SMG on a roll: Thomas Boswell

Our buddy PhantomPunch seems to enjoy ripping others.

Seems like he has a hard-on for certain types.

 

One difference with all the Watergate analogies: Reporting on Nixon never really went 180 degrees from where Woodward-Bernstein pointed, did it? Yet in 1998, the nation's baseball writers and columnists were covering McGwire-Sosa, with very little skepticism about their numbers, their physiques or anything else. It wasn't just that few or none were digging up the steroids story, it's that so many were giddily covering the symptoms without looking hard at the cause.

Or everyone was just satisfied that the ball were being "sewn tighter" in Haiti or wherever.

 

Joe, you're right.
One the baseball front, we heard (saw?) thoughts, rumors and suspicions about the '93 Phillies. Yet, in '98 we -- yes, we -- were along for the rebirth. More "caught-up" than "caught-in."

These days, athletes and coaches are often critical of us looking into something that isn't there. They may be right. It's a lesson learned from steroids in baseball and a war.

 

Only the Post did Watergate for a long time. Most newspapers acted as if a president-due-to-be-reelected-by-landslide could never have been so stupid/venal as to order, commit, and cover up crimes; so, yes, as sportswriters looked the other way in '98, political writers looked the other way in '72.

 

My point with the Watergate analogy was this: It's one thing to be skeptical. It's another to have hard evidence. Yeah, many writers were caught up in the moment in 1998. I also remember quite a bit of skepticism, but that alone isn't enough. Finding the hard evidence, the proof that the use of steroids and other illegal enhancers was rampant in an era where there was no testing or BALCO investigation, would have taken a Watergate-like effort.

 

market forces are at work.

sports is entertainment. it's not life and death and national security is not at stake. sports is an escape. if sports media focuses on investigative stuff it's not good business.

you might argue that sports will alienate its audience if it's corrupt tendencies are not arrested. but that doesn't seem to be the case. sports fans don't seem to mind the corruption, judging by attendance figures and ratings. the only thing that seems to get fans pissed off is when the games are not played, i.e, the baseball strike in 94.

you can't compare Watergate with the steroid story. one involved the corruption of our political system - how we govern ourselves. the other involves how we entertain ourselves. yes, some people place a high priority on entertainment, but with all due respect, it's not as important.

 

I think this is generally true but only to a certain point. If a vast conspiracy to fix the Super Bowl were uncovered, that would involve a massive defrauding of the public and would have to involve heavyweight underworld figures and possibly politicians as well...that's more than just an entertainment story.

Baseball is a $6 billion industry and MLB has an antitrust exemption...there is significant public interest at stake here.

 

the thing about entertainment is that it's extremely fungible. there's just so much of it. when the NHL vanished for a season people found plenty of entertainment.
now the guild writers are on strike and certain shows are on hold. but people are finding plenty of entertainment - they just turn over different rocks.

if the super bowl became corrupted by a fix and disappeared - something else would take its place. film, music, mixed martial arts, whatever. entertainment can be replaced, and always is.

our political system, on the other hand, cannot be replaced.

entertainment journalism isn't as important as government and political journalism. yes, it has symbolic value, and tells us a lot about ourselves. and perhaps without the escape provided by entertainment we wouldn't be up to the task of self-government. but we always have a bumper crop of entertainment. good government, on the other hand, is usually scarce.

 

One thing about scandals, the news never breaks as it happens. It's always weeks, months, years before all the pieces are put together. Watergate unfolded this way. So did/does baseball's steroids story. That's why I have never understood the "media was all caught up in it" theory. Wasn't like people were accusing Nixon the day after the break-in. It took time to investigate. Yes, it took the steroids story too long to surface, but it did surface.

 

tim kurkjian:

“My guess is that he [Bud Selig] is not going to suspend Andy Pettitte, and I don’t think he should suspend Andy Pettitte. I mean, if we really look at this in 2002. A guy who used HGH a couple of times in order to get his elbow better so he can come back and help his team. If that is an offense that demands a suspension, then boy we are going to have a whole lot of suspensions out there…. There is a really big difference between using anabolic steroids and HGH a couple of times. HGH helps in recovery. It doesn’t make you bigger and stronger technically so I would be really surprised if a suspension followed this…"



kurkjian is the guy who argued against the Mitchell investigation, saying "What's the point - if you found out what would you do with it?"

what a lightweight.

 

And how would you have written up, say, the HR derby at Fenway?
What would your lede have been?

 

Unless Bos typed out the answers to written questions, the spelling error belongs first to the interviewer, and second to his/her editor. The subject of an interview doesn't usually proof the reprint of the interview.