Really smart. Starting now, Royals Review is on my required reading list.

31 comments… add one
  • You gotta be kidding. That article is so riddled with holes, it makes giant blocks of Swiss cheese jealous. (Boom. Ching.)
    For example:
    //Moreover, Game Four of a 3-0 World Series is certainly no more sacred than Game Seven of the ALCS was,//
    Right, the ALCS and NLCS are of the same importance as the World Series. Maybe if you’re the owner of the Rockies, at least.
    // during which the mostly pointless “Paul Byrd used HGH” story was briefly treated as a matter of vital importance.//
    I thought the timing of that article was pretty odd, too, and it was a shame that news was released that day.
    But the writer misses a crucial and obvious point, which completely deflates his analogy: Paul Byrd was actually a key member of one the teams that was playing that Series.
    So unlike the ARod news, there was at least some relevance to the action at hand with the Byrd situation.

    Hudson November 1, 2007, 4:07 pm
  • There are grammatical holes, but no, I am not kidding. The author’s cogent point is that the media made the story, and made the story about the story. Ouroboros.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 4:16 pm
  • I don’t know if the ouroboros analogy works for me. The media is not some monolithic organized entity that has total control over the direction of a story. So Heyman and Rosenthal broke the story, which Boras provided them. Were these guys, whose reps are built in part by getting out important info quickly, supposed to hold onto the story for a day longer (wait, maybe they should have. I don’t know). When they broke it–at least when Heyman did, he didn’t comment on the timing. He just put it out there. Then there were various people in the media who responded, voicing puzzlement at the timing.

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 4:24 pm
  • And to me it wasn’t that A-Rod had offended my sense of the sanctity of baseball. It was just such a cheesy look-at-me gesture.

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 4:27 pm
  • Sounds like an angry 12 year old. If that’s on your reading list, you must have a lot of time on your hands. The whole thing could have been drilled down to one paragraph.

    dan November 1, 2007, 4:29 pm
  • Nick, FOX did have total control over the story in their context. Maybe my analogy is flawed; that’s fine, metaphor is hard. It’s like how many babies fit inside of a tire.
    This site has been riddled with accusations of general incompetence bordering on malfeasance regarding the announcers and networks in their presentation of this post season at every stage, which is a recurring theme regarding much of the announcing of the Yankees during the reggalar as well, (not nearly as much for the Sox).

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 4:33 pm
  • dan, I’m not sure I understand your need to be rude on this board. Instead of putting down the authors on this site, why not engage the subject?

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 4:34 pm
  • I think the piece is generally accurate in picking out the sanctimony and hypicrisy of the msm and mlb, but i’m not quite sure that his argument that the media “created” the story is accurate, or that they “chose” to make it a story. The thing was newsworthy; they had to cover it, and then it was legitimate to note that the timing of it/method of delivery was crass. That the story of the story became overblown–no argument there.

    YF November 1, 2007, 4:36 pm
  • > Sounds like an angry 12 year old
    Angry? Not really.
    > you must have a lot of time on your hands
    Sorry to waste yours.
    > The whole thing could have been drilled down to one paragraph.
    Everyone needs a good editor. That an article suffers from verbosity doesn’t mean it’s false.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 4:36 pm
  • Oh definitely, I think that those Fox commentators who were critical of the announcement were/are compromised to a certain extent because their network’s hilariously awful coverage–which included so much peripheral nonsense. But, I do think the timing of Boras’s news deserves criticism. A wrong is a wrong even if those who call it wrong are wrong. That’s my attempt at a Rumsfieldian Koan.

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 4:39 pm
  • Nick, great reference on our nation’s esteemed ex-SOD. For what it is worth, the author acknowledges the awkward, unfortunate, and wrong-headed timing in the article.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 4:42 pm
  • by the way, AG, is the title of this post a reference to Hank?

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 4:45 pm
  • Now you have outed the smartest guy in the room.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 4:49 pm
  • I enjoyed the article until he compared Bill Simmons to Benedict Arnold. That seemed a little over the top to me.
    And as long as we’re employing Revolutionary War metaphors, does that make YF and SF delegates at the Constitutional Convention? Is Will Leitch Thomas Jefferson? Inquiring minds want to know how far hyperbolic analogies can be stretched…

    stuck working November 1, 2007, 5:01 pm
  • I don’t want to play a game of “blame the victim” here, and I am not sure I am interested in defending FOX on any level, but the story starts and ends with Boras. If he doesn’t make the call, there’s nothing for Fox to hype.
    On the other hand, I have already previously expressed my own thoughts on whether or not this upstaged anything. Conventional wisdom was that this was an abomination by Boras and Rodriguez, but I share the sentiment that this was, in the end, crass but no big deal. To me, A-Rod and Boras simply made themselves look like jerks, and that, to me, was something of a service. Nothing was going to take away from my enjoyment of that game.

    SF November 1, 2007, 5:05 pm
  • does that make YF and SF delegates at the Constitutional Convention?
    I don’t know about YF, but one of my favorite accoutrements is the powdered wig.

    SF November 1, 2007, 5:07 pm
  • The media is not some monolithic organized entity that has total control over the direction of a story.
    Thank you!
    I am pretty sick and tired of this general meme. Heyman and Rosenthal were reporters who broke a story as soon as they were given it, as is their job. Olney and others are analysts who criticized the man who gave those reporters the story, as is their job.
    That sports journalism has an overabundance of analysts is a valid criticism. That it has good reporters who break stories when news happens is a credit to the news organizations that employ those reporters.
    To criticize “the media” — a plural word that encompasses multiple organizations across multiple formats — in an overly long post that generalizes to the extreme and shows no basic knowledge of how the media work does not qualify to me as good writing or good analysis. It’s frustrating and, after reading numerous opinion pieces in this same tone with a similar carelessness for the reality of the situation, incredibly annoying.

    Paul SF November 1, 2007, 5:41 pm
  • Gerbs, I’m just trying to imagine Yankee fans’ reaction if the cleat were on the other foot.
    Yankees are on the cusp of winning their first World Series since 2000. There are tons of story lines to pursue — does this mean Torre will be brought back? Will the New York free agents return? How sweet is this for A-Rod? etc. — not to mention covering the action on the field, which is ongoing.
    But wait! We interrupt coverage of the live World Series game for this breaking news! CURT SCHILLING HAS POSTED ON HIS BLOG THAT HE DOES NOT PLAN TO RE-SIGN WITH THE BOSTON RED SOX!
    And then Dim & Blow proceed to chew this news over for six-plus minutes, while the ballgame continues in the 8th inning…
    Finally, five days later, a SF front-pager posts touting a story that it was perfectly reasonable for Curt’s blogpost to become more important than the end of the Series.
    Yep, no big deal.

    Hudson November 1, 2007, 6:01 pm
  • Good Lord, Hudson! Your capitalized (faux) announcement had me rushing to just to make sure that your scenario wasn’t actually unfolding.
    Fortunately, though there is another post up, it’s not in that vein at all. In fact, he reaffirms his desire to re-sign for a year with Boston. And I surprise myself by hoping that he does.

    stuck working November 1, 2007, 6:13 pm
  • Paul, I meant to say the media “are”, not “is”:)

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 6:21 pm
  • But Paul, the reality of the situation was that FOX had a captive audience in the context of the series. It was their editorial judgement to choose what should air and what should not, and how much time should be devoted to any sidebar. Whether the playoffs was the least interesting “in recent memory” is arbitrary and is probably the largest bone of contention I have with the original article, specifically because I was interested in the games though my team wasn’t in it, but isn’t the fact that whether a story breaks on the day of or the next the crux of the damning of ARod and Boras? That some nefarious scheme was in place to supplant the action taking place during the Series is and was a wholly manufactured construct by the authors of the broadcast, and those authors now seek indemnification from their own transgression while capitalizing on said same transgression.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 6:27 pm
  • As a side note: Once we put the offending portions of the blogged article aside, don’t we all agree with the gist of the argument: Sports coverage sucks at the moment? Its focused not on the game at hand, but on the needs to “keep up interest” and provide “perspectives?”
    For instance, do we really need everyone’s opinion on whether Boras is at fault, or A-Rod, or the media? Its one thing to have a water-cooler conversation about it the next morning…but do we have to generate an opinion on it, as it happens..and then generate an opinion whether we should be talking about whether we have an opinion?
    Maybe this is happening because no color commenter is able to say anything insightful about the game at hand and thus take it as moment to spout editorials, maybe its because brodcasters feel that opinion, character and indignation is what drives interest, or maybe its just that we all live too fast nowadays and media can’t keep up with the need for content.
    Regardless, I thought to connect this with the rise of blogs in the sports world, and how steadfastfans are turning away from mainstream sports coverage because its so incredibly unsatisfying. Now that a week or so has passed, i’m looking back at this weekend as a sign that we’ve passed some threshold. I thought to connect all that, but I have no idea what it means, really.

    Carlos November 1, 2007, 6:37 pm
  • Hudson, I guess my takeaway from the broadcast of Boras’ proxy announcement of ARod’s decision was “yeah, okay, but I’m watching the game. Tuning it out, just like the rest of the mindless prattle and fluff, just like I do the rest of the year.”

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 6:40 pm
  • Carlos: yep.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 6:42 pm
  • Again, if we were talking about the same authors, I could see that point, AG. But by and large, the people breaking the news have not been the people criticizing the timing.
    As for Fox, Ken Rosenthal is a reporter, first and foremost, who does some analysis and color commentating. I know if I tracked down Scott Boras on his cell and confirmed for the first time (I know this because I was in Buffalo Wild Wings and while ESPN still had the scroll saying “ reports sources say…” Rosenthal was on Fox confirming it) a major news story like that, I would be making damn sure I got on the air with it.
    I’m not going to say there’s not some self-fulfilling cyclical behavior here, particularly on ESPN, where everyone seems to report and analyze all at the same time, so you have BBTN guys talking on and on about A-Rod and then criticizing Boras and A-Rod for creating a distraction. But should they NOT talk about it? Should they ignore it? Was A-Rod opting out not a big deal? And was not the timing atrocious? It’s hard for me to see another way out, here.
    At any rate, the problem isn’t with when the media reported the news — AT ALL. The news happened in the fourth inning. It was reported before the seventh-inning stretch. That’s good journalism. Holding it for a day because the reporter disagrees with the timing or doesn’t want to create a distraction is bad journalism. You don’t get to choose when news breaks. To some extent, that means being complicit in creating the distraction breaking the news was intended to create. But that doesn’t keep it from being news.

    Paul SF November 1, 2007, 6:49 pm
  • I think you have a point, Carlos, particularly as ESPN and Fox continue to move toward keeping their ratings high by trying to draw in the “casual fan.” The more you try to cater to casual interest, the more dumbed down you have to be, and there’s nothing dumber than four guys screaming at each other about a topic they decided was controversial.
    I think with the Internet we’re not only seeing that trend toward blogging, where the readers are intensely interested in what they’re reading and demand a more intelligent level of discourse, but we’re seeing a shift back toward newspapers — just their online versions. How many of us frequent Extra Bases, Bradford, LoHud, the Times blog? A lot, I’d reckon. That’s because newspaper writers and columnists can be as cerebral as their readership allows — and studies show that newspaper readers are generally smarter and more informed than TV viewers.
    Which is good for me, haha, as well as the struggling newspaper industry (which is finding a new home online), but bad for ESPN, Fox, CNN and their dreck.

    Paul SF November 1, 2007, 6:58 pm
  • > if we were talking about the same authors, I could see that point
    That’s reasonable.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 6:59 pm
  • > seeing that trend toward blogging, where the readers are intensely interested in what they’re reading and demand a more intelligent level of discourse
    It seems that was the summation of the argument in the article, made silly to some (but not to me) by metaphor.

    attackgerbil November 1, 2007, 8:18 pm
  • Alright… I’m sorry, but while I agree that the sanctity of the World Series might be a pretty threadbare garment to cloak yourself in, I do see the announcement by BoreAss and by extension, A-Tool DURING a world series game as a blatant misuse of the fall classic.
    But more than that, in one fell swoop it is repugnant, alarming and in actuality this one act by itself is tainted by so many of the seven deadly sins as to be astounding…
    Avarice Envy Pride and Sloth and perhaps Wrath and Lust, you just never know.
    And having said that, Boras who may be despicable and crass, is no dim bulb, he knew with utter certainty that word would be reported as soon as the information was leaked.
    Because, he knew that even if the first two reporters flatly refused to go with the story (not likely), the next reporters in line probably would.
    And please, reporters break headline making news, it’s their job, you hand them a front page news item and you mean to tell me you expect them not to run with it, when in all probability a competitor will be given the same info if you don’t act? Fat chance, and in their shoes no one else would hold back either, it’s how reporters make their rep by breaking the big story. It not a little sanctimonious to expect a guy to swallow a story that by the simple act of breaking it enhances not only his status and perhaps his wallet but his resume as well.
    But yes, sports coverage, indeed it sucks at the moment. Hugely.
    I swear that though I will probably forget at first, if Fox has WS coverage the next time I watch it, after a few innings, I will eventually remember to mute the sound until an actual play occurs.

    Brian November 2, 2007, 12:38 am
  • Mike Lupica nailed ARod and Boras a couple of days ago — just re-found the link:

    Hudson November 2, 2007, 8:30 am
  • Dan November 2, 2007, 11:29 am

Leave a Comment

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

Next post:

Previous post: