Laughing in the face of a loss or why reporters get a bad rap

No, it was on Monday Night Football, and it's gotta be a story!

 

I thought Somers did a nice job explaining his part on his blog.

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/KentSomers/108282

This was the key to me: Readers wanted to know why, especially since many of them think this team is not playing as hard as it should.

I was noticing that all night. I think it's overused to say a team is tanking just because they're having a bad game, but the Cardinals from top to bottom, start to finish, simply did not have any interest in playing. They fumbled their first snap and I don't think one single player hit the ground trying to get the ball. They let the 49ers convert a third-and-18 with an inside handoff on the first drive. There was nothing, no effort, nada.

Anderson's moment with Lutui was the most visible symbol of a teamwide trend, that's why Somers went with it.

 

On a somewhat related note, when I watched Steve Johnson's reaction after the loss to the Steelers, I thought, "Good for him for getting so distraught. I can't stand when players make a bad play that helps cost or costs a team the game and five seconds after the final gun, they're yukking it up with their buddies on the opposing team.

As for Anderson, he probably has a right to be upset at the reporter's unnecessary insistence, but as the SO pointed out, he gets paid a whole lot of money for a job in which dealing with the media is a large part, so sack up.

 

I'l make one more attempt here, without being so snarky. I cover an NFL team. If I found myself in the situation Kent Somers was in, I hope I would handle it pretty much exactly the way he did.
I have a ton of respect for the way he covers the Cardinals.

And I really don't like it when a discussion here, instead of asking "what'd you guys think of this?" seems to start with the assumption a reporter did something wrong.

The point about the PR staff is really on target, I certainly wouldn't criticize anyone for saying that.

If I were going to come on here and rip, say, an NBA beat reporter -- to choose a pretty unfamiliar realm for me -- I would hope I would keep in mind that I don't really know this guy, or his job, or much of the context at all.
Not that I wouldn't criticize, but I would want to say all that up front. I hope.

 

Exactly. These days, fans expect athletes to be anything but human. Remember that scene if Fever Pitch, when the Red Sox lost Game 3, and Varitek and Co. were out at a restaraunt "eating?" And they were furious about it?

Of course this isn't the same thing, but the guy was laughing about something. Who knows what it was. Maybe the offensive lineman just let out a huge fart. Who could contain laughter in that situation? Certainly not me. The point is, these guys are human and I really don't give a shit if he's laughing for 10 seconds or not.

Heck, the more I think about it, maybe that's exactly what it was, and Anderson didn't want to sell out his teammate for his stankness. He should be lauded.

 

But you don't know how trivial it is unless you inquire about the context. It's trivial now because it's been discussed ad nauseam. It's trivial to 'seasoned' reporters because we're disconnected from some of the emotions fans (our readers) feel when watching the game.

Whether it's "brow-beating" or not, Somers said fans were talking about it already, and he has a duty as a beat reporter to file a story on it. Maybe it could've waited till the media session in the locker room on Wednesday, but it was a hot-button topic that needed clarification then. If you're a reporter who's satisfied with transcribing a quote when you know it's a lie, then you're doing it wrong.

Anyone who's ever interviewed an NFL athlete knows the vague response when asked about the dialogue on the field. It's not ever open for discussion, because that's between the players. But Anderson's blow up is as much of an admission of guilt as we'll get.

Cooler heads would've responded, "I laughed so the cameras wouldn't see me cry."

 

As an aside, it's a pain to be covering a game and have to react to something that TV makes a big deal about.

You may not have seen or heard it or just caught part of it.

The announcers make a big deal of it, and you sitting in the press box or heading down to the field are blissfully unaware until you get a call from your editor.

 

This.

You beat me to it, but there was a total fail by the PR staff here. Anderson needed to be warned that this was coming. He had no idea. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I don't think he intentionally lied about not laughing. I think he had no clue as to what was being asked.

 

The answer to that last question is "no," at least not for the year Anderson made the Pro Bowl. Compare to Mike Broyla's 1976 Pro Bowl "worthy" season (as I understand it, he was something like the fifth or sixth QB chosen for the NFC). And then he didn't play a down in 1977.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BoryMi00.htm

 

WFW. I don't think it's emphasised in sports enough, but I sure got this message in my 10 years on the news side: We are the eyes and ears of our readers. Die-hard Cardinals fans (yes, there are a few!) I'm sure wanted to know what was going on. It's easy to let opinion replace knowledge, but Somers went out and asked the questions.

 

A couple of random thoughts about the entire episode:

(1) It makes me wonder if the beat writer and Anderson have much of a relationship. Or even know each other. Typically, at least it has been my experience, players usually cut a break to the guys they see every day. Usually, they know the beat writers and there is at least a degree of professional respect and plain old common decency between the two parties. I've seen beat writers ask really, really, really tough questions of players and coaches - hell, I've done it myself, and I'm by no means some macho man badass in awkward situations - and nobody even flinches.

I guess, long story short, I am surprised that Anderson's reaction came after a question by a guy who is around every single day. I would have guessed, after watching it, that it came from a weekend warrior or national writer.

(2) This is Exhibit 1,239,375 of why the press conference format, a necessary evil, absolutely sucks. If this was a one-on-one, or even a group gang-bang with mostly guys that Anderson knows, I'm willing to bet that you don't get anywhere close to the reaction. Deadline has something to do with it, too, because of the tick-tock, tick-tock of the clock everyone knows is going on in the background. Because of the format, you really have to press the question, and don't have the time to explain the context or lead the athlete where you want him to go. In a press conference format, Anderson likely felt put on the spot. That doesn't necessarily happen in a more informal setting where everyone can be a human being and the cameras aren't rolling.

 

The Cardinals do have fans, actually, and most of them are shredding Anderson for it, not Somers. Unless the Arizona Republic censors comments, the support among Cardinals fans is overwhelmingly for Somers.