1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by daemon, Feb 9, 2009.

  1. daemon

    daemon Well-Known Member

    Did he? Did A-Rod admit to using steroids? I know that's what all the headlines say this morning, but I certainly didn't hear it. I heard him admit to using an illegal substance. But I also heard him mentioning the possibility that it might have come over the counter from GNC.

    What, exactly, did ESPN accomplish, other than give A-Rod a chance to say I'm sorry without actually having to admit to, or apologize for, anything.
     
  2. Drip

    Drip Active Member

    Thank you for this post. You are correct but Gammons did mention the drug by name.
     
  3. Sam Craig

    Sam Craig Member

    One thing to remember about Gammons. He is a print reporter by nature, a TV analyst now, perhaps, but his background in interviewing is in print without cameras. Interviewing with the cameras running is a different beast. When I interview a subject for print, I don't have to worry about how I look. I'm just interested in getting the news. The couple of times I've interviewed with a camera present, I'm more self-conscious of what I ask and how I ask it.

    If Gammons came on too strong, he would have been criticized for that and for becoming part of the story or tying to be a prosecuter. If he tries to stay in the background (so to speak) and simply get A-Rod's responses, he can look too soft. Perhaps with all his years with ESPN, Gammons has lost his fastball. But this type of TV interview is usually a no-win situation for the reporter.

    On the whole, Gammons didn't come off too bad. A-Rod lost credibility, especially because with certain follow-ups that weren't asked, everyone else is asking and A-Rod isn't spinning the answer.
     
  4. Shame on Gammons if he gave up his questions ahead of time. Anyone else notice ARod look away from his camera to someone/something to his right a few times? Was he looking for cues from Boras from the sidelines? Was this one on the script skipper? Maybe it was Madonna blowing him kisses from stage right?

    Either way, I think Gammons loses in this court of opinion. He let a lot of follow-ups slide on by, and again, shame on him if he agreed to any stipulations. Gammons is a legend in the Boston area and well deserved from his print days, but the guy has been on the decline for a long time. Good case in point, last summer on the day Manny was dealt to LA, Gammons appeared on the local ESPN radio show in drive time. He was spewing venom at Ramirez, calling Manny a disgrace and labeling his antics at times a "sit-down strike." While all of this may have been true about Manny, where was his vitriol while Ramirez was in town?? Certainly he hadn't showed any of it on Baseball Tonight from April-August.
    It was really lame, and that's an adjective I thought I'd never use to describe Peter Gammons. His lameness quotient certainly went up yesterday. He's a journalist, and at one time a damned good one. His job is to ask questions, and not just the questions his subject agrees to beforehand. ESPN should have told ARod: "Buy an ad !!"
     
  5. Sam Craig

    Sam Craig Member

    I agree that Gammons, if he did it, shouldn't have shown A-Rod all the specific questions before hand, although there's nothing wrong with a reporter generally telling a source what he's going to ask about. In this case, it was simple. You tell A-Rod that you're going to ask if the SI story was correct along with his steroid history.

    The Manny criticism isn't fair to Gammons. Until the sitdown strike, Manny was a model citizen last year, playing well, talking to the media, etc. So there wasn't any reason for Gammons to be critical from April to August. Gammons was critical specifically about the sitdown strike before the trade. He also was critical of other transgressions by Manny during the past eight years, but he was fair about it. Manny wasn't all bad during his tenure in Boston. Most of it, in fact, was good. He just seemed to have these blips once a year (usually) and when he had them, Gammons and others were critical.
     
  6. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Active Member

  7. sg86

    sg86 Member

    In the end, Selena Roberts is going to take the biggest hit.

    A female sports journalist who is apparently trying to break into this guy's apartment to get more info so she can ruin his life?

    Yeah, she's going down in an epic ball of fire.

    If he really has proof of these citations, it doesn't really matter what any fellow journalists think, because the public is going to crucify her. Add in that she has a book about A-Rod coming out soon and it just stinks of trying to sell copies.

    Gammons won't take a hit. I mean Van Pelt just got crucified for rightfully making fun of how Selig made $18.5 million last year. Did anyone here REALLY expect Gammons to lay some death blow on A-Rod?
     
  8. "Trying to sell copies."

    I hear some variation of this all the time. "You're just trying to sell newspapers!"

    Is there any other business that faces this particular criticism?

    "You're just trying to sell cars!"

    "You're just trying to get people to eat at your restaurant!"
     
  9. sg86

    sg86 Member


    The disparity between those situations is that selling a car or having someone dine at your restaurant typically doesn't result in a harsh negative stance against one party or the other.
     
  10. No, no, I get it. But the things people will use that criticism for never fails to astoud me. Any time I've ever broken a negative story, no matter how much public good it did, I was accused of "trying to sell newspapers."

    One thing I always have disliked about sports journalism, BTW, is the celebrity journalism parallel. Cops reporters are working the phones to investigate a grisly murder. We're dealing with sports information directors and publicists - or else going paparazzi on someone's ass. Not sure which one I'm more uncomfortable with.
     
  11. I'm not turning this into Manny bashing, but Jesus Christ, "no reason for gammons to be critical"?? "blips"?? you serious?? And I would like to see/hear Gammons' criticisms of Manny.
     
  12. Sam Craig

    Sam Craig Member

    If you read what I wrote, I said that last year until the sitdown strike before the trade, Manny was on his best behavior. He was playing well, he didn't have any Manny-moments. So what did you expect. Gammons or any analyst to start ripping Manny for the heck of it.

    When Manny had moments (blips may not have been the best description) like the bogus injury in 2007 when he barely played in September, there were plenty of negative comments about it, including from Gammons. If you didn't hear or see them, then it's just selective memory. With Manny or any athlete, you don't have to praise them all the time or be critical of them all the time. With Manny, there was plenty of time for both.

    The same thing with the Gammons interview with A-Rod. Gammons does tend to be soft with on-air interviews. That doesn't make him a bad reporter or wipe out all that he did in the print days. Yes, he's not the same reporter he was. Maybe he is too close to baseball but he gets news that others might not because of that closeness. There are plenty of reporters out there to get the other stuff that he once got back in the day. He is now, afterall, more of a television columnist/analyst than reporter and there is nothing wrong with that. I would prefer him to lessen the TV stuff and be more of the reporter he once was on the website.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page