The Giants distancing themselves from Bonds in every way possible

Boom. They are a newspaper. They are in business to sell copies of their newspaper. As long as they don't make up the news, they should be working with whatever stories are out there that people are interested in. They just report the news. They didn't create BALCO or Bonds chasing the record. They just worked with what was there. Nothing hypocritical about it. They'd be a crummy newspaper if they didn't play those important, local stories big.

 

They'd have been idiots to do anything but. Their bottom line is struggling as is. To ignore the biggest sports happening in town, and not play it that way, would have been like saying, "Just consider us irrelevant when it comes to SF sports."

I'm not pollyannish about this. I know that newspaper editorial regimes have agendas, both subtle and overt, and they have a lot of leeway to decide what is and isn't news. But more than things like political coverage or crime, sports comes closest to a pure ideal. The newspaper doesn't MAKE the news. It just runs with whatever news presents itself. And with sports, there are certain stories that you don't really think much about it. You just go with it. Readers expect to find stuff in the paper about it.

Are you really suggesting that the SF Chronicle should NOT have played Bonds' home run chase that way? That kind of homerish countdown is the norm. What do you think that would have meant for newspaper sales and their credibility with readers? And why is it their responsibility to make moral decisions about whether Bonds is a cheat or he is a home run champ? The fact that they took stories relating to both, and played them fairly equally -- just presented the evidence of each -- suggests that they were fairly even-handed in their coverage, not hypocritical.

 

I'll agree to disagree, but my disagreement is that they didn't "find religion." They're not a party to any of this. They're just a newspaper. They print stories.

They didn't make the news. They just reported it. And even in what they reported, it's not like they ignored things for a long time and then suddenly "found religion." The Balco raids happened in September 2003. The Chronicle wrote its first story about it in December 2003, and stayed on top of the story throughout the saga. Using investigative reporting techniques, they broke a great deal of news about Balco and Bonds' alleged involvement. What is the religion they were missing and suddenly found? They came across a story and reported it.

At the same time, Bonds was getting closer to the all-time record. The Giants were celebrating this feat in 2006 and 2007. The Chronicle gave copious coverage to that too. Again, what is the religion they found? It was a major local story. And they gave it the attention any newspaper would have.

They reported two big stories and gave them the play that readers would expect. To the extent that the stories were related, they tied them together. They were fairly even-handed about how they did this. They used sources and investigative reporting with regard to Balco and they used fact with regard to Bonds' performance on the field.

What I am not understanding is what they should they have done differently.

 

That's double-hypocrisy to me. Ride the wave last year, take all the crap down this year, then if he somehow skates by scot-free from his trials and whatever else, put something back up? Maybe in time for the 5th or 10th or 20th anniversary of his record-breaker? Horseshit.

At the same time, I'm enjoying the heck out of this, watching how baseball will now revise its history. They made this bed and the bugs will crawl out of the mattress for years to come. Have fun, Bud.