Steinbrenner -- nice vs. truth

My paper had a lot of coverage of Steinbrenner last week. A few days later, one of the big-wig editors says, "The coverage was too nice. We neglected to talk about how people hated him for so many years."

Well, I wrote a piece on Steinbrenner, and I talked to a handful of people who either met him, knew him, or worked with him. And it just so happens that none of them had anything negative to say about the guy. (It's pretty low to bash a guy on the day he dies.) So I stuck to the nice stuff.

With the exception of Bill Lee, most people were pretty nice to Steinbrenner, and it seemed like the coverage was, too. (Way too many people used the word "bluster," too.) So was the coverage lacking?

Just curious as to how others may have approached the topic.

 

This is not a new phenomena. Death brings memories of the deceased, mostly pleasant ones. No one likes a bag man.
In this instance, it was pretty tough when even Dave Winfield had kind words to say.

I thought the NYT did a nice job of framing the man and not just his triumphs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/sports/baseball/14steinbrenner.html?scp=2&sq=george%20steinbrenner&st=cse

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/george-steinbrenner-and-his-ego/?scp=3&sq=george%20steinbrenner&st=cse

Other coverage:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=george%20steinbrenner

 

Matt Taibbi had a subtle and nuanced take on what the man's death said about America today...

After this, he got kinda negative...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/181073/83512

 

Mushnick & some of the other writers in the new York Post were pretty tough on him.

But like fishwrapper says, when Dave Winfield, Joe Torre, and Don Zimmer ll say nice things about him, what are you going to do?

You can say bad things about him -- and there are a lot of bad things you can say about him -- but there weren't a lot of people that he dealt with that wanted to go on the record blasting him.

(Now to be fair, if you're still employed by the Yankees, you're unlikely to blast him.)

But George did seam to have a need to bring those he had wronged, like Winfield and Yogi, back into the fold.

Now, part of that was that he felt like he needed Yogi at Old Timer's day & such with Joe D. passing away, but still, he did make amends.

The Yankees are still being petty in their lack of acknowledging Torre, but I think that will change eventually too.

 

It's not like the guy was a recluse only known to an inner circle. Just look at the record: convicted felon, suspended from baseball twice, overbearing meddler (to the detriment of his organization), a guy who never truly "got" baseball and had the delusion he was some sort of Rockne-styled motivator.

Just look at what's on the record over his years in New York and report it.

 

Can't wait to see how the media handles Pete Rose's obits. By all account he was a Steinbrennian asshole. But all he wanted to do was win! He bowled over Ray Fosse because he wanted to win! He bet on his team, but only to win! He dove into bases because no one wanted to win more!

Plus, Pete Rose was only suspended from baseball once. Steinbrenner was suspended twice, once for life, but was reinstated by Bud Selig.

Also, Pete Rose will never be booed in Cincinnati, unlike Steinbrenner in NYC.

 

Comparing apples to betting slips. Tough to do.

 

Actually, it's very comparable.

Pete Rose was suspended for life for betting on baseball.

George Steinbrenner was suspended for life from running the Yankees for paying a known gambler to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield.

One was reinstated. The other wasn't.

But they both just wanted to WIN!

 

My guess, they'll shit all over Pete - because Pete's not New York and George is.

 

So did Hitler, and the media savaged him. So said my sister-in-law's grandmother, who emigrated here from Germany but to her dying day said the criticism was overblown. Sore winners, in her opinion.

 

Did she say he started off good, but went too far?