Sports Writers now TV and Radio celebrities--Wash. Post
"We've gone from minor nuisance to cultural menace.
- What was once just "The Sports Reporters" is now a sports Armageddon. We've reached critical mass. Everywhere you look, there are sports journalists blabbing, gabbing, fretting, chatting, arguing, debating and, mostly, shouting.
On ESPN alone, you have "The Sports Reporters," "Pardon The Interruption," "Around The Horn" and "1st And 10," plus several other of its daily shows -- "SportsCenter," "Rome Is Burning" and "Outside The Lines First Report" -- include regular forums of talking heads.
- (I woke up in a dead sweat the other night because Skip Bayless was in one of my dreams excoriating Mike Shanahan for a bad third-down play call. Plus, I saw an ear-nose-and-throat specialist last week in a desperate attempt to get Stephen A. Smith's voice out of my head.)
If ESPN got out of the sports business tomorrow, half of America's top sports columnists would have to send their children back to public schools.
- Sportswriters have gone from the locker room to the green room, from "Get me rewrite!" to "Get me wardrobe!" We used to just write, eat and drink; now we just talk, eat and drink. Who has time to write?
(Heck, I've gone into some towns and seen sports editors with their own TV shows. Sports editors! Hey, I love those fellas -- without 'em, I don't get published -- but if you're turning on your Sony and seeing a sports editor, you might have grounds for consumer action against your local cable carrier.)
- Every sports columnist, it seems, is also on talk radio daily -- talking, well, a lot"......
posted by susan at
8/13/2007 04:32:00 PM
9 Comments:
Ms. Mullen,
Someone alerted me to a comment you made on Pete Abraham's blog about how I like when Rivera struggles. Please explain that, since it couldn't be farther from the truth.
Mark Feinsand
By
Mark, at 12:13 AM
I had a feeling it would only be a matter of seconds before I'd hear about the comment I made about you.It seems you have many good friends and allies in baseball and media. What I say has next to no importance or meaning to anyone, and I post under my actual name. I've done a lot of monitoring of media in the past couple of years regarding the porThtrayal of Mariano Rivera, much of which in his case is tied to perceptions about the Yankees. The results has been quite sad, but Mariano is the untouchable, amost above human in what he is and does as a person, yet he's the easiest guy to take down, forget, or minimize, and do the most hurt. I have a few links on my very humble blog where I monitored conversations you had onThanks for reponding do quickly, and I wanted to let you know I'm progressing on my part. Yankee Radio with John and Suzyn where you made statements comparing Posada to Rivera---tough to do because we then both. I'll happily give you the dated I posted them and you can ses what they said. I'll try to do it tomorrow night, as I have a family function I must attend all day tomorrow and must stop now. Not that you have any extra time, but if you were bored and stuck someplace, you might glance at the general drift of topics I get into on the blog, Any reference to you would then make perfect sense. No on else will ever read them at this point, but these were things that taught be your orientation--none of whic is any of my busness, I realize, that's the situation right now.So, I'll get you the links of the posts in which I menioned you names and words and their conclusions. None of which matters, of course, as I just keep typing things almost no one reads.Ill send tomorrow. enening.None will be a big deal. Susan
By
susan, at 1:25 AM
Following up my response the other night with all its spelling errors, I'll try to refrain from late night commenting in future. I'll start with an excerpt from Joel Sherman's book:
"Unfortunately for the legacy of this group, the success of these Yankees (1996 team) coincided with
* a powerful push by central baseball to convince fans that the disparity between the financial "haves" and "have-nots" was destroying the competitive balance of the sport. The Yankees came to embody the big-market superpowers. They were demonized for buying championships.
* They were cast as villains by a Commissioner's Office that saw the advantages of portraying them as a prop in a strategy to win salary concessions from the players in collective bargaining,
* Thus the Yankees of this era do not receive near the amount of credit they deserve for what they accomplished."
Words of Joel Sherman in his 2006 book, "Birth of a Dynasty," about the 1996 Yankees, p. 311.
* Constant Yankee bashing occurs round the clock in broadcast, print and online media. The negativity is overwhelming and is partly the Yankee organization's fault. They've failed to address and solve this problem as baseball media and those who seek income from it have become even more centralized, of one voice, of 1 fraternity. (sm)
I posted this on 8/1/07.
So the Yankee fan starts one down in the treatment it can expect from baseball media, which are largely connected in some way with MLB and/or ESPN.
On 5/7/07, I posted the experiences of 2other Yankee fans, that they're unable to enjoy baseball due to the constant negative coverage about the Yankees.
" "The media has become Steinbrenner," posted on LoHud blog, 5/7/07
You walk into a store, find an open cash register with millions of dollars, no one is around, the coffee pot is cold. Enter the baseball media. WHEN SOMETHING DIFFERENT HAPPENS, I'LL GLADLY NOTE IT.
* james May 7th, 2007 at 12:16 am ("The media has become Steinbrenner.")
"The worst part of being a Yankee fan these days is everything they do is negative with media. This is a great day for the Yankees and their chances and all they're doing is running the team down, the bullpen down and of course Rocket. It used to be when your team did something good, something positive you could turn to listen to the radio, watch tv and enjoy it. Not anymore.
* They cover this team like its football where every loss is magnified ten fold. However, every win is quickly dismissed with a callous wave an impudent “means nothing, its not October.” Admittedly the owner says this too but he owns team not me. I’ll enjoy what I want to.
Its funny to me the media has become Steinbrenner.
* When I grew up all I heard and read about was what a terrible person he was to be involved with sports now they have less patience than he does. When he doesn’t fire the manger 3 weeks into an injury plagued season they say surely this now proves Steinbrenner now sits around all day drooling on himself."
And... StandingO'Neill May 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pm, Yankees Lohud blog
"Pete I have a point here I wish you or the media would comment on….
Now I’m not naive to believe that 95% of what brought Clemens to the Yankees had to do with money. Yankees needed Clemens, Clemens needed money and a situation to stroke his ego = perfect match.
* But why is it that when a free agent signing involves the Yankees, most of what you hear is “well what a shock, Yankees buy another player”. But say Boston signed Clemens, I really don’t think the money story would be the headline.
I respect Peter Gammons, who deserves his HOF status, but his blog entry really did sound bitter, and the headline was basically what I wrote above. If Boston had signed Clemens, it would of been a heart warming story of how he has returned home to where it all started.
* Also last year it was obvious the Yankees wanted Clemens, maybe not for 28 million, but I’m sure they would have ponied up at least 20 million. Yet it was Houston that won, with a bid for $20 + I believe, which was a record breaking deal at the time. Still, there wasn’t the negative overtone hanging over that story. The negativity was more directed to Clemens for being a mercenary then towards Houston for paying him.
My point is this, I understand why other fans hate the Yankees, and I know a lot of Yankee fans(as you can see by checking these message boards) don’t make it easy for other people to like us, * but can’t the headlines and the talk be about something other than the damn Yankees buying another player, and about another chance to watch a HOF pitcher(whether you like him or not). It's a double standard, one I have learned to accept in being a Yankee fan, but really its getting old and until the Yankees completely bottom out like they did in the early 90’s, I don’t see it ending, no matter how cautious Cashman becomes with spending money.
Long winded point, I apologize, but anyone care to comment?"
* Yes, Standing. You thought being a quiet Yankee fan they'd let up on bashing you, the team, and the highest performing individual players. Many others thought as you did. Into that vacuum over the past 10 years came the baseball media you see today. You mention they'll be quiet if the team bottoms out, but they won't. That's not how society or media works today. Go back to the way you were, stand up for yourself. Your team gave around $100 million this year to other teams and their leadership whose main preoccupation is to keep bashing the Yankees til they get their last penny. With Mr. Steinbrenner ailing, no recent effective PR office, and a questionable philosophy at the YES Network, they're finding it an easy job. sm
Posts from James and Standing made to Peter Abraham's LoHud Yankee Blog. Last paragraph was by me, initials sm.
The baseball media reliably bash the Yankee payroll 24/7, as has been the wish of MLB. ESPN platforms do the same. The main symbol of Yankee success since his post season emergence in the 1995 ALDS is Mariano Rivera.
I must stop now, will be back.
By
susan, at 2:18 PM
One other point about Yankee payroll bashing. The Yankees and their fans gave $100 million last year to other teams in revenue sharing and luxury tax (payroll tax), but their payroll is still bashed 24/7. Like all other businesses, baseball media is filled with politics and power. With their words, media members have the power to enhance or minimize a persona the result of which can be worth millions of dollars and sometimes immortality.
Years ago I noticed Rivera was frequently diminished in baseball media. I've written letters and documented instances on a blog which almost no one reads, but it's here for archival purposes. The mass media outlets, being ESPN and MLB, define the daily discourse. If they don't raise an issue it's probably not going to be news. Most often, they want the public to see Rivera as a post season pitcher, leaving the regular season awards (Cy Young and MVP) out of reach for him (at least). And in someone else's hands at any rate. What goes along with that is he was "luckier" and had more "opportunities" than others. Certain teams try to bring glory and marketing success to a player by carefully carving "total save stats" out for them, selling the pitcher as "the best" even though that's really a fraction of the story. After years of allowing the media to define Rivera, a good agent might have words about this, quietly or openly in the media. Or the team itself might show some awareness of the skewing of information. But I've seen no evidence of either of these things happening in Rivera's case. What I have noted is people actually in the game have had a much higher opinion of him than media members, and I've documented instances of that.
On 9/7/06 I posted about an article you wrote for MLB.com at which point the Yankees had played 6 games without Rivera (he'd last pitched on Aug. 31).
(I have to stop now, but will be back).
By
susan, at 4:42 PM
You said on 9/7/06 on MLB.com, "Farnsworth has moved into the closer's role." The next day the scene was characterized differently by another media outlet:
In the "6 games Rivera has missed, there have been no 'save' situations so Rivera's arm trouble hasn't cost them a win." Anyone can say they're a huge fan of Rivera or not. As a fan of Rivera and a Yankee fan, the first version is what I'd expect to hear on ESPN (in general they soft-pedal Rivera to put it mildly). The 2nd version is more realistic and shows a feeling for Rivera. I always hope that a reporter specially assigned to cover the Yankees will speak to the Yankee fan, but this didn't happen here. I don't want homerism
or things like "Yanks are the best" all the time. I want the truth with the Yankee fan in mind. Other people have their teams, I should be allowed to have mine. I wouldn't expect you or any writer to agree with what I just said, either. There's no reason for you to do so. Whoever's in charge at MLB.com isn't bothered either.
On Sept 10 I posted another local outlet saying the Sept. 9th game was the first one in which Torre had to manage the bullpen in a close game (in Mariano's absence). It was the 3-2 win in which Farnsworth gave up a HR. It was Farnsworth's first 'save' in Rivera's absence. The 9/9 game is technically the first in which Farnsworth "moved into the closer's role," but again the characterization of Farnsworth taking on Rivera's role was as stunning to me last September as it would be today (8/16/07). It may have seemed a normal thing to say among the opinion elite, but not to those who really know about Rivera. No matter what they claim.
Next we have Rivera's return. I shall return.
By
susan, at 7:11 PM
Well, if you have ever read my blog, you would know that I get criticized often for defending the Yankees too much. I don't know why you lump me in with the negative media, because I simply report what I see and hear.
I have also been told that you rip me constantly for my fifth inning radio appearances, which for the life of me I can't understand.
Apparently, you have some personal problem with me, though it's beyond me what that could be.
By
Mark, at 8:46 PM
On Sept. 19, 2006 you wrote an article on MLB.com covering the Yankee beat. (If anyone is still reading at this point, I'll be surprised, nevertheless...) You said the bullpen struggled to get the 7-6 Win on Sept. 18, will be glad to get their All Star closer back, but there were otherwise no major bullpen problems (in Rivera's absence). I included a bit more of what you said on my blog on 9/20/06, which I'm linking to but so far can't find your original article. My only point in mentioning it is the Yankees had clinched the pennant by the very latest on Sept. 13th, possibly earlier, and finished the season 10 games ahead of Toronto and 11 ahead of Boston. There wasn't the brutal pennant race as in Sept. 2005 with Rivera saving or winning 6 1-run games in a 2 week span that month.
Kyle Farnsworth also didn't pitch in this tough 7-6 win which was notable to those who thought he'd "moved into the closer's role." Scott Proctor was used in the game, but 4 other pitchers were used after him, the 'save' going to Jose Veras. These are all points that involve Rivera, his contribution and what the team did or didn't face in Sept. 2006. Fans well remember what he did to get the team in the position to clinch relatively early, his gutty 2 inning performance on Sunday night at Fenway in the 4th game of the 5 game 2006 Boston Massacre. He lead the league in IP by a late inning reliever on August 31 (and I believe finished the season with only 1 late inning reliever with 1 more IP than he had) The 'All Star' is fine and nice, but doesn't speak to the Yankee fan--nothing wrong with it, just doesn't begin to describe what he did in 2006 to that point.
Maybe I'm in left field thinking a person descibed on MLB.com covering the Yankee beat would be writing with the Yankee fan in mind. Perhaps that's not MLB.com policy. Pardon the strong language on my blog--I probably should've just quit reading MLB.com.
On Sept. 22, 2006, again on MLB.com, you referred to Rivera's return after an absence of "nearly a month." He was out exactly 3 weeks, which was noted by another media outlet mentioned in my post. In a highly charged competitive environment wherein some look for the slightest sign of Rivera's downfall, "nearly a month" is quite different than "3 weeks." I sent you an email to MLB.com just to let you know it was 3 weeks and not nearly a month. It may not have reached you, but you did in fact write an article for MLB.com in October 2006 in which you correctly stated Rivera's time out as "3 weeks." I'll include that link when I return in a little while. Next, I heard your voice informing the world of Yankee fine points on Yankee radio broadcasts.
By
susan, at 9:48 PM
If you think I meant that Farnsworth was named the new permanent closer, you just didn't read it carefully. Clearly, I meant that Torre said Farnsworth would close while Rivera was out.
As for the 3 weeks vs. nearly a month, you're nit-picking. To me, 22 days IS nearly a month.
Lastly, if you think I'm extra-tough on Rivera, I would disagree. Just go read my blog on any given day and I'm defending him -- and many other favorite targets of the Yankees fans -- quite often.
I've also heard that you have ripped my appearances on the Daily News fifth, accusing me of "hijacking" the broadcast from Suzyn and John. I can't even fathom what you're talking about. They ask me questions, I answer them. Simple as that.
Not sure what your problem is with me, but feel free to explain more than you have.
By
Mark, at 12:16 AM
As I mentioned, in an MLB.com article 10/8/06 linked here, you did say Mariano was out for 3 weeks:
"Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield each missed four months with wrist injuries, while Robinson Cano spent six weeks on the disabled list with a hamstring injury. Carl Pavano missed the entire year, Mariano Rivera missed three weeks in September and the starting rotation had several holes over the course of the season."
I was happy to see the elapsed time referred to as "3 weeks" rather than "nearly a month."
In 2007 you continued as a Yankee beat reporter with what to me were new affiliations. You're now with a NY city newspaper and on regular days when covering the beat you're showcased in 5th inning interviews on Yankee radio broadcasts with John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman (as has been the case with previous beat reporters from your newspaper). The interviews of course are to discuss what's going on with the Yankees. On April 20, you praised Jorge Posada as all of us had been doing. No one had mentioned Rivera's name, but here's what I posted:
"John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman are too polite to correct him, but again tonight Feinsand takes his opportunity to put down Mariano Rivera. Posada's name came up in the brief conversation, Feinsand raises his voice to make a big point about Posada, who's been getting more well-deserved press recently. In effect Feinsand says loudly that he's said "over and over,"
* Posada's the MOST IRREPLACEABLE PERSON ON THIS TEAM, AND I MEAN MORE IRREPLACEABLE THAN MARIANO RIVERA. I MEAN LOOK WHO HAS TO TAKE CARE OF THINGS WHEN RIVERA IS OUT FOR A MONTH LIKE HE WAS LAST YEAR...
Why is Feinsand obsessed with putting down Rivera, given the multitude of topics he could discuss in his radio spot?
* He again misinforms listeners about the duration of this incident and its context. It was exactly 3 weeks and Rivera's efforts in the Boston massacre and other late August games put the Yankees in the position where they didn't have to worry about Boston for the month of September. The team lost nothing from his absence.
But Feinsand yells 'A MONTH' with no response from Suzyn or John. (Fernando Cuza apparently doesn't care about his client)."
I posted that on 4/20/07, the same evening as your comments. As mentioned earlier, I'm accustomed to hearing these kinds of characterizations about Rivera on other outlets, but coming out of the blue in the close setting which John and Suzyn's broadcasts provide was very disappointing.
I don't expect you to agree with my original premise, nor would I expect any other writer to do so. I've been a regular listener to Yankee radio broadcasts for many years. Today it's the only place I can go for, among other things, an accurate understanding of Mariano Rivera, as Suzyn and John may be the only broadcasters who've seen every pitch he's thrown since he came into the league in 1995. I could expand further, but I'd be repeating myself.
If I mention your name only on my blog, no one notices, as it's a small blog. I understand if I mention it on a huge blog as I did the other day, someone will notice. That's not necessarily what my focus is--I don't aspire to become known to journalists or report on athletes, or spend a lot of time trying to influence a media person such as yourself. I view it as hopeless, anyway. Thanks for responding, but, as I said, I don't expect you to agree with me.
By
susan, at 3:21 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home