A slap in the face of the high and mighty writers?

Just so, Ragu.

What would the numbers be if Griffey Jr. were approaching the record?

Upon that one question -- unless you think the numbers would be comparable -- this entire column falls down around itself.

I mean, I despise Barry Bonds, and I think he should be in the HOF. The fact that his number there is 58 percent AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC is clearly a damnation, not an affirmation.

It's also worth noting that he needs a lot more than 58 percent of the vote from writers to get in, so the cheap shots at the BBWAA are equally meaningless.

 

I just see a trend here, not unique, but a trend.

Any time the media gets criticized for this or anything else, there's a faction of the media who begin to kick and scream as if to say, "How DARE you criticize us! We're above this!"

Well, we're not. The media does make mistakes. I do, you do, our bosses do. So instead of knee-jerk arguments every time, maybe it would behoove us to try to understand what they're saying.

I think the FACT that the American public isn't quite as universal in its hatred of Bonds that we thought it was ... this should be telling to us, and an indication that we might have allowed our personal biases and value judgments get in the way of the straight story.

 

But where have the universal hatred of Bonds voices actually come from? My guess is it's more from sports radio and talking heads shows than the print media. There are those that do both, but on the whole there are at the most 20 regulars as far as sports columnists at daily newspapers that get national airtime. That's hardly representive of the entire nation of sportswriters.

I honestly think the idea that the entire media continually bashes Bonds itself is overrated.

 

I agree that we're not above criticism, but the fact that even 42% think Bonds doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame speaks a lot to just how many people believe he cheated.

 

The other thing about these stats is that both sides can use them to make their arguments. And that doesn't make for a cut and dried case.

 

Shot --

That poll tells me more people hate Bonds more deeply than I thought.

Honestly, that was my first reaction. I really didn't imagine 42 percent of people wanting him out of the HOF.

Make of that what you will. It has nothing to do with criticizing the media, IMHO.

 

My big problem with the column is that he needs to be specific instead of general.

If he wants to write the Red Smith ripped Bonds or that Ring Lardner called for him to be drug tested with a dirty needle or that Shirley Povich is starting a petition to keep him out of the Hall of Fame, great.

Writing the media thinks this or the media says that isn't writing. That's Talk Radio.

 

Ace --
As is, I would argue, asserting steroid use without proof, and declining to believe the results of the steroid testing you demanded two years eariler, and there's been a lot of that around the sports pages over the past four years.

 

Fine. Write that. It's clear that people really aren't so worked up about the whole 'roids thing. I believe I have read that in a newspaper or two.

 

shotglass says, "I think the FACT that the American public isn't quite as universal in its hatred of Bonds that we thought it was ... this should be telling to us, and an indication that we might have allowed our personal biases and value judgments get in the way of the straight story."

Props! That is an amazingly refreshing point of view.

 

he agrees with me! yay! you're right!