Whose credibility takes more of a hit: A-Rod or Gammons?

I know there are a couple of threads on the A-Rod stuff, but I think this deserves a spot on the journalism board. As a journalist watching the interview, I felt very, very uncomfortable. Not because A-Rod was trying to tell as little of the truth as possible, but because Peter Gammons was wholly complicit in it. Listen, I know Gammons can't make a scene and force A-Rod to say something that he wasn't going to say anyway. But this was like watching Sean Hannity interview Dick Cheney.

 

Re: Who's credibility takes more of a hit: A-Rod or Gammons?

There's no reason that A-Rod couldn't have said everything he said to Gammons to someone from Sports Illustrated. But he stonewalled them, then settled in for a long, cozy session with Gammons/ESPN.

Whatever status it implies when a big-get interviewee agrees to talk to a particular reporter ("Gammons is the baseball reporter baseball players respect"), it ought to unnerve said reporter, too. It suggests that the interviewee doesn't fear the exchange and, in fact, might feel confident of spinning the story.

 

Re: Who's credibility takes more of a hit: A-Rod or Gammons?

As to WHOSE credibility is damaged, I'd say A-Rod's.

 

Except credibility is, by nature, the only reason Gammons' job exists. Did anybody else catch his debriefing of the interview with Brian Kenny, or whomever the anchor happened to be? It gave me the willies.

Here's another journalistic question: Shouldn't ESPN reveal how the interview was set up? Where was it filmed? Was Scott Boras in attendance? All of this is necesarry context.

 

Guess I neglected the question: I agree, of course. No one turns down A-Rod if he's willing to do this interview. Too bad A-Rod gets to pick and choose who he talks to, and when. Someone with subpoena power asking the questions (i.e, not George Mitchell) doesn't have to worry about that.

 

It isn't about turning the interview down. It is about asking basic follow-up questions and not being so blinded by your partiality that you think the interview was from Rodriguez's heart when the rest of the country was throwing shit at their television sets.

 

A-Roid, and it's not even close. Journalists and former journalists might be tempted to say Gammons, but the average baseball fan couldn't give a shit less about Gammons and his cred. It's all about A-Roid for them.

At water coolers around the country tomorrow, people will be talking about A-Roid, not Gammons.

 

Whether or not you like his line of questioning, Gammons got the interview and he breaks the story. End of story.

All you Woodwards and Bernsteins out there critiquing the whole body of work involved here, I ask these questions:

1. Why didn't you get the interview first?
2. Do you really think if you had gone hard after A-Rod he would have cooperated and answered your questions? Or would he have clammed up as soon as you did a (younger) Dan Rather or Geraldo on him?

 

Or watching Keith Olbermann or Joe Klein interview Barack Obama.

 

So you don't criticize anyone unless you've done whatever they're doing better?

Garbage.

 

Gammons hasn't had much credibility for some time.

That said, he probably got the interview by agreeing to certain conditions. That's not exactly uncommon in this day and age. It happens all the time. In a case like this one, it's obvious. In a lot of cases, it's not.

 

Part of how good you are as a reporter is what sort of access you have cultivated over the years. Gammons has apparently done that very well. It's not about coming onto this site and stewing about it. If you can do it better, go show the world right now. One thing we know---you won't be first, and that counts for a lot in this business.