While the Sports Media Slept -- Part II
A few days ago in this blog, I posted a message from someone suggesting that the Barry Bonds saga proved that sportswriters were asleep at the switch when it came to the scourge of steroids in baseball. ("While the Sports Media Slept").
Today, in response, Media Log received this post from someone calling him or herself "Sportswriter."
While we're at it, why did newsside
journalists basically become cheerleaders in the run-up to the war in
Iraq and not question anything? Why has the labor beat disappeared from
newspaper business pages? When was the last time you saw a big
newspaper expose the wrongdoings of one of their major advertisers? The
finger you're pointing at sports writers can be wagged at pretty much
every section of the newspaper these days.
Certainly, there is plenty of room to find fault with the performance of the mainstream media -- otherwise, people like me wouldn't have jobs. But I'm not sure this argument holds water. In retrospect, as poorly as the media did in the run-up to the Iraq war, it's pretty hard to prove a negative -- like no WMD -- without having access to every square inch of territory in Iraq. (Conversely, sportswriters can walk around major league clubhouses for 162 games a year.) And while we can decry the loss of certain areas of coverage -- like labor, for example -- sports coverage is literally exploding, particularly in this market. Local team and athlete exploits routinely make everything from page 1 to the gossip columns in the Globe and Herald. WEEI is a giant force around these parts and ESPN Radio is trying to compete locally. From NECN to FoxSportsNet to NESN, sports talk and analysis is all over the cable dial.
I'll go further than the original poster in "While the Sports Media Slept." Not only do I think the Bonds tale is an indictment of the sports press, but as I said earlier, every major sports section should have a investigative reporter assigned to it. (The beat guys, who need access, shouldn't be the one unearthing the dirty laundry.) I think the definition of legitimate sports journalism ought to be expanded to include anything that genuinely affects performance on the field. That includes, for example, infidelity on the part of athletes if said infidelity -- as has been speculated about in this city -- is a reason why a player might be on the trading block. I think so-called "cancers" in the clubhouse and feuds or factions -- if they, in fact, affect how the team is actually playing -- are fair game. Frankly, the gigantic sports chatter industry ought to be backed by some harder reporting. And it's time to treat these athletes like the multi-millionaire, revenue-producing celebrities that they are.
Latest Slideshows
