night I expressed some fatigue over this issue (and others, like A-Rod’s narcissism). I still feel that fatigue, though clearly Curt’s gone over a line as narcissism is by definition self-involved while Curt has made false allegations about what Bonds has admitted to doing. So Schilling deserves every bit of criticism that he is enduring, and he should, however impossible this may be, keep his trap shut.
    That being said, I AM still suffering a bit of fatigue from what I think of as “PAS”, or “pinheaded athlete syndrome”, wherein players that we know can’t keep their mouth shut don’t, and say something dumb. Earlier this year Johnny Damon, speaking about being a Yankee, said, compared to Boston, he was “in a much better place”, and I cringed. I didn’t post about it though, however true a sentiment it might be for him, it struck me as cold, impolitic, and unthoughtful towards Boston and it’s fans, considering what he accomplished there. I just didn’t feel like it was worth pointing out, as if we felt the obligation to highlight every stupid, egotistical, or insensitive comment from the players we watch we’d never discuss more interesting topics.
    All that said, Schill made a huge error in judgment, and this only exposes him as hypocritical.

    SF May 9, 2007, 1:10 pm
  • What was that buzzing noise?

    Nate=Soxfan May 9, 2007, 1:12 pm
  • The Globe has a post with some of Terry’s interview on EEI that Brad mentioned. Of particular interest to this topic:
    “Yeah, I actually talked to Schill yesterday about it, and you know again, he’s never been short on opinions, and so many of them are insightful, I just thought this was an area where you’re better off just leaving it alone. And he didn’t. And you know again, the problem is, it makes it tough for me, is that he comes to the ballpark and doesn’t talk to the media so I’m left to kind of clean up the mess which I really don’t feel like, but, again, I’ve been with Schill a long time. Nobody’s more crazy about Schill than me. I just ask him to kind of zip it a little bit, and I think he will.”
    He also spoke about the Ortiz articles from yesterday, with headlines like “David Ortiz May Or May Not Have Taken Steroids”:
    “I felt bad yesterday ‘cause after I saw the article, and then I saw the headline, which didn’t even come close to being the article, and I thought that was very unprofessional on the paper’s part. Then, we go through the whole day, and I’ve got a writer running in here from Toronto that comes in, and he’s going to make a story. He goes, ‘yeah, Ortiz fessed up to taking steroids.’ Well, that’s… David was kind of poking fun at himself, and trying to be a good guy. That wasn’t even remotely where that story was going, and I heard some things on TV today. Again, there’s got to be some professionalism or things like this happen.“
    “It’s a shame, and it makes our job a little more uncomfortable, and it paints David as not the person he is. And again, it’s a guy that will give you a quote because he’s good to the media, but I think when these things happen, it makes a guy step back and go ‘hey, wait a minute, maybe I’m better not talking.’“

    Kluv May 9, 2007, 1:35 pm
  • This would probably be more a question for Paul, but what happened to Ortiz’s quotes is the fault of the editor, right? I was under the impression that sportswriters don’t pick their own headlines, but I know that’s not always true.
    In this case, the title of the story in the Herald–“Ortiz Goes to Bat for Barry”–was actually…accurate. Meaning it was the rest of the media, from ESPN to other papers, completely warping it when they posted their headlines. I don’t even know where I’m trying to go with this…it just sucks. Happens all the damn time, and I wish there were some way for the original source–in this case the Herald–to defend itself and its subjects to keep their words from being twisted so badly by other outlets. I mean it’s pretty clear in situations like this that the title is purposefully misleading…really doesnt seem fair.

    desturbd1 May 9, 2007, 1:45 pm
  • ” I just didn’t feel like it was worth pointing out, as if we felt the obligation to highlight every stupid, egotistical, or insensitive comment from the players we watch we’d never discuss more interesting topics.”
    I agree in principle, but IMO, Schilling’s comments often rise above the mere “stupid, egotistical, or insensitive” because they are often directed at specific individuals – Bonds, Arod, Lou Pinella, John Kerry for example. He seems to have an agenda that he’s trying to advance, and therefore outbursts like this are IMO at least worthy of discussion.

    Andrews May 9, 2007, 2:02 pm
  • To add to the above…
    I also think it’s becoming more and more apparent that Schilling (barring some frightening skeleton in his closet) will be running for office after his career in baseball. The things he says, especially when it connects baseball to politics and the like, are larger and will likely have deeper ramifications than just an ordinary All-Star’s comment.

    walein May 9, 2007, 2:27 pm
  • You’re right, D1.
    The Herald seemed to do right by Ortiz. Writers choose the quotes they use and write the story. Sadly, we have little/no input into how the story is presented, what headline is on it, where it is on the page, how it’s promoted, etc.
    In the case where a story is picked up by the AP, AP editors gut the story, rewrite the portions around the quotes and use whichever quotes from the initial story they choose. Same with Reuters or any other wire service that takes a newspaper story and reruns it. It’s very rare for wire services to run with the original story unless it’s a feature.
    Once the AP version goes out, with an AP-written headline, ESPN and other media take it and usually write their own headlines (or use the AP, or link with the AP headline and write their own on the actual page with the story) and post it up. ESPN a lot of times will add their own reporting or background to flesh it out and stick a “Staff and wire reports” byline on it.
    So, you add that many layers of editing, you’re going to screw something up. My first interaction with the Ortiz story was in a Reuters story, and the lead was simply awful, making it sound like Ortiz was using the Barry Bonds/Gary Sheffield defense when the truth was completely different.
    I personally would much rather reporters, who know the stories the best and how to summarize them, write the headlines. But the ida is that they don’t have to put the story on the page or get the hed to fit, and that’s where copy editors come in. I particularly have a beef with AP’s policy of rewriting stories they pick up from their member publications. You have someone who doesn’t know anything about the story rewriting from someone else’s version of the story, and even though they call us and ask clarifying questions if they need it, the process introduces a lot of room for error.
    Anyway, that’s my take on things. That’s probably way too long and rambling, but there it is.

    Paul SF May 9, 2007, 2:30 pm
  • “Last night I expressed some fatigue over this issue”
    I’m with you, SF. I have no interest in this soap opera crap. How many times are we going to see the same freakin headlines – “Breaking – Schilling says something stupid.” I’m not criticizing you guys for posting this thread, I’m criticizing “the media” as a whole for giving this guy a platform.
    Shut up and pitch Curt.
    As far as Bonds goes, I don’t have strong negative feelings towards him. He’s one of the best ever, steroids or not. He’s been tearing the cover off the ball this year, and I would have to think he’s clean. Good for him. He’s gonna break the record, so we might as well get used to it. I remember as a kid reading about the asterik after 61 and thinking “that is lame.” I have the same feeling about moaning about Bonds. Get over it. It’s a new era, a new game, and Bonds is one of the best, as was Aaron, as was Ruth. Whatever Bonds does won’t change history.
    And besides, Bonds will only hold the record for a decade, at most, as the clean up hitter on some crappy 2nd place team will easily reach 800 by the time he’s 40.

    Tyrel SF May 9, 2007, 3:31 pm
  • “Shut up and pitch Curt.”
    I wholeheartedly second that, Tyrel

    Andrews May 9, 2007, 4:10 pm
  • Nah, not too long, makes perfect sense, Paul. I guess I just wish there were some sort of agreement in place wherein these fricken wire services wouldn’t COMPLETELY obliterate the original purpose of a story when they do their own variation on a newspaper item. I’ve no idea how that would work and it’s never going to happen…it just seems like this is exactly the sort of thing–and it’s not just sports, obviously where stories are twisted–that gives “the media” as a whole something of a bad reputation.
    Media consolidation sucks. And speaking of which…this is kinda relevant, via Deadspin:
    http://tinyurl.com/33k7xr
    I know it’s just a blog giving a second-hand account of a radio broadcast, but this is exactly the kind of thing that would explain roughly %75 of the stupidity we get on ESPN broadcasts. A sample of the post, which is referring to Kruk’s prediction that the Pirates would sit atop the NL Central, which he made some time last week:
    “Apparently, the ESPN brass tried to stiff arm him into saying he thought the Yankees would be leading the AL East by June. Kruk refused, so they made him make one bold selection, thus the Pirates pick. And this was all admitted on the radio by Kruk!”

    desturbd1 May 9, 2007, 4:17 pm
  • lockland, at 11:55 you had this to say to jim: “…Jim, has it ever crossed your mind to simply state your point without being insulting? Ever. I mean, try it, just once, I think it will feel good….”
    then at 12:05 you had this to say about him: “…I realize that Paul, but it’s annoying and kind of fascinating at the same time, I mean, how could one person be such a useless sack of dung?…”
    my only question is if “useless sack of dung” is a term of endearment, or is it an insult?
    i realize jim is rather harsh and certainly a contrary fellow, and he’d have better luck getting his point across if he toned down the rhetoric, but banning him seems a bit extreme…

    dc May 9, 2007, 4:22 pm
  • dc, I don’t think you were here for his last couple posts. They went well beyond what he’s been known for to this point, and most certainly deserved to be removed. Talking about three or four paragraphs of macho homophobic crap I don’t care to repeat at the expense of the YF’s here at this website. That’s what got the ban, not the stuff from yesterday…
    Trust me on this. I didn’t like him, but wasn’t calling for a ban. Hell, sometimes it was a little fun to argue even if it was like yelling into a wall. But he deserved it after today. There’s contrary and unnecessarily vitriolic; he’s always straddled the line, and today he jumped all the way over.

    desturbd1 May 9, 2007, 4:34 pm
  • The discussions among the five YFSF moderators about Jim took place over several days, DC, and suffice it to say not one of us objected to the ban.

    Paul SF May 9, 2007, 4:52 pm
  • We’ll know it, because we’ll feel the violent gnawing at the back of our minds that is our brains slowly rotting away by reading your posts.

    Andrew May 9, 2007, 5:50 pm
  • Andrew:
    Please don’t respond to his comments – we’re going to be deleting any post as fast as we spot them, so any responses will end up looking contextless and confusing. Bear with us on this one, we’re trying our best here.

    YFSF Proprietors May 9, 2007, 5:55 pm
  • Typepad says they offer name and IP-bans; is his dynamic or something?

    desturbd1 May 9, 2007, 6:08 pm
  • yep.

    SF May 9, 2007, 6:10 pm
  • what’s a dynamic IP? is that just a special cloaking device for trolls, or is there a legitimate use for it?

    Tyrel SF May 9, 2007, 6:55 pm
  • Most cable internet service providers have it. Basically it means your IP address changes whenever you connect to the Internet, though I don’t know if that’s based on your computer or modem turning on and off. I don’t know much about it, really, just that a lot of people in the United States have ’em. Makes traces and banning kind of hard.

    desturbd1 May 9, 2007, 6:59 pm
  • Thanks.

    Tyrel SF May 9, 2007, 7:07 pm
  • thanks for the clarification d-1 and paul…i certainly trust your judgement…i apparently didn’t see the worst of the comments, and i’m glad i didn’t based on d-1’s description of them…thanks for cleaning things up…

    dc May 9, 2007, 10:50 pm
  • Is it true that Schilling plans to have offseason surgery in order to have a megaphone surgically implanted on his lips?

    yf2k May 10, 2007, 11:18 am

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.