Poz *****-slaps Chass

[shockey]

So no friend or admirer of yours is allowed to defend you?

it depends.if we're all in the same room, absolutely. on an obscure blog page against the rantings of 'murray from manhattan (or wherever he lives) i'd certainly hope not. that's going waaaaay out of your way to 'correct the record' vs. obscure, bitter blogger.

now, i fully admit i have not looked closely at the blog rant in question; is there a long stream of people on there commenting that they never knew this about musial and are accepting this as fact?

if so, in that case i can understand joe p. feeling there was a growing legion of people he needed to straighten out. but to simply react to the blog itself? i just thought joe p. was bigger than that.

 

[Azrael]

i just thought joe p. was bigger than that.

C'mon.

 

[YankeeFan]

I'm glad he wrote it.

I don't know enough about Musial to know if he's racist or not. And, even though the Chass blog was based on second hand accounts, it left me wondering.

No one deserves to be falsely claimed to be a racist.

 

[jr/shotglass]

So no friend or admirer of yours is allowed to defend you?

it depends.if we're all in the same room, absolutely. on an obscure blog page against the rantings of 'murray from manhattan (or wherever he lives) i'd certainly hope not. that's going waaaaay out of your way to 'correct the record' vs. obscure, bitter blogger.

now, i fully admit i have not looked closely at the blog rant in question; is there a long stream of people on there commenting that they never knew this about musial and are accepting this as fact?

if so, in that case i can understand joe p. feeling there was a growing legion of people he needed to straighten out. but to simply react to the blog itself? i just thought joe p. was bigger than that.

I will say that I think the "murray from manhattan" is a bit, well, overstated.

It's not as if this is some 49-year-old CPA blogging from his attic.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

ange.i admire joe p. as much as i do any sports scribe. murray, as we all know, is increasingly bitter, staining a once stellar rep in baseball circles, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of us to know how much his well-documented health issues in recent years has contributed to the ramblings on HIS blog.

however, it is HIS blog; it goes uncensored and unedited, as far as i know. i am in NO WAY defending what murray wrote about musial. but i come here to simply argue i wish joe p. had kept this blog to himself. i understand fully when a blogger responds if he or she is under attack; in cases such as this, i don't believe it's any active PROFESSIONAL'S place to 'correct for the record' a wrong a BLOGGER has posted.

murray and his rants/ravings couldn't be more irrelevant now. if those 'fans' he still has read these blogs and take them as the gospel, what's the big deal? only absolute fools put any credence into murray's blogs; anyone who accepts them as the god's-honest-truth are as irrelevant as he's become.

sorry, i certainly undertand why joe p. was conflicted about posting it, and i also understand why many here have jumped on the bandwagon to applaud
him for 'taking murray on.' um, taking who on? a bitter, old, irrelevant blogger?

i thought joe p. came up small here, bullying a blogger. truthfully, i'd be more impressed if i saw more examples of joe p. 'taking on' active members of the sporting world for a change.

no one writes more moving, feel-good or heartbreak-hotel pieces than joe p. i wish i had half of his talent. but i don't know that i've ever read many 'tough-guy' pieces from joe. wish he'd put on that hat more often where it would count...

okay, all of you who feel joe p. can do no wrong, let me have it...

Ten posts into the thread, this is the line you draw in the sand? Anyone who steps forward to defend Joe's column (or agree with it) means that person thinks he can do no wrong?

Can't we discuss things without baiting, without setting up these wild extremes that don't account for gray areas and middle ground? This is a pretty complex topic, if we allow it to be. For one thing, Chass is not just "a blogger," as others have pointed out. Let's not set up polar-opposite camps that don't need to exist. I think there's a lot of "Yes, but" and "No, but" here.

 

[Dan Feldman]

I have no problem with this because this was in a blog, not some idiot writing a column in the Detroit News about something Simers wrote.

So, in your mind, blogs should have lower standards than newspapers?

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

Murray is Willie Mays playing for the Mets or, perhaps more to the point, **** Young in the Post.

His game is gone, and he's embarrassing himself.

 

[shockey]

Ten posts into the thread, this is the line you draw in the sand? Anyone who steps forward to defend Joe's column (or agree with it) means that person thinks he can do no wrong?

Can't we discuss things without baiting, without setting up these wild extremes that don't account for gray areas and middle ground? This is a pretty complex topic, if we allow it to be. For one thing, Chass is not just "a blogger," as others have pointed out. Let's not set up polar-opposite camps that don't need to exist. I think there's a lot of "Yes, but" and "No, but" here.

um, lighten up, francis. ::) ::) ::)

 

[Mark McGwire]

No, JD's right. You use that schtick all the time, and it's old.

And you're dead wrong about this, and dishonest to boot. If someone started a thread here calling you a racist, you wouldn't respond? Cause it's just a web site? Bull. Bull, and you know it's bull.

 

[YankeeFan]

No, JD's right. You use that schtick all the time, and it's old.

And you're dead wrong about this, and dishonest to boot. If someone started a thread here calling you a racist, you wouldn't respond? Cause it's just a web site? Bull. Bull, and you know it's bull.

On the Schtick Meter, shockey registers about a 1 out of 10.

"Mark McGwire" on the other hand...

 

[shockey]

No, JD's right. You use that schtick all the time, and it's old.

And you're dead wrong about this, and dishonest to boot. If someone started a thread here calling you a racist, you wouldn't respond? Cause it's just a web site? Bull. Bull, and you know it's bull.

puh-leeze, mm, if you're gonna come after me at least get my stance straight. i never said i'd never defend MYSELF if a blogger misrepresented me; i took issue with joe p. opting to get involved by attacking a bitter, old, irrelevant blogger about something he wasn't involved with and i would have preferred he took a pass on.

heck, he admitted he was torn about whether to hit the 'send' button. imo, it wasn't a shining moment for him to get involved. maybe i'm overestimating how irrelent murray has become, but i'm guessing more folks saw joe p.'s defense of 'stan the man' than there were folks who ever even saw murray's blog or even knew one existed.

you don't like when i try diffusing the mood with throwaway lines like, 'lighten up, francis,' or say some folks see no wrong in anything joe p. does? tough spit. that's how i choose to roll sometimes. such is life... but thanks, man. i always wanted to have a 'schtick.' :D

 

[YankeeFan]

maybe i'm overestimating how irrelent murray has become, but i'm guessing more folks saw joe p.'s defense of 'stan the man' than there were folks who ever even saw murray's blog or even knew one existed.

Hard to say. In a "viral" universe, who knows how many people have linked to this or emailed it to someone.

And, like mizzou said, he didn't reply to a blog in a magazine or newspaper, he did it with a blog. That also makes it easy for people who are discussing the original blog post -- like us -- to link to a credible rebuttal.

 

[shockey]

maybe i'm overestimating how irrelevant murray has become, but i'm guessing more folks saw joe p.'s defense of 'stan the man' than there were folks who ever even saw murray's blog or even knew one existed.

Hard to say. In a "viral" universe, who knows how many people have linked to this or emailed it to someone.

And, like mizzou said, he didn't reply to a blog in a magazine or newspaper, he did it with a blog. That also makes it easy for people who are discussing the original blog post -- like us -- to link to a credible rebuttal.

fair enough.

 

[Mark McGwire]

First, it isn't a throwaway and it doesn't defuse anything. If it did, JD wouldn't have posted that. It's assigning motive to those who disagree with you preemptively. It's passive aggressive and logically spurious.

Second, your whole premise makes no sense. The right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of who does it. To let Chass' commentary -- full of attribution that should make any working journalist puke on her shoes -- stand does a disservice to all of us.

You make the assumption that Posnanski paused because it wasn't his place, and you make it without any evidence. Stan Musial certainly isn't likely to be able to defend himself in that forum. It was pretty clear he paused because he respected Chass' body of work, and didn't want to be the one who had to destroy him like that. He hit publish because despite his personal distaste at having to do it, it had to be done.

 

[mb]

I'm guessing he hesitated because nobody wants to be the one to have to take Ol' Yeller out behind the barn. But when it's time, it's time.

 

[Mark McGwire]

I'm guessing he hesitated because nobody wants to be the one to have to take Ol' Yeller out behind the barn. But when it's time, it's time.

Yup.

 

[Double Down]

Shockey, let's flip the regional bias here. Let's say some should-be-retired journalist from the midwest, someone who used to be a titan in the industry, decided out of nowhere to fire some shots at New York/New Jersey athelte you'd written about extensively over the years, someone you considered a man of honor, someone who you'd seen do wonderful things for people over the years, and someone you had interviewed so many times, you maybe even thought of yourself as friendly, if not outright friends.

I'd wager you wouldn't let that kind of slander go without some kind of rebuttal, especially if you had a widely-respected and widely-read blog where you regularly wrote about yourself, your work, and your personal life. You have athletes you admire and like from your years working in your market, and you'd be working your corners too if someone was slapping them down. In fact, I've seen you do it here on SportsJournalists.com.

I imagine part of why Joe hesitated before doing what he did is this is not typically his style. He's not a hit man, or even a hit-back guy. But what is Stan Musial going to do, sit down and write a 1,500-word rebuttal to Murray Chass' lies? Musial deserved a rebuttal, and Pos stood tall for him.

I always find it a little silly when someone picks a fight, someone else responds, and the responder is called out for being thin-skinned or not just letting it go. Nonsense, I say. A man punches one of my friends in the face, or even someone I deeply admire, he better steel himself cause I'm coming across the table with my arm cocked.

 

[Boom_70]

Surprised that Pos did not mention that story as Miller told it to Chass. I would think most would take direct quotes from Marvin Miller as credible.
Maybe it did not fit his narrative:

Musial, with a partner, had a restaurant (a “posh restaurant,” Miller said) in St. Louis called Stan Musial & Biggie’s. Flood and some of his teammates, also African-American and all former teammates of Musial, Miller said, made plans to attend a celebration at the restaurant. This was some time after Musial retired following the 1963 season.

“Flood organized this group of African-American players,” Miller related, “He got together a group that had known Musial as a teammate and they thought it was appropriate that they should go. As he said to me, ‘We didn’t always dress up but that night we did. We wore freshly pressed pants, shirts, ties, jackets and off we went to help celebrate with our former teammate.

“When we got to the restaurant, the maitre d’ refused to seat us,” Flood told Miller.

“He said they wanted to know why that was,” Miller continued, “and the maître d’ finally pointed around the restaurant and said, ‘Do you see any black faces here?’ Flood said he asked ‘Is this your idea?’ No, he said. The owner had given him instructions. They left.”

 

[Double Down]

Seeing as Flood has been dead for 14 years, it's kind of hard to say whether or not he'd feel comfortable with a 93-year-old Marvin Miller telling stories accurately on his behalf, especially when Miller was apparently telling them to Chass in a way that appeared differently in Flood's own autobiography.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Ten posts into the thread, this is the line you draw in the sand? Anyone who steps forward to defend Joe's column (or agree with it) means that person thinks he can do no wrong?

Can't we discuss things without baiting, without setting up these wild extremes that don't account for gray areas and middle ground? This is a pretty complex topic, if we allow it to be. For one thing, Chass is not just "a blogger," as others have pointed out. Let's not set up polar-opposite camps that don't need to exist. I think there's a lot of "Yes, but" and "No, but" here.

um, lighten up, francis. ::) ::) ::)

This made me laugh out loud, because ... well, that's essentially what I was trying to tell you.

:)