Murray Chass is back

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Here's the problem with people who want to perceive bias in whatever they read: They think everything's on purpose.

Chass lumped in Noll with all kinds of personae non grata (by the owners' evaluation), gave owners a chance to dispute his report and presented their objections, and wrote toward the end: "The owners, of course, don't trust Noll's figures, just as the players always are skeptical of the clubs' figures."

There was no intent to misrepresent Noll. He probably had written about Noll a bunch of times and simply forgot to insert a stock clause. Sports fans at the time were extremely familiar with Noll, not just from baseball but on NFL labor issues.

a) Isn't it a writer's job to write things 'on purpose,' ie, accurately and thoroughly?

b) How would you (or any of us) know what Chass intended, other than what he actually wrote or omitted?

If he had wanted to write a slanted column, he would not have included the owners' rebuttal, at length, nor would he have written the sentence I quoted that makes it pretty clear the owners consider Noll on the players' side.

I think after years of editing lots of sports writers, I have some ability to discern when a writer simply forgot something and when he's being dishonest. The column presented both sides at length.

[Boom_70]

Here's the problem with people who want to perceive bias in whatever they read: They think everything's on purpose.

Chass lumped in Noll with all kinds of personae non grata (by the owners' evaluation), gave owners a chance to dispute his report and presented their objections, and wrote toward the end: "The owners, of course, don't trust Noll's figures, just as the players always are skeptical of the clubs' figures."

There was no intent to misrepresent Noll. He probably had written about Noll a bunch of times and simply forgot to insert a stock clause. Sports fans at the time were extremely familiar with Noll, not just from baseball but on NFL labor issues.

a) Isn't it a writer's job to write things 'on purpose,' ie, accurately and thoroughly?

b) How would you (or any of us) know what Chass intended, other than what he actually wrote or omitted?

If he had wanted to write a slanted column, he would not have included the owners' rebuttal, at length, nor would he have written the sentence I quoted that makes it pretty clear the owners consider Noll on the players' side.

I think after years of editing lots of sports writers, I have some ability to discern when a writer simply forgot something and when he's being dishonest. The column presented both sides at length.

The report was COMMISIONED BY THE PLAYERS UNION. That omission as not an oversight by Chass.

 His body of work over the years of being in the tank for the union speaks for itself.

[Bubbler]

BYH, as someone who mostly lurks here I've always thought you one of the more elegant voices of reason on this site. But I would urge you to go back and re-read Murray's Hall of Fame speech. Because to me, it was an embarrassment of such a high degree that I would have voted there and then to close forever the writer's wing of the Hall. And I'm not exaggerating.

It was a mean, bitter, angry diatribe on The Next Generation, and it was so wholly inappropriate for the occasion as to make you squirm; I still squirm just thinking about it. There were Times editors and colleagues who'd driven through the night to be there and he snubbed them. And there is a whole generation of people who write baseball for a living -- starting with myself -- who spent many years admiring him, and his work, and who were instantly and forever alienated by his scathing self-aggrandizing screed. Personally, I think it was one of the low moments in the history of the Hall of Fame. I thought that then, and I think that now, having just re-read the speech myself.

I'll never take anything away from his career; he is a monument in our business. But even before he got sick he was an angry, bitter scowl of a man who couldn't be bothered even being civil toward that Next Generation he reviled so much. Sorry, I know he has friends here, especially Casty, and I am sure those friendships are real and invaluable, and I certainly respect them. I can only go by what I saw, and how I was treated. And by what those egregious words in his speech sounded like.  The best way to sum it up is this: a long time ago, I made a vow to myself that no matter how old, tired, skeptical or cynical I get in this business, there are two people I will never, EVER act like to a fellow member of the profession. I trust you can guess one of them. And the other was Murray.

-- Mike Vaccaro

I was in the crowd at Cooperstown that day (Molitor was also inducted).

I told my father that Chass' speech would have been fine for an industry function, but it was God awful for the occasion.

No one, NO ONE, in the near-100-degree heat that day wanted to listen to a writer use his moment in the sun to rail against his own industry. No one was interested in that kind of inside baseball.

If you were familiar with Chass, it had all of the the uncomfortable trappings of going to the principal's office. And let's face it, of the fans that were there, few were there to hear Chass anyway and an equal amount probably didn't even know who he was. To them, he probably came off as that crazy guy rambling on the street corner you cross the street to avoid.

I respect the hell out of Chass, but I felt bad for him that day. Definitely the wrong place, wrong time for that kind of diatribe.

[BYH]

I am 99.9 pct positive that the link Frank posted--as well as the transcript I just found in my spare room here--are incomplete, hence the "ESPN cuts out" and "ESPN cuts in" mentions. (Reminds me of the classic Simpsons from last year when the moderator of the presidential debate can barely conceal his contempt for the newspaperman)

But what I liked so much about Murray's speech is that I interpreted much of it as calling out the people who run newspapers for creating a culture in which young writers bolt the beat after two or three years. It's entirely possible that Murray never said this and that my interpretation is wrong.

Yes, there was criticism of beat writers who have both eyes on a column gig. But I don't think he had someone like Mike Vaccaro in mind with that passage. Mike took a gradual, dues-paying path to his current gig.

But I also think Murray has been proven spot-on correct about today's writers disliking "...all of the off-field developments that have intruded on the games on the field." The steroid era unfurled in plain sight right yet its most authorative takes have been authored by a junkie and a pair of journalists who were not on the baseball beat.

And it's not just the young'uns who seem bothered by the intrusions.

[Frank_Ridgeway]

The report was COMMISIONED BY THE PLAYERS UNION. That omission as not an oversight by Chass.

 His body of work over the years of being in the tank for the union speaks for itself.

Judging by what he chose to include in the column, my opinion is that he tried to be fair and that it almost certainly was an oversight. One that apparently got through multiple layers of editing, which happens. What is probably the case: Editors saw that both sides were presented and read right past the fact that the report was done for the players union wasn't included. That happens. When you read essentially the same story day after day, which is usually the case during a labor dispute, your mind fills in the blanks and you also subconsciously assume readers have been following the issues as much as you have.

I'll always give the writer the benefit of the doubt, especially when he's gone out of his way to let both sides have their say, as Chass did.

[Bubbler]

I am 99.9 pct positive that the link Frank posted--as well as the transcript I just found in my spare room here--are incomplete, hence the "ESPN cuts out" and "ESPN cuts in" mentions. (Reminds me of the classic Simpsons from last year when the moderator of the presidential debate can barely conceal his contempt for the newspaperman)

But what I liked so much about Murray's speech is that I interpreted much of it as calling out the people who run newspapers for creating a culture in which young writers bolt the beat after two or three years. It's entirely possible that Murray never said this and that my interpretation is wrong.

Yes, there was criticism of beat writers who have both eyes on a column gig. But I don't think he had someone like Mike Vaccaro in mind with that passage. Mike took a gradual, dues-paying path to his current gig.

But I also think Murray has been proven spot-on correct about today's writers disliking "...all of the off-field developments that have intruded on the games on the field." The steroid era unfurled in plain sight right yet its most authorative takes have been authored by a junkie and a pair of journalists who were not on the baseball beat.

And it's not just the young'uns who seem bothered by the intrusions.

That's cool, but his speech would have made sense at APSE, not Cooperstown. Totally inappropriate for the occasion.

[BYH]

I can understand that.

But...he made the HOF on the strength of his inside baseball reportage. Shouldn't his speech reflect that?

[cranberry]

OK, Cranberry, so let's make it nice and simple: What if Reggie had said, "These new batch of Yankees, they may think they're good, but they have no idea what it is to be a real Yankee."

Is that better?

And is that any better?

That would be about equivalent. And while I'd agree that Murray picked the wrong forum to express those thoughts about the industry, I also happen to agree with those thoughts.

Stat guys, I would never read nor care about Bill James' or Rob Neyer's insight on baseball business, either, but that doesn't mean their statistical analysis isn't terrific stuff.

And Boom, I'm still waiting for the examples of when Murray wasn't fair and objective in labor matters.

Here is one example of many Cranberry where Murray is in the tank for the players union - A column during '94 baseball strike which Murray cites report from Stamford economist Roger Noll.

What Murray fails to tell readers was that report was commisioned by the players union.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E4DE1038F935A3575AC0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Here's the problem with people who want to perceive bias in whatever they read: They think everything's on purpose.

Chass lumped in Noll with all kinds of personae non grata (by the owners' evaluation), gave owners a chance to dispute his report and presented their objections, and wrote toward the end: "The owners, of course, don't trust Noll's figures, just as the players always are skeptical of the clubs' figures."

There was no intent to misrepresent Noll. He probably had written about Noll a bunch of times and simply forgot to insert a stock clause. Sports fans at the time were extremely familiar with Noll, not just from baseball but on NFL labor issues.

Your point is kind of kooky.

Studies by leading sports economists, like Noll, are typically part of each negotiation. I'll guess that wasn't the first story in which that particular study was cited, either. Both sides use them. As an example, Andrew Zimbalist has done studies for both MLB and the PA in different negotiations. I don't think guys like Noll, a highly respected Stanford professor, or Zimbalist would risk their reputations by providing misleading information.

Boom, if that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

[Boom_70]

OK, Cranberry, so let's make it nice and simple: What if Reggie had said, "These new batch of Yankees, they may think they're good, but they have no idea what it is to be a real Yankee."

Is that better?

And is that any better?

That would be about equivalent. And while I'd agree that Murray picked the wrong forum to express those thoughts about the industry, I also happen to agree with those thoughts.

Stat guys, I would never read nor care about Bill James' or Rob Neyer's insight on baseball business, either, but that doesn't mean their statistical analysis isn't terrific stuff.

And Boom, I'm still waiting for the examples of when Murray wasn't fair and objective in labor matters.

Here is one example of many Cranberry where Murray is in the tank for the players union - A column during '94 baseball strike which Murray cites report from Stamford economist Roger Noll.

What Murray fails to tell readers was that report was commisioned by the players union.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E4DE1038F935A3575AC0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Here's the problem with people who want to perceive bias in whatever they read: They think everything's on purpose.

Chass lumped in Noll with all kinds of personae non grata (by the owners' evaluation), gave owners a chance to dispute his report and presented their objections, and wrote toward the end: "The owners, of course, don't trust Noll's figures, just as the players always are skeptical of the clubs' figures."

There was no intent to misrepresent Noll. He probably had written about Noll a bunch of times and simply forgot to insert a stock clause. Sports fans at the time were extremely familiar with Noll, not just from baseball but on NFL labor issues.

Your point is kind of kooky.

Studies by leading sports economists, like Noll, are typically part of each negotiation. I'll guess that wasn't the first story in which that particular study was cited, either. Both sides use them. As an example, Andrew Zimbalist has done studies for both MLB and the PA in different negotiations. I don't think guys like Noll, a highly respected Stanford professor, or Zimbalist would risk their reputations by providing misleading information.

Boom, if that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

That's fine cranberry. You gave me an inane exercise and I delivered on what you asked. I certainly did not think that one or ten or even 50 examples would get you to change your mind.

Why don't you go to the Times search site and type in Murray Chass. See how may pro union stories come up and then see how many pro owner stories come up.

[spnited]

Not to mention how many pro-Red Sox and anti-Yankees columns come up. 

[Boom_70]

Not to mention how many pro-Red Sox and anti-Yankees columns come up. 

Well since you asked in 2006 Murray was writing about 3 pro Red Sox columns for every 1 negative Yankee column he wrote. Most of the info being obviously fed to him by Larry Lucchino.

[JR]

That's cool, but his speech would have made sense at APSE, not Cooperstown. Totally inappropriate for the occasion.

Yup.

Everything Murray Chass said in his speech may be true.

The HOF induction ceremony is not the place to vent your spleen.

Like I said before, he sounded (from the transcript posted here) like a miserable old prick.

No class and a lack of manners.   

[Boom_70]

Came across a blog from Seth Mnookin ( wrote "Feeding the Monster" and "Hard News - the Times Scandals" ) where is takes out Murray- Pretty funny stuff. I had no idea that so many were not overwhelmed by Murray's work.

http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2006/12/18/murray-chass-and-the-shaky-ethics-of-the-sports-section/

No wonder why Murray hates bloggers.

[cranberry]

That's fine cranberry. You gave me an inane exercise and I delivered on what you asked. I certainly did not think that one or ten or even 50 examples would get you to change your mind.

Why don't you go to the Times search site and type in Murray Chass. See how may pro union stories come up and then see how many pro owner stories come up.

During the period of time Murray was covering labor, MLB was routinely getting its ass kicked back into place for violating agreements it had made to the union -- grievance arbitrations, collusion, etc. So that's to be expected. They tried to fight the union for three decades before bringing in an age of significantly more enlightened labor relations over the past 10 years or so.

You seem to think the bad guys should win half the time or somehow the reporter isn't being objective. If the Yankees win 100 games they're going to look good in 100 game stories. Conversely, if they lose 100 games they'll look bad that often. Is it the reporter's responsibility to make the Yankees look good 61 times and bad the other 61 games?

Well since you asked in 2006 Murray was writing about 3 pro Red Sox columns for every 1 negative Yankee column he wrote. Most of the info being obviously fed to him by Larry Lucchino.

And, well, there you go. There were few bigger hawks during the '94-95 labor dispute than Lucchino. You really think he trusts someone so clearly biased?

I was actually hoping you would post the whole damn NY Times archive from that period because I think it would serve as a great example of good and often great reporting by Murray.

[Boom_70]

That's fine cranberry. You gave me an inane exercise and I delivered on what you asked. I certainly did not think that one or ten or even 50 examples would get you to change your mind.

Why don't you go to the Times search site and type in Murray Chass. See how may pro union stories come up and then see how many pro owner stories come up.

During the period of time Murray was covering labor, MLB was routinely getting its ass kicked back into place for violating agreements it had made to the union -- grievance arbitrations, collusion, etc. So that's to be expected. They tried to fight the union for three decades before bringing in an age of significantly more enlightened labor relations over the past 10 years or so.

You seem to think the bad guys should win half the time or somehow the reporter isn't being objective. If the Yankees win 100 games they're going to look good in 100 game stories. Conversely, if they lose 100 games they'll look bad that often. Is it the reporter's responsibility to make the Yankees look good 61 times and bad the other 61 games?

Well since you asked in 2006 Murray was writing about 3 pro Red Sox columns for every 1 negative Yankee column he wrote. Most of the info being obviously fed to him by Larry Lucchino.

And, well, there you go. There were few bigger hawks during the '94-95 labor dispute than Lucchino. You really think he trusts someone so clearly biased?

I was actually hoping you would post the whole damn NY Times archive from that period because I think it would serve as a great example of good and often great reporting by Murray.

Most people who read the Times for baseball are baseball fans - not union leaders. Fans do not want to read about strikes. They want to read about the game. Why should the average baseball fan have any regard for Marvin Miller?

[cranberry]

Most people who read the Times for baseball are baseball fans - not union leaders. Fans do not want to read about strikes. They want to read about the game.

I agree. Fans don't like to read about strikes. They don't like to read about tax increases, starving children, tornadoes, AIDS, soldiers and civilians dieing in Iraq, or the Dow getting pummeled, either. But they happen and they, too, are significant stories that affect peoples' lives in various ways. Newspapers report these things sometimes when they're not pleasing their readers by writing about who Alex Rodriguez is having sex with this week.

Why should the average baseball fan have any regard for Marvin Miller?

Maybe because after Jackie Robinson, Marvin was the person who most influenced the baseball industry in the the last 60 years?

[Singapore Slim]

And fans, almost to a man, always side with the ownership. It's the strangest thing. They never side with the players, in any sport, no matter how unfair the other side has been.

They just can't bring themselves to side with those who play a game for a living, no matter how much they're getting screwed over in their own profession relative to the owners.

[Ben_Hecht]

Came across a blog from Seth Mnookin ( wrote "Feeding the Monster" and "Hard News - the Times Scandals" ) where is takes out Murray- Pretty funny stuff. I had no idea that so many were not overwhelmed by Murray's work.

http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2006/12/18/murray-chass-and-the-shaky-ethics-of-the-sports-section/

No wonder why Murray hates bloggers.

We're not thrilled with a BoSox towel boy like Mnookin, so we're even.

[Singapore Slim]

Fanboy or not, the blogger is right on.

Chass is off. Way off.

Shoot the messenger all you want merely for wearing a "B" on his cap, but the blogger got things right, and Chass got things way, way wrong in this instance.

[tangotiger]

First-timer here.

Someone mentioned the possibility that the Chass site is a hoax. 

Some details are
- the third-person and inflammatory About page,
- the incorrect position about getting the travel details 3 months ahead of time for two cities yet to be determined,
- the similarity in site look and graphics between Chass site and BaseballEvolution.com and both sites happen to be sitting on the same server,
- the dead-email address posted.

Is there someone in the group here that has heard first-hand from Chass that he is in fact writing on that site?

[cranberry]

First-timer here.

Someone mentioned the possibility that the Chass site is a hoax. 

Some details are
- the third-person and inflammatory About page,
- the incorrect position about getting the travel details 3 months ahead of time for two cities yet to be determined,
- the similarity in site look and graphics between Chass site and BaseballEvolution.com and both sites happen to be sitting on the same server,
- the dead-email address posted.

Is there someone in the group here that has heard first-hand from Chass that he is in fact writing on that site?

Murray told me about the site himself. Not a hoax.

[Baba_Booey]

Murray was at the all-star game working for the site.

[Singapore Slim]

Doesn't say a lot about Murray's site, though.

And the "will somebody think of the hotels!" crap is too much. The NBA Finals has people flying in from dozens of countries, and the medial availability sessions are enormous. Outside of North and South America, who is flying in and worried about whether or not they have to go to Cleveland or Detroit?

[Boom_70]

One thing for sure the blogger that Murray probably has in mind when he takes out bloggers is Seth Mnookin.

I did not read Mnookin's book on the Times. I am wondering if he has some unfavorable things to say about Chass in said book.

[casty33]

I can guarentee you all that the site is real and not a hoax. I have talked to Murray about it. I have tried to stay out of this sometimes vicious site because  a) Murray is a friend of mine, and b) I know he can often be a curmudgeon. So feel free to criticize but try not to be so vicious about. The man is expressing an opinion and he's entitled to that, just as you're entitled to disagree with it.

I'll just end with the hope that we all get along and agree that there are differences of opinion. Isn't that what makes discussion worthwhile? Call me a sap if you want, but that is, after all, my personality.