Verducci rails on cranky old blogger Chass

I think Phil Jackson has perfected it.

 

I love Posnanski and Verducci's work and don't like Chass's, but continuously referring to Chass as a "blogger" is juvenile and should be above both of these guys. They aren't saying it to add to their point. They are using the term to hurt Chass, and that's it.

Come on, men. You are better than that.

EDIT: When I say that I don't like Chass's work, I should make it clear that I am talking about Chass's current work. I am not familiar with his coverage of baseball in the '70s and '80s. I have heard it was groundbreaking, but have had no occasion to read enough of it to make a judgment either way.

 

Joe's point is valid, but his example is not. The Washington thing is not as much about reporting as it is opinion, like a column. Yes, columns need strong reporting, but the fact Washington got caught using cocaine and claimed it was the first time is correct. The rest is Chass' opinion. And, frankly, Chass was right in this case -- Washington's explanation does defy credibility.

 

Chass deserves whatever he gets in my opinion, DW. He's been a snarly scowl of a man for decades and went out of his way to take down Verducci's rep here. Besides, Posnanski gladly refers to HIMSELF as a blogger, which is one of his many hats. He was defending bloggers who actually care about being right far more than trying to slander Murray. He doesn't think "blogger" is a slanderous term (and neither, frankly, do I)

 

And then — there’s this pathetic non-apology. It’s funny, I was over at Baseball Think Factory reading a few comments, and a couple of people actually PRAISED Chass for this absurdity, actually thought he took responsibility for his journalistic atrocity. Are you kidding me? Have our standards fallen so far that THIS excuse for an apology can be viewed by anyone as taking responsibility? Tom Verducci went to the Hall of Fame, asked them if he could go public with his vote to clear his name, and then said publicly he voted for Miller. And Chass STILL blogs that he has “no first hand knowledge of the fact any more than I had reporting that he didn’t vote for Miller?” WHAT? You have Tom Verducci’s first-hand statement RIGHT THERE. He is the MAN WHO VOTED. He’s TELLING YOU what he did. And Chass is now blogging to us that he did “reporting” before to find that Tom didn’t vote for Miller? Last I heard, what Chass did isn’t called reporting. It’s called “assassination of character.”

I raised this point earlier in the thread, but regarding Verducci's confirmation of his vote, is this automatically 100 percent the way things happened? I don't think I have to cite a whole lot of examples for people to understand that someone telling you they did something is not in and of itself confirmation.

Maybe this isn't so much a comment on Chass as it is on the process. I have no reason to doubt Verducci. But unless the Hall issues the entire roll call of who voted yes and who voted no and we can see if it matches up with what the stated results were, why is it impeccable sourcing that Verducci is telling you, sorry, TELLING YOU?

And what happens the next time it comes up, someone gets accuseed of voting one way and they go to the Hall to get clearance to make their vote public and the Hall says no -- is that a confirmation then?

 

Indeed.

The Dick Young comparison (by Smasher earlier in this thread) is quite apt.

 

Lost in all of this is the fact that no one in the general public cares about our battles with each other.

 

I thought it was invented by SEC administrators and athletes, after getting caught for recruiting violatilons.

 

But they presumably care about the HOF vote, and they should have an interest in knowing that information they read is accurate.

Lost in all of this is the Chass blog that preceded the Miller blog -- that Bob Melvin would be named manager of the Mets.