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

Please tell me you are typing this from a high school girls basketball game.

Why didn't I get the interview first? Because I don't cover the Yankees and, therefore, I don't give a fuck. The question you should be asking yourself is "Why did Selena Roberts not get the interview, and why did Peter Gammons get the interview?" Sit down and chew on that one for a little while, and you'll realize that what you call "Breaking a story" is actually orchestrated spin that, unfortunately, a respected member of the business seemed thrilled to have taken part in.

 

So Roger Ebert shouldn't review movies? David Fricke shouldn't review CDs?

You have just told us that we "never played the game."

Gammons' interview is absolutely fair game on a journalism board, a place where I promise you that plenty of us have had some pretty damned good give-and-takes with some pretty big-name blowhards in our time.

That interview was garbage and we deserve the "toy department" label, honest to God. Can you imagine Tim Russert doing that interview? Or, shit, Bill O'Reilly?

You don't let that shit go unchallenged. You just don't. And you especially don't let it go unchallenged and then gush afterward.

But this, my friends, from someone who has been behind those clubhouse doors, is the understood relationship between many baseball writers and their subjects. They grant access. We ask just enough so that we can all still play golf together on the next road trip with no hard feelings.

 

This was worse than Screamin' A.'s interview with Owens.

 

I guess Pedro Gomez was not available because of Bonds trial. They really needed someone to ask tough questions such as Gomez, Stewy or Stephen A

 

Stewy's first question: "Man fuck those guys."

 

I was a little concerned when Gammons said he "spent some time" with Rod last night, but didn't know what would come out during the interview. If you're a journalist, what DO you spend time talking about with Rod if not roids?

 

He might have spent the time trying to convince A-Rod to do the interview. I posted this on another thread, but it's worth repeating. This wasn't supposed to be a cross-examination. It was A-Rod's confession on the record. In direct testimony, you want the subject to keep talking. Later for hole poking.
Peter's closeness to players isn't my style. But he did nothing wrong journalistically here. I know some on this board want A-Rod crucified, but getting his admission advanced the story in a big way.

 

OK, defend the gushing afterward then, about how A-Rod came totally clean. Does Tim Russert do that?

 

Except Gammons said in his gushing debriefing session afterward that he didn't know Rodriguez was going to admit that he used steroids. Nowhere in our description as journalists does it say that we should allow the outlet that we represent to be turned into a platform for dictating a subject's point of view, even in the name of the almighty "scoop." We aren't talking about a cross-examination. We are talking about basic follow-up questions.

Examples:

"Alex, you keep mentioning GNC. Are you saying that your positive drug test might have come from something you purchased over the counter?"

"Alex, I'm confused about what you are saying. Are you saying that you never knowingly ingested a substance that you knew to be illegal?"

"Alex, you said in your interview with Katie Couric 14 months ago that you had never seen any evidence of steroid use in the clubhouse. Yet you are saying here that it was 'loosey goosey' back when you took your illegal substance. Doesn't that seem to be something of a disconnect?'"

"Alex, you know that some people out there will find it very hard to believe that a professional athlete whose body is his temple did not know what he was putting into his body. What would you say to those people?"

How many times did A-Rod reference an illegal "substance?" Each time, it just begged for the interviewer to say, "Alex, you keep referring to what you ingested as a 'substance.' Was it a steroid? Was it ingected? Did you take it orally? What, exactly, are you apologizing for?'"

This was a well-orchestrated PR interview, and Gammons let them get away with it. All the headlines now are about how "A-Rod Comes Clean," when, in reality, he didn't say anything more than Bonds has said.

 

Michael,

Except there will be no more prodding. This was it. A-Rod's strategy is simple (and smart): Do one interview, get it out there, then refuse to answer any more questions about it from here on forward. You'll see a smiling A-Rod arrive at Yankees camp. He'll joke with reporters, and when the camera flips on, you'll see him say, "I talked about everything in the ESPN interview. I'd love to answer any baseball-related questions, but as far as I'm concerned, that other chapter in my life is closed." And then if he gets hammered with steroids questions, he will simply end the session. But he likely won't get hammered with steroids questions. Because, in the end, the guy with the access wins.

The only way this will come back to bite A-Rod in the ass -- and I'm betting this is exactly what happens -- is, now that it is out there, people who have knowledge of A-Rod's steroid use will come forward. And when they do, if there is any evidence to suggest he was using before or after 2001-03, he's fucked. But Gammons even managed to fuck the one really good question he did ask. When asking A-Rod if 2001-03 was the timeframe A-Rod used, A-Rod answered that time frame was "Pretty accurate."

A guy tells you something is "Pretty accurate" and you don't ask him to clarify? That's like a union head telling a player he may or may not have failed a drug test and not prompting a follow up from that player. Oh wait. . .

 

If Rodriguez's statements have holes, those holes will be found, exposed, and he'll be under the same pressure he was before talking to Gammons. You're right. But before holes can be found, they must be dug. So Peter just lent A-Rod the shovel and watched the dirt fly. That's not dogged investigative journalism. It is, however, how a great many interviews take place. It doesn't damage Peter's credibility, because, let's face it, how he deals with ballplayers is no secret.

 

This is why I think this "get" had more to do with ESPN being a gargantuan, name outlet in sports than it necessarily did with Peter Gammons being a trusted icon as an individual reporter.

Sources/teams often choose which papers/media outlets -- and by extension, which reporters -- they will speak to, or speak to first, much to the consternation of their competitors. And ESPN was going to take whatever A-Rod wanted to offer, no questions asked, so to speak.

A-Rod wanted the largest stage possible, a way to reach as many people and have the widest audience possible in putting this out there -- once, and only once, and for all.

The way to do that would have been to use ESPN, which surely would have assigned Gammons, its designated baseball god, to the interview, anyway, if he wasn't already on it previously.

This was not a get, or breaking something, in the truest sense. In fact, it was "a given" more than a get, because, for A-Rod's purposes, only ESPN would do, anyway.

To say otherwise would imply that Gammons would have gotten that interview if he had worked at the Podunk Press. And, in all likelihood, that never would have happened. Not even for Gammons.