Erik Bedard = worst interview ever?

i've never understood the douche approach to countering every complaint of a sports writer: boo-hoo. you're getting paid to watch baseball games.

the same can be said about half of america: boo-hoo. you're getting paid sit at a desk.

that's not really an arguable point, chief.

 

You can trivialize anything. And people do. It's a defense mechanism.

 

Well, it certainly is an arguable point. Does this columnist need Erik Bedard to tell him Bedard sucked today? No. He certainly can tell the story without a Bedard quote. Put it on Bedard that he refused to comment. My point is that the writer made himself the story and no reader gives a fuck about the writer. They pay attention to very few bylines, and they're very distrusting of what's in the newspaper. To interject yourself into the story and boo-hoo that Bedard cut us off after five questions is ridiculous; where's the value to the reader? That Bedard is a douche? Who cares?

If the writer's job sucks so badly, go dig holes in the street. I guarantee you the reader would say the same thing. I guarantee you the reader IS SAYING the same thing.

Talk about trivializing and a defense mechanism: How about the crutch "the baseball players won't talk to me today" column.

 

Each of these problems -- a subject having nothing much to say, or someone who's a little too-skilled at media-speak -- can be countered with...better questions, and, in short, a better interview. And this holds true regardless of either a press-conference or one-on-one setting.

It's up to reporters to ask their questions as intelligently as they'd like them to be answered, to draw people out, and to not be played, at least as much as possible.

It's incumbent on them to get their subjects not only to talk, but also to think, and to make them comfortable and confident enough -- both in themselves and in us -- that the subject is more likely to say something of interest, more likely to engage and to want to say something of interest, even.

You never know. It just might result in something beyond coach-speak, beyond whatever media-speak they've learned or been taught, and perhaps, even, beyond what anyone might have expected of them.

 

I'm sure this kind of stuff sounds impressive to a j-school student but in real life some players are just bad interviews, for a variety of reasons, and even the interview skills and follow-up that you propose would yield uninspired responses.

 

and you can be the best interviewer in the world, but if the guys stops everyone after four questions, you're still not gonna get much.

 

I don't think it negates the point, though.

It's a fact that some people are better, smarter or more careful and insightful interviewers than others, or else are better at building a rapport, or both, and will get more -- sometimes even much more -- out those four questions than somebody else.

Especially in a post-game setting, four questions really ought to be enough in most cases, as long as people make the most of them.

 

True. Doesn't mean Erik Bedard is not a douche bag.

 

And it also doesn't mean that it's karma for Bedard to have a bad outing, as the Seattle PI guy wrote.

 

a "go dig holes in the street" response is ridiculous at best.

and if you don't think fans in seattle want to know who the douchebags are on their team after johnson's and garcia's tenures, you don't know shit about mariner baseball. that's why people such as yourself are so full of fail when you attempt to lump all readers under one umbrella.

 

I just find this interesting. Us in the noble media corps cannot stand the guys who don't talk and are brusque. But at the same time, we harp on the guys who can't stop flapping their gums about themselves, their opponents, how great they were in the game (real & perceived) and/or any subject under the sun (yes, I'm staring at you, Curt Schilling). Cliche-riddled circle-talkers are not appreciated (hi, Derek Jeter!) just as the ones who talk about nothing. And let's not start with the Barry Bonds-Ryan Leaf school of interviewing.

The point is that many athletes' interview-style will have some quirk about them that is bound to grate on a few or many media members. Bedard can be as silent as the grave and that's his right, but he should learn a better way of getting his point across without being a jerk. My own little theory about dealing with him would be ask the questions I need to and hope I get what I need out of him. Maybe pester him once or twice if I need a little more, but I guess the best thing is to do not give him an attitude and give him a reason to respect you.I could be completely off the mark or spitting out no-duh advice, but that's just my two cents' worth.

 

I could be wrong (well, no, I'm not).

But some of the guys telling us that we shouldn't care about smarmy Erik Bedard being a non-quote are the same guys who tell us that play-by-play is death to a game story. That you have to have more.

Well, I'll rule out the middle answer. A good game story is not 20 inches of reporter-generated analysis/commentary.

Athletes' quotes are the lifeblood of a good story.

And I DO hope Erik Bedard, as smarmy as he was in Baltimore, gets his tits ripped.