1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cashman vs Pearlman

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by YankeeFan, Mar 13, 2009.

  1. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    I find Pearlman quite readable.


    Though, of course, its ludicrously easy to whale away at the Yankees while staying strictly within the bounds of veracity.


    These two assertions are not contradictory in any way.
     
  2. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    It's totally different when it's a team official suggesting that an employee should break the law and/or endanger his health to help the team succeed. Whether it was said in jest or frustration is beside the point.

    And Pearlman wouldn't have written about Cashman's outburst if he didn't think it was notable, unusual or newsworthy.
     
  3. What makes you say that? I think all his books are tremendous reads. Entertaining, informative, funny, well-sourced (present anecdote, excluded, I guess).
     
  4. clutchcargo

    clutchcargo Active Member

    I've read everything here, and I still say in this particular instance no harm was done or anyone libeled or whatever. Now, if it had been one source other than Cashman himself showing Pearlman a document or email or some such in which Cashman had written team doctor or Steinbrenner or whomever to make sure Giambi got access to XYZ enhancers or some such, completely different story. But an aside where Cashman blurted something out obviously in jest . . . I cut Pearlman some slack.

    If there truly is an actionable indiscretion here done by Pearlman, then let Cashman go to the trouble of suing and see how it all plays out.

    Question I have, why is Pearlman----or Peter King or Whitlock, etc.---given so much individualized treatment on this web site. Whether they are blowhards or miss something or make a mistake, just the fact folks in here keep coming back to them is some sort of backhanded hero worship----like they are supposed to be perfect and all the rest of us ordinary folks are the peanut gallery to pass judgment on them. That in itself, call it constructive criticism, singling these guys and gals out is a form of expressing awe.

    Hey, we are all in this together---the 90% no-names among us and the Pearlmans and Whitlocks of the world.
     
  5. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    Well, Cashman is disputing the account, which makes it news. That's why we discuss.

    It's not really so much a question here of calling Cashman but of laziness: The anecdote is too good to check, so we won't -- we'll just write it on one person's say-so. Either Cashman and the source were alone in the clubhouse (during a game), in which case Cashman knows who said it, or other people heard it, too.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I know Pearlman post here occasionally -- and under his own name too.

    To be honest with you, I haven't read enough off his work to have formed an opinion on him or his writing. But I have no reason to believe that he's lazy or unethical or a poor writer.

    I wasn't looking for an anti-Pearlman article either. It was on the front page of nytimes.com. It seemed interesting to me and thought it would be interesting to the audience on this board.

    Did I think there was a chance that Pearlman might see the post and weigh in? Sure -- and that would be cool in my mind.

    The problem of course with having only one, unnamed source for such a story is that if the other party -- Cashman in this case -- denies the story, I as a reader have no way to judge the veracity of the story.

    Pearlman might trust the source -- and I'm sure that he does -- but in a he said, he said argument, I'd like to be able to weigh my opinion of the two protagonists in forming my opinion.

    If it was Jeter, or someone else who's integrity I respected, I'm more likely to believe the anecdote. If it's someone who left the Yankees, and has a grudge against Cashman, well then I'd be less likely to believe it.

    It could also be someone flakey who got the details wrong. Eyewitness evidence isn't always the best.

    I'm also interested in the context. Does/did Cashman often watch games from the club house. Does he raise his voice? He says he doesn't.

    I'm actually pretty confident that Cashman -- in jest -- did say something at least pretty close to what's quoted. It's the kind of thing a lot of Yankee fans were screaming at their TV. But, with only one unnamed source, I still think it's unfair to Cashman to print it -- especially without also printing his denial.
     
  7. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    This example proves how badly you missed the point. In this case, you witnessed the anecdote yourself. In the original case, he heard it from a source.

    You don't put your credibility on the line by promising that a single, unnamed source is right and get yourself into a he-said, she-said. Period.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page