SMG bags a heavyweight ... Dave Anderson

Another first-rate interview

http://www.sportsmediaguide.com/20071128-DaveAnderson.asp

Snippet:

Q. Did you feel that way when your column on Tiger Woods was spiked?

A. Interesting you ask that. They had spiked Harvey Araton before that - the same week. I was reading Tuesday's paper and realized there was no column - Harvey wasn't in. He had written a piece about how Martha Burk had more important things to do than worry about Augusta National. The issue was a pet of (Executive Editor) Howell Raines. I can't tell you the reasoning, but between Howell Raines and (Managing Editor) Gerald Boyd they spiked Harvey's column. I wasn't supposed to write until Thursday, but (SE) Neil Amdur called me and said the editorial page is saying Tiger should boycott the Masters. That's when I knew I wanted to write about it. Tiger is a golfer - if he wants to boycott let him but if he wants to play golf let him play golf. Neil doubted it would fly, but I still filed it, and it didn't.

My thinking was that editors are entitled to do that. It bothered me that they thought that way but they have the right to think that way. I kind of forgot about it. A week later a reporter from the Daily News called and asked about it. I said 'yeah' and told him what happened. The next day they had the story - that's when it blew up. The day Neil told me about the column being spiked he never mentioned Raines - he only mentioned Gerald Boyd. I don't know if Boyd did it by himself or if he talked to Raines. When it appeared in the Daily News everybody got up in arms, which was great because the guys in trouble were Raines and Boyd. They eventually published our columns the next Sunday. All I had mentioned was that Tiger's critics included the New York Times editorial board, and that's the only thing they took out when they published it. I said they could have taken that out two weeks ago.

 

as a columnist, why couldn't anderson mention the editorial board's position on tiger?
i can see why a news reporter might have to steer clear - but why a columnist?


interesting comment on dick young.

 

Great interview with a genuine gentleman.

Loved this line: "Most of these guys think the louder they say something the more important it is."

 

he is so modest. if he were trying to break in today, i wonder if anybody would notice him.

 

No.

 

Just his view on using "I" in his columns would doom him in the look-at-me age.

 

anderson's comment on dick young was telling.

now, there's a guy who would have thrived today.

can you imagine dick young on PTI or Around the Horn?

he would have blown away any of these loudmouths today.

young was the prototype for the shrill, look-at-me, i-have-an-opinion-on-everything blabbermouth.

the last thing you would ever hear kornheiser or wilbon or mariotti or ryan say is "i have no opinion about that". they are constitutionally unable to say it. even if it's the high school volleyball quarterfinals.

that's dick young's legacy.