Media Culpa
I should have posted this with the McGwire bit I re-posted last week. Yes, it's another re-run.
But it's a re-run I think is important. With McGwire on the HoF ballot, the media's pontificating about steroid use in MLB is reaching levels not heard since the Congressional dog-and-pony show a few years back.
How did the media view these cheaters in real time? A few big-time media types explain how, including ESPN stalwart Jayson Stark:
[originally posted 3 March 2005]
So it’s come to this – we’ve been so inundated with stories about steroids (who’s using, who’s not, and how they’re destroying the very fabric of society) that the media is running out of things to say. And that means it’s time to stop reporting on the story and start reporting on how the story is reported.
The 25 February Chicago Tribune carried a story by Teddy Greenstein that is best summed up by its sub-head: “Writers realize they were too passive in examining steroid abuse back in the ‘90s.” If you’ll pardon the pun, there’s a news flash for you.
Greenstein offers two anecdotes which help explain why the media was “too passive” in their coverage.
One of the reporters Greenstein discusses in the piece is AP reporter Steve Wilstein. You may recall Wilstein as the guy who first reported that Mark McGwire doped up on andro during the 1998 season. For his trouble, Wilstein would flamed by McGwire and the Super Genius (who unsuccessfully tried to have the AP banned from the Cardinals’ clubhouse).
Wilstein even took heat from fellow members of the Fourth Estate. The Boston Globe’s Dan Shaghnessy crafted this nugget of joy:
Hmmm…I wonder what would happen in this enlightened era of 2005 if a player “stalking” a cherished home-run record were to be “engaged in a tabloid-driven controversy” that painted him as “a cheater and a bad role model?”
Nah. It could never happen.
Anyway, Greenstein’s response to Wilstein’s experience is, “Given that reaction, it’s easy to understand why reporters didn’t pursue steroids rumors as if they were trade rumors.”
Oh, my, yes. Pursuing those steroids rumors might get people upset – and reporters don’t want to get anyone upset, lest they lose a chance at grabbing a sound-bite in the post-game clubhouse. It’s best to stick with a safe topic, like trade rumors.
No matter. If there’s one thing the media is good at, it’s rationalizing why they do (or don’t do) things. Wilstein said, “We’re in an awkward position where we have suspicions but don’t have the freedom to put our statements we can’t verify…In retrospect, we probably shouldn’t have turned our eyes. But it’s a hard situation, and I don’t want to criticize the media.”
ESPN’s Jayson Stark faced his own “hard situation” back in 1993. While covering Phillies’ training camp, he noticed that Lenny Dykstra spent the winter metamorphing into a muscle man. Stark said that Dykstra told him, “I took some real good vitamins.” And then the pair shared a manly laugh at the delightful quip.
I’ll let Greenstein take it from there:
To state the obvious, since when has the media not run with some juicy allegation that couldn’t be proved, or was just outright false? Facts are a malleable commodity nowadays. Anyone who’s lived through the last two presidential elections should understand that.
Perhaps a more aggressive investigation would have provided the proof. We’ll never know, because the media spent the last decade staring off into space rather than risk upsetting anyone.
What’s changed over the last year that it’s now OK to start calling players out on steroids? Has the proof that Stark and Wilstein and their brethren are looking for surfaced?
Well, there’s the ongoing BALCO investigation, which seems to be more “he said-he said” than dripping syringe. And then there’s the illegally leaked grand jury testimony. Last and probably least, there’s the hearsay that is Jose Canseco’s book. This is proof?
As near as I can tell, two things have happened to change the climate. First, MLB and the Players’ Association agreed on the new testing program. The program has put steroids on the proverbial front burner, making it a legitimate topic for reporters to discuss with the players.
But that alone isn’t enough to account for the finger pointing. The other change is that the fans are more willing to accept that any and all players are juicing now than they were back in the 1990s. Especially players who don’t have the warm-and-fuzzy media seal of approval.
Ten years ago, people laughed off the suggestion that the delightful Lenny Dykstra was juicing. They bristled at the thought that some reporter would drag the reputation of All-American hero Mark McGwire through the tabloid slime.
Now, it’s different. Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi called in to testify before a grand jury? Ivan Rodriguez drops twenty pounds over the winter? Most of the talk-show callers accept that as “proof” that they’ve been doping.
Maybe fans are just more cynical nowadays. Maybe we were all (fans, media, MLB, players) more naïve back in the ‘90s, and really wanted to believe that chicks dug the longball.
But it’s just as cynical for the media to try to weasel their way out their responsibility in this situation. I’ve noted elsewhere that there’s enough blame for all of us (players, MLB, media, and fans) in letting steroid use get to this point. But maybe more aggressive reporting would have shown fans that MLB wasn’t all sunshine and lollipops during the Great Home Run Chase. Maybe a real examination of the issue would have embarrassed MLB and the players into agreeing on a steroids testing program a few years ago. Maybe nothing would have happened, but at least they would have made an effort.
But it's a re-run I think is important. With McGwire on the HoF ballot, the media's pontificating about steroid use in MLB is reaching levels not heard since the Congressional dog-and-pony show a few years back.
How did the media view these cheaters in real time? A few big-time media types explain how, including ESPN stalwart Jayson Stark:
[originally posted 3 March 2005]
So it’s come to this – we’ve been so inundated with stories about steroids (who’s using, who’s not, and how they’re destroying the very fabric of society) that the media is running out of things to say. And that means it’s time to stop reporting on the story and start reporting on how the story is reported.
The 25 February Chicago Tribune carried a story by Teddy Greenstein that is best summed up by its sub-head: “Writers realize they were too passive in examining steroid abuse back in the ‘90s.” If you’ll pardon the pun, there’s a news flash for you.
Greenstein offers two anecdotes which help explain why the media was “too passive” in their coverage.
One of the reporters Greenstein discusses in the piece is AP reporter Steve Wilstein. You may recall Wilstein as the guy who first reported that Mark McGwire doped up on andro during the 1998 season. For his trouble, Wilstein would flamed by McGwire and the Super Genius (who unsuccessfully tried to have the AP banned from the Cardinals’ clubhouse).
Wilstein even took heat from fellow members of the Fourth Estate. The Boston Globe’s Dan Shaghnessy crafted this nugget of joy:
No wonder ballplayers loathe the media. Mark McGwire is stalking one of baseball’s most cherished records…and suddenly he’s engaged in a tabloid-driven controversy that’s painting him as a cheater and a bad role model. It’s unfair.
Hmmm…I wonder what would happen in this enlightened era of 2005 if a player “stalking” a cherished home-run record were to be “engaged in a tabloid-driven controversy” that painted him as “a cheater and a bad role model?”
Nah. It could never happen.
Anyway, Greenstein’s response to Wilstein’s experience is, “Given that reaction, it’s easy to understand why reporters didn’t pursue steroids rumors as if they were trade rumors.”
Oh, my, yes. Pursuing those steroids rumors might get people upset – and reporters don’t want to get anyone upset, lest they lose a chance at grabbing a sound-bite in the post-game clubhouse. It’s best to stick with a safe topic, like trade rumors.
No matter. If there’s one thing the media is good at, it’s rationalizing why they do (or don’t do) things. Wilstein said, “We’re in an awkward position where we have suspicions but don’t have the freedom to put our statements we can’t verify…In retrospect, we probably shouldn’t have turned our eyes. But it’s a hard situation, and I don’t want to criticize the media.”
ESPN’s Jayson Stark faced his own “hard situation” back in 1993. While covering Phillies’ training camp, he noticed that Lenny Dykstra spent the winter metamorphing into a muscle man. Stark said that Dykstra told him, “I took some real good vitamins.” And then the pair shared a manly laugh at the delightful quip.
I’ll let Greenstein take it from there:
Looking back, Stark said, Dykstra’s comments and baseball’s home-run outbreak in the’90s “should have set the investigative forces on stampede. We should have been more aggressive. But I still don’t know how we would have proved it. And if you can’t prove it, how would you write it?”
To state the obvious, since when has the media not run with some juicy allegation that couldn’t be proved, or was just outright false? Facts are a malleable commodity nowadays. Anyone who’s lived through the last two presidential elections should understand that.
Perhaps a more aggressive investigation would have provided the proof. We’ll never know, because the media spent the last decade staring off into space rather than risk upsetting anyone.
What’s changed over the last year that it’s now OK to start calling players out on steroids? Has the proof that Stark and Wilstein and their brethren are looking for surfaced?
Well, there’s the ongoing BALCO investigation, which seems to be more “he said-he said” than dripping syringe. And then there’s the illegally leaked grand jury testimony. Last and probably least, there’s the hearsay that is Jose Canseco’s book. This is proof?
As near as I can tell, two things have happened to change the climate. First, MLB and the Players’ Association agreed on the new testing program. The program has put steroids on the proverbial front burner, making it a legitimate topic for reporters to discuss with the players.
But that alone isn’t enough to account for the finger pointing. The other change is that the fans are more willing to accept that any and all players are juicing now than they were back in the 1990s. Especially players who don’t have the warm-and-fuzzy media seal of approval.
Ten years ago, people laughed off the suggestion that the delightful Lenny Dykstra was juicing. They bristled at the thought that some reporter would drag the reputation of All-American hero Mark McGwire through the tabloid slime.
Now, it’s different. Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi called in to testify before a grand jury? Ivan Rodriguez drops twenty pounds over the winter? Most of the talk-show callers accept that as “proof” that they’ve been doping.
Maybe fans are just more cynical nowadays. Maybe we were all (fans, media, MLB, players) more naïve back in the ‘90s, and really wanted to believe that chicks dug the longball.
But it’s just as cynical for the media to try to weasel their way out their responsibility in this situation. I’ve noted elsewhere that there’s enough blame for all of us (players, MLB, media, and fans) in letting steroid use get to this point. But maybe more aggressive reporting would have shown fans that MLB wasn’t all sunshine and lollipops during the Great Home Run Chase. Maybe a real examination of the issue would have embarrassed MLB and the players into agreeing on a steroids testing program a few years ago. Maybe nothing would have happened, but at least they would have made an effort.
posted by Bob at
7:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home