The NY Times whines--Orioles and Angelos "broke ranks"

This is how the NY Times sees it. Their non-stop articles beatify Saint George Mitchell and often mention Northern Ireland.

• But there are no dueling parties in baseball, no free speech, especially when you have the NY Times on your side.

One word of complaint is said to be something poor Saint Mitchell must endure. Let us bow our heads in prayer. He's already 100% of the jury and as the Times characterizes, the 29 other teams (not counting the Red Sox as no lawyer is going to move against his own interests) were expected to get bitch-slapped, have their players' lives smeared 24 hours a day, shut up and don't even whisper about any names left off. A TOTALITARIAN, DICTATORIAL, DRESSED UP FARCE.

• The case of Brian Roberts: Dibble and Kennedy on XM spoke last week about Brian Roberts receiving among the "Report's" worst white washing, with no evidence whatsoever, just a few words by Larry Bigbie. The NY Times makes a huge deal about a small, polite defense of someone's life, in this case the Orioles. Whoever decided not to be bitch-slapped and take it was going to be described in an unflattering way, which the Times did at the end of their article about Peter Angelos. Under other circumstances this would be expected, but here is "sour grapes." (Heard that one lately?) Angelos' comments however were measured and respectful.

The NY Times: "The Baltimore Orioles broke ranks with the other 29 major league clubs and Commissioner Bud Selig by issuing a statement late Saturday night that strongly questioned George J. Mitchell’s findings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball.

• The Orioles were among a handful of teams that had a high number of players named in Mitchell’s report for their connections to performance-enhancing drugs. Nineteen current or former Orioles were among the roughly 90 players named in the report....

In the statement, the Baltimore organization said it supported baseball’s efforts to rid the game of performance-enhancing drugs but took issue with how Mitchell decided to include names in his final report.

• “As to the information and allegations contained in the Mitchell report, the Orioles caution observers to

• resist the temptation to accept collective judgments based upon unsubstantiated allegations,” the statement said.

In a telephone interview, Angelos said the statement “probably applies to numerous players that they referred to in the report.”

• Angelos said he took issue with “the substance of the report, the method of execution.”

He added, “We had nothing to do with mechanisms.”"

(LET THE CHOIR SING: NOW, NOW YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING, THE PLAYERS HAD THEIR CHANCE TO COME FORWARD. NOW YOU'RE NAUGHTY AND ARE BEING PUNISHED) SM

• The NY Times: "The Orioles are the first team to publicly criticize the methodology of the Mitchell report, although several players have criticized the report.

The inclusion of Orioles second baseman Brian Roberts in the report has raised concerns around baseball...."

• (***Now the Times makes sure to dump on Angelos--which is easy to do in other circumstances--but his comments in this case are subdued and polite. The Times' characterizations serve no purpose but to minimize Angelos' image vs Mitchell. Angelos is in fact being almost timid here).*** sm

The NY Times: "Angelos, 78, has been outspoken since he bought the team and sometimes irascible. He was a plaintiff’s lawyer in labor, malpractice, personal injury and product-liability law and was one of the few owners who sided with labor on some issues during the 1994-95 strike." (Uh-oh)sm

• Handy thought police terms like "backlash" have popped up in every nook and crannie around media. Backlash against what? Players and teams have no recourse after one's life has been ruined via POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE. The media tells you to feel sorry for poor King of All Media, Mitchell.

Items from NY Times article by Michael S. Schmidt and Duff Wilson, "Orioles Speak Up Against Mitchell Report," 12/17/07

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon