Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Is Skip Bayless for real? Departure from Tribune says much about approach on First Take

Posted on by

My latest Chicago Tribune column is on a Tribune alum, Skip Bayless.

You also can access the column via my Twitter feed at Sherman_Report.

And beware Bayless critics, but coming later this week, I will post my entire Q/A with Bayless.

An excerpt from the column.

*********

Despite the supposed hatred for him, Bayless contends the show succeeds because it is the opposite of critics’ allegations (that many of his comments are for show).

“It’s 1,000 percent authentic,” Bayless said. “If you follow our show, I defy you to show me something that I said that you thought was completely outlandish and that I said only for the sake of saying it. I’m not doing it for ratings because our audience is sophisticated and smart, and they will see right through that. They keep coming back because they know I believe what I believe.”

Bayless’ departure from the Tribune underscores that point. He says he loved working in Chicago, calling it “the most passionate sports town in the country.” However, he found the situation intolerable when then-editor Ann Marie Lipinski decided that all columns, including his, should be contained on one page instead of starting on one page and continuing to another page. Limited to around 650 words, Bayless says he felt constrained by not having the option to go longer if the subject or his reporting warranted it. He tried the tighter approach but after “suffering emotionally about it,” he told his bosses he couldn’t work that way any longer and was leaving the paper, details Lipinski doesn’t dispute.

The incident, Bayless says, demonstrates he won’t compromise himself. Not for a job, and certainly not for a show.

“My career is my life and my passion,” Bayless said. “It’s not a job, it’s my life. So I was able to (leave the Tribune) when the job no longer fit what I do best.”

 

 

Break from secrecy? Pro Football Hall of Fame to allow cameras at selection meeting; voters not pleased

Posted on by

The selection meeting for the Pro Football Hall of Fame always has been shrouded in secrecy. The voters (here are the 46 this year) are told, “What is said in this room, stays in this room.”

It is much like the cardinals’ selection of a Pope, although without the plume of smoke. Rest assured, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is working on that.

So it came as a huge surprise to the voters that cameras will be in the room for next week’s HOF meeting in New York. Footage then will be used by the NFL Network during its Hall of Fame announcement show that evening.

I managed to get hold of a confidential memo sent out by the Hall’s Joe Horrigan to the group, many of whom are upset about the new development.

It reads in part:

******

In an effort to keep you updated and informed, I am providing the following important information and clarifications relative to our upcoming selection meeting.

Regarding a camera in the meeting room, the PFHOF will limit taping of presenters speeches to the first 90-seconds of 4-6 presentations.

The camera and camera operator will leave the meeting room after each segment.

The PFHOF will have total editorial control over all content before any footage is released.

Selectors will be notified of the election results as soon as the PFHOF segment of the NFL Honors Show begins taping projected to be between 6:30-6:55 p.m.

The selectors are free to release the names of the Class of 2014 immediately upon receipt, even though the PFHOF segment of the NFL Honors Show will not air until approximately two hours later.

A brief press conference with the Class of 2014 will be conducted at Radio City Music Hall’s press room immediately after the PFHOF segment of the Honors Show is taped. Selectors will be given first opportunities for the Q&A session. Again, this will occur approximately two hours before the NFL Honors Show airs nationally.

******

The voters were caught off-guard by this development. They didn’t hear about it until it was mentioned in passing on NFL Network last week.

Exactly how the footage will be used remains to be seen. Working on getting an official response.

The Hall process works this way: A representative from the player’s city makes a presentation to the committee. There are discussions about the candidates and then eventually a secret vote.

It is such a closed process that the selectors don’t know the final breakdown of the votes. Transparency is an issue here, but that’s a subject for another day.

Confidentiality is the dominant buzzword in this meetings. The voters are strongly urged not to discuss their selections–or else.

So imagine their surprise upon hearing that there will be cameras in the room. It represents a major breach from tradition.

Several voters are concerned the presence of cameras might impact the tenor of the meeting. It is akin to letting outsiders in the room.

While it appears as if the footage will be limited this year, there also is a concern that this is just the beginning. As one voter said, “Once you’ve opened the door, you’ve opened the door.”

Many of the voters appear to be upset because they weren’t consulted about letting cameras in the room. There’s always going to be a strong reaction when a group is caught off-guard.

Reportedly, the presenters will have to agree to have their presentations filmed. That shouldn’t be a problem since there are several radio and TV reporters on the committee.

However, the larger issue is about the seeming contradiction between cameras and confidentiality: The 3 Cs, if you will. It is either a secret meeting or it isn’t.

More to come, I’m sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dilemma: Was Grantland writer wrong for revealing putter inventor was a trans individual?

Posted on by

ESPN is keeping ombudsman Robert Lipsyte busy these days. Last week, Lipsyte gave his assessment of the Dan Le Batard Hall of Fame vote controversy. Lipsyte thought the stunt was wrong on one level, but served a purpose in elevating the level of discourse.

Well, Lipsyte now has another story to examine, and this one is far more complicated.

Over the weekend, reaction to a story about the inventor of a putter by Caleb Hannan on Grantland blew up on the Internet. Hannan disclosed that the inventor, a woman scientist who went by the nickname of “Dr. V” with a highly questionable resume, was an individual previously known as Stephen Krol. You need to read the story.

The reaction was so intense, ESPN released a statement on Sunday:

“We understand and appreciate the wide range of thoughtful reaction this story has generated and to the family and friends of Essay Anne Vanderbilt, we express our deepest condolences. We will use the constructive feedback to continue our ongoing dialogue on these important and sensitive topics. Ours is a company that values the LGBT community internally and in our storytelling, and we will all learn from this.”

Hannan’s story outraged many who felt he had no business outing Dr. V. Cyd Ziegler of Outsports at SB Nation wrote:

Was this story worth driving someone known to be mentally unstable – with a history of suicide attempts – to take her own life? The pursuit of the story – let alone the publishing of it – shows a willful disregard for humanity and the struggles so many misunderstood minorities face in public – and in the mirror – every day.

Ziegler added:

Certainly there are pieces of history that warranted discussion with this story. Dr. V clearly did not have the professional history she claimed to the writer and potential customers. That’s important for the writer to pursue, and he was right to share the information publicly. But if a trans person asks you to not discuss their very private personal life, do as they ask. Don’t share that information with company investors and certainly do not share it with the public.

It’s their life, not yours.

Josh Levin of Slate wrote:

The fact that Dr. V once lived under a different name is not irrelevant to Hannan’s story—the name change complicated his quest to check up on our background, which I believe makes it fair game if handled sensitively. But presenting Dr. V’s gender identity as one in a series of lies and elisions was a careless editorial decision. Hannan makes no claim that her identity as a trans woman has any bearing on the golf club she invented or the scientific background she inflated. And yet it sent a chill up his spine. It’s this line that feels particularly inhumane. Dr. V is a con artist and a trans woman. Hannan, though, conflates those two facts, acting as though the latter has some relation to the former. It seems that, in his view, they both represent a form of deceit.

Melissa McEwan of Shakesville:

There are already legions of defenders, who are keen to make arguments that Dr. V’s lies about her background are newsworthy, which is debatable, although I tend to agree that lying about her educational and professional history, which were apparently a central part of the pitch to investors and potential buyers, was unethical and worth reporting.* But her being transgender is entirely irrelevant—and if Hannan’s research into the former was what led to his discovery of the latter, it doesn’t mean each piece is equally appropriate to report.

One was about her professional life, and stood to potentially damage her career. The other was about her personal life, and stood to put her at risk for both professional retribution and personal harm.

Which is why, in one of her last communications with Hannan, Dr. V warned him that he “was about to commit a hate crime.”

And there’s much more.

Obviously, there is no easy answer here. The big question in my mind: Did Hannan break an agreement with Dr. V?

When Hannan initially contacted Dr. V, she asked that he agree to make the story about the putter and not the inventor. When confronted about misrepresentations on her resume, she wrote in an email to Hannan:

“As I clearly stated at the onset of your unsolicited probing, your focus must be on the benefits of the Science for the Golfer not the scientist…”

Hannan never said he agreed to Dr. V’s initial demand. However, there appears to be an implied consent to gain the access. So she had reason to feel betrayed.

Hannan, though, did have ample reason to report about Dr. V fabricating items on her resume. She was receiving money from investors for the putter. They had a right to know who they were dealing with in Dr. V.

Actually, there’s a good journalism lesson here. In the wake of the Manti Te’o story, Hannan didn’t accept Dr. V at her word. He checked out her background, separating fact from fiction.

In the process, Hannan discovered Dr. V was a trans individual. Truthfully, I’m not sure what I would have done here. It doesn’t seem possible to do a long piece on an individual and not report that piece of information. Yet I understand what is at stake and the ethics involved.

I wouldn’t have made the decision unilaterally. I would have sought many opinions, from editors to people in the business, before writing the story.

At the end of the day, we all have to make choices. Hannan made his and now he is catching considerable flak.

It’s your turn, Mr. Lipsyte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

News flash (or not): Sports journalism students don’t read actual newspapers

Posted on by

George Solomon, the sports editor who built the great staffs of the Washington Post, now is helping to shape future journalists as director of the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism at Maryland.

At some point, it will be a future without newspapers. In fact, many of his students know about newspapers only by reputation and not actual experience.

Solomon writes on the Povich Center site:

A requirement for 17 bright students in my Merrill College sportswriting class last  fall  included reading two sports sections a day. How many of the students read an actual paper over an online version? None, I’m sad to report, for about the fifth consecutive year.

I am teaching a sports media class this quarter at De Paul. We are examining all platforms of sports media. Wednesday, we focused on newspapers.

Citing Solomon’s column, I asked the nine graduate students how many read an actual newspaper on a somewhat regular basis. Optimistically, I put the over-under at two.

One student raised his hand.

It hardly is a surprise. The students all talked about the convenience of getting their news online. No walking out in the snow to get the paper. In fact, no paying for the paper.

They lamented the paywalls that now exist at many papers. They say they merely go elsewhere for free content.

However, at least for one week, my students had to read and evaluate actual newspaper sports sections for an assignment. I was heartened by some of the reaction: They enjoyed paper in their hands.

One student wrote: “Most websites tend to be more user-friendly and interactive but I found that the actual newspaper was more appealing.”

Another student liked a huge graphic portraying Carolina coach Ron Rivera as a riverboat gambler in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune. It pulled him into the story.

The student wrote: “I was pleasantly surprised how happy I was with the Tribune’s creativity. Since the main focus was Ron Rivera’s gambling coaching style, I got a chuckle out of the picture of the former Bears linebacker at poker table wearing a cowboy hat.”

I used the Rivera story as an example of how pictures and graphics have a much more dramatic presence in a newspaper. Also in Sunday’s paper, the Tribune did a marvelous two-page spread on new Hall of Famers Greg Maddux and Frank Thomas. It featured compelling graphics showing their Cooperstown-worthy statistics. The online version didn’t have the same impact, simply because the scale is so much smaller.

Yet online definitely is where everything is going. Tribune sports editor Mike Kellams was a guest in the class Wednesday. His parting words were about the tremendous opportunities that exist for current and future journalists to be the bridge from newspapers to online. The template still is a work in process with all the various entities trying to figure out how to make it work from both the financial and journalistic standpoints.

As for me, while I start my morning cruising various websites, I still get the Tribune delivered to the door every day. I usually read it over lunch. Old habits die hard, I guess.

In his piece, Solomon writes of other old friends who still read actual newspapers.

For this, Plotkin, Jacobs and I deserve to have our pictures in a trophy case in the Newseum under the heading:  “Last Men Reading.”  Or, at least in the lobby housing the newspaper circulation dealers of America, if such a trade association still exists.

Hey George, I’d like to get my picture in there too.

 

 

 

 

 

Hollywood story: How Yahoo! Sports’ Wetzel and ESPN’s Scott became screenwriters; new movie with Cuba Gooding Jr. opens Friday

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University is on a couple of sports media types who have gone Hollywood. If only momentarily.

Here is the trailer for Life of a King, co-written by Yahoo! Sports’ Dan Wetzel and ESPN PR man David Scott.

Here’s an excerpt from the column:

*********

I’m thinking of writing a screenplay for a new movie. Here’s the premise:

It is a tale about a national sports columnist and a PR person from a big national sports network collaborating to write a movie. After nearly 10 years, Hollywood finally makes their film. Not only that, but the star is an Oscar-winning actor.

Nobody would believe it, right?

Well, my movie now would be based on a true story. Yahoo! Sports columnist Dan Wetzel and David Scott, a director for communications at ESPN, have another title to add to their resumes: Screenwriters.

Wetzel and Scott are the co-writers, along with director Jake Goldberger, for the new film, Life of a King, which opens in theaters and on other platforms Friday. Oscar winner Cuba Gooding Jr. plays Eugene Brown, a real person in Washington D.C. who after serving 18 years in prison who went on to use chess as a means to keep inner-city kids off the streets.

After watching Life of a King for the first time, Scott had this reaction: “We did it. We actually made a real movie. And it starred an Oscar winner. I mean, that just doesn’t happen.”

Indeed, Wetzel and Scott’s movie story is as improbable as Brown’s. After meeting as classmates at UMass, they decided to write some screenplays. Eventually, they heard about Brown’s story and spent several days with him researching the project. Then they wrote the script.

That was 10 years ago. Nothing moves fast Hollywood, as the project had many starts and stops. The process took so long, Wetzel said when he watched the movie there were points where he thought, “I don’t remember writing that.”

Wetzel and Scott credit producer Jim Young for persevering to get the movie made. Ultimately, Brown’s inspirational story won out. Not only did it persuade Hollywood executives to make the film, it also enticed actors like Gooding Jr., Dennis Haysbert and LisaGay Hamilton to be part of it. This movie probably falls in the genre of “Remember The Titans” and “Coach Carter.”

“Eugene is a great guy and he’s a great story,” Wetzel said. “After spending 18 years in prison, I’m sure he never thought a movie would be made about him, lauding his good works…We had quality people in the film because it a good story.”

Added Scott: “Eugene is a guy who changed lives. Without him and chess, some of those kids wouldn’t be alive.”

*******

Here’s the link for the entire story.

 

Internet Baseball Writers Association wants to add its voice to Hall vote; Q/A with founder

Posted on by

In the wake of the furor over the qualifications of several Hall of Fame voters in the BBWAA, I received a note from Howard Cole.

Cole is the founder of the Internet Baseball Writers Association. He believes his association fills a void and gives a voice to  many baseball writers on the Internet who can’t get into the BBWAA.

Like the BBWAA, it recently did its own version of a Hall of Fame vote. Too bad for Craig Biggio that Cooperstown didn’t use the IBWAA tally this year. He would have got in along with Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas.

Unaware that such an association existed, I invited Cole to do a Q/A.

Please tell me about you and your experience as a baseball reporter.

I started BaseballSavvy.com in March of 2000, column writing until I landed a job as the Dodgers blogger for the Orange County Register in 2011. I have a similar position with LA Weekly now, and covered the Padres for a season at the Voice of San Diego.

Why did you feel the need to form this association?

While my frustration over the Hall of Fame candidacy of players like Jim Rice and Bert Blyleven was part of it (I wasn’t crazy about the work of various incarnations of the Veterans Committee either), I dreamed of a say in the matter. The public angst from writers with a vote that’s going around bugs me no end. I’d give a body part to science for the privilege some are complaining about now. And it’s not that difficult to fill out a ballot. A little appreciation of the vote is in order, it seems to me.

As a blogger “only,” I couldn’t get a sniff from the BBWAA, much less a credential, to save my life. I wanted a vote, even if it was a symbolic one. I’d been writing about baseball for 10 years at the time and lived for baseball since I could reach Vin Scully on the radio dial. I was tired of the references to bloggers as pajama-wearing low-lifes living in their parents’ basement, and knew plenty of Internet baseball writers — knowledgeable, dedicated, creative guys — who I imagined felt the same way.

Have you ever been part of the BBWAA? If not, have you ever applied to try to be part of the BBWAA?

I never applied because I knew, based on the BBWAA’s constitution, I had no chance. I did apply for MLB credentials — you have to start there — and was turned down. I have them now.

What is your view of the BBWAA?

It’s posted on our website that “The IBWAA seeks neither to replace nor disparage the BBWAA, but does offer distinctions,” and we will have fun at the BBWAA’s expense. C’mon, a paper ballot, snail mail, and a fax machine for last-minute voting? Spend a couple thousand bucks on a website and hire an intern to keep it live on the busiest days of the year. Oh, and do something about the extraneous “B” in your acroynym. Is it “Base Ball” or “Baseball”?

But look, in no way do I question the BBWAA’s best of intentions. I don’t question their love or understanding of the game, nor would I ever.

Why should the BBWAA expand its roll to include more Internet writers?

Well, there’s talk of actually reducing the Hall of Fame electorate, and I certainly get that. But this idea of tying a writer’s work to a print publication and requiring a certain number of games be covered in person doesn’t fly anymore.There are too many wonderful Internet baseball writers to even name in one sitting, and while I would never say that the IBWAA as a group is more qualified than the BBWAA, there’s no question in my mind that some of our members are more vote-worthy than some of theirs.

Who are some of the people in your association?

Jim Bowden, Jim Caple, Mark A. Simon and David Schoenfield of ESPN.com; Tim Brown of Yahoo! Sports, Craig Calcaterra of NBC Sports Hardball Talk, Bill Chuck of GammonsDaily.com, Derrick Goold, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, King Kaufman, Bleacher Report, Jonah Keri, Grantland, Will Leitch, Sports on Earth, Bruce Markusen, Hardball Times, Dayn Perry and Matt Snyder, CBSSports.com, Mark Purdy, San Jose Mercury News, Wendy Thurm, FanGraphs, Eric Stephen, True Blue LA; Tom Hoffarth, J.P. Hoornstra and Jill Painter of the Los Angeles Daily News; Pedro Moura, Orange County Register, Vince Gennaro, Kevin Kennedy, Ross Newhan and Joe Posnanski.

What is your view of what happened to the BBWAA with the recent last Hall of Fame vote?

I think they did well given the circumstances. Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas are great choices, each of whom was selected by the IBWAA as well. We had Craig Biggio this year too, and Mike Piazza in 2013, but we haven’t elected Barry Larkin, so we’re nowhere near perfect either. A BBWAA writer voted for Armando Benitez, one of ours voted for Mike Timlin, but to be fair the Timlin voter was a high school student.

The Dan Le Batard thing was unfortunate, and the 10-candidate limit was a problem for some writers, but more than that I just think it’s increasingly difficult to get people to agree on things in this country. And a 75% consensus poses an even greater challenge.

What do you see as the future for your association?

An AFL-NFL-like result, perhaps, or maybe we just continue independently and advocate for a better idea. We decide things as a group, so I’ll have to get back to you on that.

Lastly, there are certain guys I’ve encouraged to join, Keith Olbermann foremost among them, and I wished they’d cave already, but I’m done recruiting.

 

 

New York Times roundtable, including yours truly, on Hall of Fame voting: More than a flawed system

Posted on by

Thanks for the New York Times for including me in this discussion. I was in some impressive company.

Here are some excerpts.

My piece continued with my theme that sportswriters shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

It’s pretty simple: Journalists cover the news. They don’t make news.

This week, journalists, specifically baseball writers, crossed the line again by not only making news, but also becoming the news with their votes for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Headlines blared, with writers’ votes and the entire process coming under intense scrutiny.

It all could have been avoided if writers weren’t voting in the first place. The basic rule of journalism should have been applied long ago, and that goes for their participation in all sports awards, not just the Hall of Fame.

Joe Posnanski of NBC Sports says the Hall of Fame problems go deeper than the voting process.

More than tinkering, though, the Hall of Fame must rethink itself and take control of its own destiny. The leadership has sat back and allowed others to define it in the 21st century. Attendance is down more than a quarter since 2000. Some of the greatest players are not represented. The Hall of Fame announcement day has become an annual opportunity to complain about an outdated process and bash the game. The museum’s stated mission is to “preserve the sport’s history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball.” It has past generations covered. It’s time to start connecting to this one.

Rob Neyer of SB Nation believes it is time to open vote to more than just members of the BBWAA.

For the Hall of Fame, the prescription is simple: Give someone else a chance. In 1936, when the first Hall of Fame class was announced, it probably made sense to let the writers do the heavy lifting. But all these years later, there’s just no obvious reason why Roger Angell, Bob Costas, Bill James, Vin Scully and dozens of other students of the game aren’t a part of this process. Yes, the results would be very nearly the same. But with a couple of exceptions — Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens — it’s not the results that bother people; it’s the process, and so the Hall of Fame’s credibility has taken a big hit. If the process makes more sense, fans won’t sweat the results quite so much.

Christina Kahrl, co-founder of Baseball Prospectus suggests lowering the 75 percent threshold.

Second, we need to lower the threshold for what it takes to get into Cooperstown; the 75 percent mark was reasonable 70 years ago in a smaller media environment with fewer teams (and shorter-lived sportswriters). So let’s lower it to two-thirds of the voters, rounding up. Admittedly, I’m in favor of a larger hall — it exists to honor the players, and looking back at the players voted in to represent the all-white era before Jackie Robinson, I’d argue the threshold for what was a Hall of Fame career was already set lower than the standard being applied to modern players.

C. Trent Rosecrans, the beat writer for the Cincinnati Enquirer, believes change is coming.

Despite cries saying otherwise, the B.B.W.A.A. knows its system isn’t perfect and there are movements afoot to drastically expand voting membership, increase the transparency that has helped create vitriol and also eliminate the arcane rule limiting voters to just 10 choices from the ballot.

Writing kings: Dan Wetzel, ESPN PR’s David Scott wrote new Cuba Gooding Jr. movie on chess

Posted on by

If you look at the credits for the film, Life is King, which comes out Friday, sports readers will find a familiar name, Yahoo! Sports columnist, Dan Wetzel, and sports media types will see David Scott, ESPN’s director of communications for news content. Along with director Jake Goldberger, they wrote the film.

I will have more on how Wetzel and Scott got their project on the big screen later this week. Consider this a sneak preview with the sneak preview.

Here is the rundown from the film’s site:

********

Life of a King is the unlikely true story of Eugene Brown and his one-man mission to give inner-city kids of Washington D.C. something he never had – a future. He discovered a multitude of life lessons through the game of chess during his 18-year incarceration for bank robbery. After his release and reentry into the workforce, Eugene developed and founded the Big Chair Chess Club to get kids off the streets and working towards lives they never believed they were capable of due to circumstances. From his daring introductory chess lessons to a group of unruly high school students in detention to the development of the Club and the teens’ first local chess competitions, this movie reveals his difficult, inspirational journey and how he changed the lives of a group of teens with no endgame.

Transparency needed for Hall of Fame voting; Who didn’t vote for Maddux? Who voted for Jacque Jones?

Posted on by

Sportswriters spend their entire careers pushing for access and transparency. Yet when it comes to voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame, a veil of secrecy exists.

Yes, a fair amount of voters reveal their ballots However, the vast majority don’t.

And for that matter, fans also deserve to know exactly who is voting and their credentials.

The Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) currently doesn’t disclose that information. However, that could change.

Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports is among those pushing for transparency in the vote. He writes:

Transparency is essential. The BBWAA should list the names of every voter, just as it does for its annual awards. Likewise, every voter should be required to publish his or her ballot. Many of us are choosing to do just that, and our ballots will be accessible on BBWAA.com starting Friday morning.

Ken Gurnick of MLB.com received heavy criticism for voting only for Jack Morris. Well, at least Gurnick revealed his vote and provided an explanation, however illogical it might have sounded. Fifteen other voters failed to vote for Maddux. And we don’t know who the heck they are.

If baseball writers are going to continue to vote for the Hall of Fame, which I am against, then the BBWAA needs to address this matter immediately. In fact, their editors should insist on transparency. At the very least, we would find out who is Jacque Jones’ friend.

It’s pretty simple: How can writers ask MLB and teams to open their windows, if they don’t do the same for Hall of Fame voting?

Also, regarding the issue of who is voting, Rosenthal writes:

Let’s clean up the voting body and remove those who are not actively covering the game. Let’s reduce the 10-year membership requirement to five to allow newer writers to vote sooner.

Indeed, Rosenthal is right here. Transparency also would show the voters who have no business participating in this process.

 

Update: LeBatard second-guesses decision; Miami Herald sports editor, Wilbon, Kornheiser scold him for Deadspin stunt

Posted on by

Update at 11:30 ET:  Dan Patrick’s producer just posted the following tweet.

******

Dan LeBatard has enjoyed a terrific career, winning many national awards as a columnist for the Miami Herald. It enabled him to go to another level with TV and radio shows on ESPN.

Yesterday, though, wasn’t one of his better days.

LeBatard faced considerable fallout for his decision to give his Hall of Fame vote to Deadspin. It was his way of protesting the voting process. Deadspin turned around and using fan voting to determine LeBatard’s ballot.

He wrote: “I always like a little anarchy inside the cathedral we’ve made of sports.”

LeBatard was feeling a bit cocky in the video. However, a couple hours later, he seemed to be second-guessing his decision on his ESPN radio show by 6 p.m. ET. During the previous hour, Tim Kurkjian and then Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon, men he greatly respects, scolded him for participating in such a stunt. Wilbon called it “garbage.”

“This is egotism run amok,” Korheiser told LeBatard.

Here is a link to the Kornheiser and Wilbon interview.

As I wrote yesterday, all three of them thought LeBatard should have used his own vast platforms to make his point about the process. Kurkjian felt by going to Deadspin, LeBatard made himself the focus of the story, taking away from the intent of his mission.

After an hour of that, and with considerable other criticism coming in from the journalism community, LeBatard seemed overwhelmed at the top of the 6 p.m. hour. You got the feeling he felt, maybe this wasn’t such a good idea.

The reaction got worse for LeBatard, and it came from his own employers.

In a Clark Spencer story in the Miami Herald, sport editor Jorge Rojas said it best. (Note: LeBatard now is technically a freelancer for the Herald):

“Whatever issues might be raised about the Hall of Fame voting process, we do not condone misrepresentation of any kind,” Herald executive sports editor Jorge Rojas said in a statement. “Dan had a point to make. We think there are other ways he could have made it.”

Exactly. A journalist should never misrepresent himself. He accepted the vote from the Baseball Writers Association of America. There is an implied trust that he would use it in good faith. He didn’t.

There’s more. From Miami Herald columnist Greg Cote.

“I love that my buddy Dan must now act as if he’d have preferred none of this get out when in fact this is publicity gold … for somebody with a daily radio show who fancies himself a cutting edge establishment-tweaker.”

Mike Oz of Yahoo! Sports had the reaction from LaVelle E. Neal III, the BBWA president.

“When you accept a baseball writers’ card, there’s a certain way you need to go about your business, a certain conduct you need to have at all times,” Neal said. “It’s disappointing that someone would decide to manipulate his vote in that way.”

More reaction from baseball writers:

“It’s sad that one of our members would do this,” said Bill Madden, long-time baseball writer for the New York Daily News and a member for 41 years of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, whose most tenured members vote for the Hall of Fame.

Said Mark Feinsand, who covers the New York Yankees for the Daily News: “The writers who cover the sport earn the right to vote and don’t earn the right to allow others to cast their votes. If you don’t think your vote means anything, then don’t vote.”

Meanwhile, a story on ESPN.com had the network attempting to distance himself from the stunt.

“We respect and appreciate Dan’s opinions and passion about Hall of Fame voting,” ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz said in a statement. “He received his vote while at the Miami Herald. We wouldn’t have advocated his voting approach, which we were just made aware of today.”

I’m sure LeBatard will get a phone call or two today from top ESPN executives, if he hasn’t already.

Again, serious journalists don’t do something like this, which is disappointing because I consider LeBatard a serious journalist.