The Jay Glazer dilemma

That was unique. IIRC, Jenks had just left the Inquirer and had been selected as a judge before joining MLB.com.

 

So what.

Fox. Henhouse. Hell, why not just bring on Bobby Jenks to objectively judge coverage of Major League Baseball? Same difference.

I'm sorry if taking a job with the people you cover impedes your ability to hang out with your pals, but it does. At least if your pals want to retain their credibility. And I guess they didn't.

 

How do you know what "we" have a problem with?

Some people don't measure their outrage by how many message-board posts they can make.

Some people's "problem," like mine, manifests itself in complete indifference, i.e., "Glazer/Fox/Verducci/SI is not worth the outrage anymore."

 

OK, I'll rephrase:

Through the years, the general tenor of this board, measured unscientifically via observation, has seemed to be that conflicts of interest in sports reporting are not a huge concern. There are, of course, notable exceptions among individual posters.

And, for the record, it is obvious that I'm against conflicts of interest. I think they advance the notion of sports as the toy department, and that they would not be acceptable in other areas of journalism. For a recent example, there is the "60 Minutes" Benghazi report flap. But at the same time, it's certainly possible that other people feel differently, that sports shouldn't be holding itself to news-side's ethics standards, and that's perfectly OK. That sports are, first and foremost, fun.

 

My main complaint about the interview was that I would have aired a good 20 minutes of it.

 

You need to stop acting as if you're the only righteous shepherd amongst the sheep, then falling back on "I'm just asking the questions!" whenever called on your condescension. There are plenty of people here who find "journalists" like Glazer abominable, but can't muster up any outrage on this website because we know it will make absolutely no difference. We aren't changing the word here in-between listing our favorite Geico commercials. I try to teach my students the right and the wrong way to do this, try to point out the problems with such blatant conflicts of interest, because I suspect that's a much more productive use of my time than shouting into the wind, grumbling about Jay Glazer, a muscled-up, HGH-infused hack who works for a honking propaganda machine.

I agree with your point, and Zirin's point, but I've grown weary of Zirin's righteous lectures. He has graduated from one-trick pony status and is now a one-trick thoroughbred capable of winning the One-Trick Belmont by 23 lengths. His brand of journalism has become as boring as the propaganda the Glazers of the world are spinning, even if I frequently agree with his points. There is no gray areas in sports for him, only the right and the criminally wrong. You either deep throat the liberal, anti-corporate message he's churning out at 2,000-words an hour, or you're an enemy of the state who must be attacked and shamed on Twitter each day.

Where you are getting that he's somehow writing for The Nation for free, however, I can't imagine. He is a full-time writer there. He isn't doing this as a hobby.

 

What I mean is that The Nation isn't in direct economic cahoots with the DNC. It carries its water pro bono.

 

Oh, I'm not just asking questions. I think what Glazer does is abominable - even though I acknowledge it got FOX the texts, which are objectively valuable. And I also think what APSE and Jenks did was abominable. I'm very clear about that. But I'm acknowledging that my view of what sports journalism should be might be different from others think it should be.

 

Seeing as The Nation is a lot further left than the Democratic party, I'm not sure carrying the water is the right phrasing for what they're doing. Zirin has carved out his niche, I guess, dreaming up new leftist angles each day that he can use to thrust himself into the daily sports conversation. I highly doubt he'd lift a finger for Harry Reid if Reid wanted to bring a basketball team to Las Vegas.

 

You're right about that. Their Edwards Snowden coverage, in particular, was a fucking joke. To even begin processing any of their arguments, you had to start from the premise that Snowden was a goddamned American hero.

 

What is the "dilemma" that the thread title references? A dilemma is a choice between two unattractive options. What does Fox find unattractive about this situation? Or is the dilemma supposed to be ours?

 

The Nation is like a better-written, but more hysterical and self-hating version of the National Review. At least Mother Jones has people who you can imagine typing without hyperventilating while they read recaps of The Wire.