Isn’t It Their League?
By: Mack Ade – 11-23-11
I watched the MLB/MLBFA special on MLB-TV yesterday.
Then I checked out my twitter feed and found everybody from best writers to seasoned baseball pundits were trashing what both the owners and players seemed to feel was a good deal. I mean, that’s important, right? It is their league?
I asked Andy Martino of the New York Daily News wasn’t it premature for everyone to criticize this deal on the day it was made. Andy returned my tweet and said: “I see it as my job as a reporter to shed light on the details”. Frankly, I think he thought I was criticizing him which might have been my fault in how I asked him.
Michael Scannell of Mack’s Mets said: “The job of a reporter is to report: however, it seems over the last decade or two that the line between reporter and analyst/pundit has blurred and you're not likely to get a story without some opinion. Editorializing has made its way into fact-finding. Of course it’s their decision and if both sides are happy with it then so be it. However, that doesn't mean that it's immune from analysis and criticism.”
Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports didn’t return my tweet.
Brant Rustich of the New York Mets said: “Absolutely, the job of a reporter is to give the facts! I remember in school always working on reports, and of course the only things that were stressed are the five w's who what where when and why, then sometimes how. That's elementary school stuff. I think with competition on the same report, reporters try to give their own personal opinion to create separation, when the fact is people probably don't really want to hear it. People want to make their own opinion with the facts given to them in the report. When a reporter gives their own opinion they affect the integrity of the actual report. That's my opinion.”
Mark Simon of ESPN didn’t return my tweet.
Erik Hudson, of Mack’s Mets said: “Agree reporters should report the facts. Opinion pieces should be clearly identified as such. It's good to see the owners and players compromise. They may finally get how good they have it. Players get crazy money from the owners (and meal money on top of salary, gotta love that). Owners get to charge fans obscene prices ($10 beers, $8 hot dogs, etc) and at a minimum see their investment appreciate in value. This CBA covered several topics that have been controversies recently - PEDs, wild card teams, free agent compensation, draft slotting. Not surprised that there would be a lot written about it. I'm sure the Wilpons would appreciate it you write about how to new CBA benefits the Mets. With the new tax on going over slot, the Mets can now compete on a level playing field with those cash rich teams like the Nats, Pirates, and Royals.”
I asked David Lennon of Newsday : ”The baseball owners and players just agreed on a deal but tons of people are saying it was a bad deal. Question: isn't it their league and their deal?” David quickly replied: “Of course. It’s a CBA struck between two powerful sides designed for maximum benefit ($) to both.”
Brian Foley, the Editor of College Baseball Daily said: “I will be criticizing the agreement soon too. If they are a reporter then they are not supposed to put opinion into the article. Columnist is another thing. It’s a very fine line.”
Jay Horowitz, of the New York Mets, said: "Mack, everyone has different takes on the agreement. Even reporters state their own views in their stories. It’s not like it used to be. By in large the agreement with fair to both parties, especially the drug testing part. Have a Happy Holiday season. Jay.
Jack Flynn, of Mack’s Mets said: “Labor negotiations aren't supposed to be about winners and losers. Labor negotiations are about striking the best deal for the workers while still ensuing that the business can be successful. If the players get what they want, and the owners get what they want, then it's a win-win deal. Anyone who tries to postulate otherwise is just looking to fill white space with words.”
Jonathan Mayo of MLB.com didn’t return my tweet.
Phlavio, of Mack's Mets added: "1) Journalism is dead. My wife majored in journalism and taught me what journalism REALLY was. The fact is that Sports News is 95% opinion and 5% reporting. If the "Reporters" just reported, they'd lose readers because in the "Information Age" I can get the story off the AP News wire on my smart phone the moment it's finished being written. We watch the news for the flavor. (I"m barking up the wrong tree with you, Mack but...) A report was published today that found that people who watched Fox News were 30% less well informed then people who didn't watch the news at all. Fox News is mainly opinion but people interpret it as fact and wind up being mis-informed about simple things like what country the president was born in.
(I think Phlave thinks I'm a Fox viewer... :)
2) I'm actually pleased with some of what I've heard about the CBA. Frankly... it's long, wordy and boring and I don't care enough to read it in depth. What pleases me most is that the Player's Association and the Owners made an agreement quickly. With Football and Basketball having pains seeing eye to eye I appreciate the quickness of this agreement.
I wrote Joel Sherman, of the New York Post, : "morning, Joel. I have a column for today with QandA with reporters - Question: If the players and the owners agree ...on something, and they are happy with it, isn't it their league, and a reporters job (not a columnist) to report the facts?" He didn't return my tweet.
Congrad Youngren, of Mack's Mets said: One of the reasons I still read newspapers (OK, mainly the NYT) is that for the most part you can distinguish between the two. In political “reporting” it’s a little murky as leaving out a phrase in a partial quote might give an intended and biased impression, and in the arts, almost all reporting is critique (“reviews”). Basically you can tell by whether the story capsule (headline) or by-line (author) is the feature attraction.
In print media sports one can pretty much distinguish between the game summary and the editorial critique of manager X, player Y or owner Z.
The Blogosphere is another ballgame (!). There is almost no physical distinction between reporting and editorial. There is great danger, I feel, as more information moves on line where that format of presentation does not distinguish reporting from critique physically as the front page vs. Op-Ed page does. On most blogs the reporter IS pundit; the headline is UNDER the by-line and there is no independent editorial staff to separate the two.
I think of you primarily as an editor, Mack (I hope that doesn’t disappoint you). You choose for us, with links, items of calculated interest. I appreciate that calculation where you seem to have managed an even finer distinction between opinion (all scouting reports for example are essentially “reviews”) and diatribe.
Bottom line: it is their game and the rest of us are voyeurs. I understand, however, why the subject of their compromises is fodder for opinion since unlike the game on the field, we are not privy to the real-time sequence of events that generates the outcome. Now documenting THAT would be reporting.
Mike Newman, of Scouting For Sally, said: "Hey Mack, For me, the line between reporter and columnist has been muddied beyond repair. When Associated Press writers are injection opinion into their pieces for national consumption, then how can I expect somebody like Adam Rubin to simply report. If sportswriters all reported on the facts of the CBA, it would produce similarly drab reports which nobody wants to read. If each beat writer adjusted the piece to include implications on the specific organization he or she covered, opinion would need to be injected, but would be more robust and interesting in nature.
I totally get where you are coming from, but it just seems like the nature of the beast.
For me, it seems as if most of the issue with this CBA involves amateur and International players. The CBA was written by players and owners to suit their best interest and I don't think either received the short end. The only group to receive the short end was the one that did not have a seat at the table meaning players who have not joined organizations yet, both amateur and international.
Ken Davidoff of Newsday added: "I'm a columnist. It's my job to offer an opinion on this. And it's not like the CBA is none of our business. I'd like to think that I'm speaking on behalf of the ticket-buying public. Ken"
Phlavio, of Mack's Mets added: "1) Journalism is dead. My wife majored in journalism and taught me what journalism REALLY was. The fact is that Sports News is 95% opinion and 5% reporting. If the "Reporters" just reported, they'd lose readers because in the "Information Age" I can get the story off the AP News wire on my smart phone the moment it's finished being written. We watch the news for the flavor. (I"m barking up the wrong tree with you, Mack but...) A report was published today that found that people who watched Fox News were 30% less well informed then people who didn't watch the news at all. Fox News is mainly opinion but people interpret it as fact and wind up being mis-informed about simple things like what country the president was born in.
(I think Phlave thinks I'm a Fox viewer... :)
2) I'm actually pleased with some of what I've heard about the CBA. Frankly... it's long, wordy and boring and I don't care enough to read it in depth. What pleases me most is that the Player's Association and the Owners made an agreement quickly. With Football and Basketball having pains seeing eye to eye I appreciate the quickness of this agreement.
I wrote Joel Sherman, of the New York Post, : "morning, Joel. I have a column for today with QandA with reporters - Question: If the players and the owners agree ...on something, and they are happy with it, isn't it their league, and a reporters job (not a columnist) to report the facts?" He didn't return my tweet.
Congrad Youngren, of Mack's Mets said: One of the reasons I still read newspapers (OK, mainly the NYT) is that for the most part you can distinguish between the two. In political “reporting” it’s a little murky as leaving out a phrase in a partial quote might give an intended and biased impression, and in the arts, almost all reporting is critique (“reviews”). Basically you can tell by whether the story capsule (headline) or by-line (author) is the feature attraction.
In print media sports one can pretty much distinguish between the game summary and the editorial critique of manager X, player Y or owner Z.
The Blogosphere is another ballgame (!). There is almost no physical distinction between reporting and editorial. There is great danger, I feel, as more information moves on line where that format of presentation does not distinguish reporting from critique physically as the front page vs. Op-Ed page does. On most blogs the reporter IS pundit; the headline is UNDER the by-line and there is no independent editorial staff to separate the two.
I think of you primarily as an editor, Mack (I hope that doesn’t disappoint you). You choose for us, with links, items of calculated interest. I appreciate that calculation where you seem to have managed an even finer distinction between opinion (all scouting reports for example are essentially “reviews”) and diatribe.
Bottom line: it is their game and the rest of us are voyeurs. I understand, however, why the subject of their compromises is fodder for opinion since unlike the game on the field, we are not privy to the real-time sequence of events that generates the outcome. Now documenting THAT would be reporting.
Mike Newman, of Scouting For Sally, said: "Hey Mack, For me, the line between reporter and columnist has been muddied beyond repair. When Associated Press writers are injection opinion into their pieces for national consumption, then how can I expect somebody like Adam Rubin to simply report. If sportswriters all reported on the facts of the CBA, it would produce similarly drab reports which nobody wants to read. If each beat writer adjusted the piece to include implications on the specific organization he or she covered, opinion would need to be injected, but would be more robust and interesting in nature.
I totally get where you are coming from, but it just seems like the nature of the beast.
For me, it seems as if most of the issue with this CBA involves amateur and International players. The CBA was written by players and owners to suit their best interest and I don't think either received the short end. The only group to receive the short end was the one that did not have a seat at the table meaning players who have not joined organizations yet, both amateur and international.
Ken Davidoff of Newsday added: "I'm a columnist. It's my job to offer an opinion on this. And it's not like the CBA is none of our business. I'd like to think that I'm speaking on behalf of the ticket-buying public. Ken"
Just thought you’d like to see this…
No comments:
Post a Comment