Sam Mellinger Covers a Difficult Subject,

[dkphxf]

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/02/12/2651357/tommy-morrison-now-42-still-clings.html

How would you suggest handling such an odd subject as this?

 

[nattering nabob]

I thought Sam did a great job. He injected just the right amount of skepticism, but he didn't belittle Morrison. Excellent story.

 

[Mark2010]

Interviewed Livingstone Bramble one night several years ago before he got the crap knocked out of him by someone I had never heard of but was 15 years younger. Bramble just couldn't move at all and was a punching bag. It was so sad.

 

[Versatile]

Most stories of former boxers are sad. Mellinger could have painted this with the same broad brushstrokes that cover so many of those stories, but Morrison is so unique in his patheticness that Mellinger just let him speak. Morrison is all sorts of crazy.

 

[friend of the friendless]

Sir,

Interviewed Livingstone Bramble one night several years ago before he got the crap knocked out of him by someone I had never heard of but was 15 years younger. Bramble just couldn't move at all and was a punching bag. It was so sad.

He tried to pick up my missus at a bar up in Canastota on the Boxing HOF induction weekend. Nice guy once it got straightened out. Can't blame him for trying.

YHS, etc

 

[Orange Hat Bobcat]

One of the first stories on Tommy Morrison and the HIV rumors, from one of the first issues of ESPN: The Magazine, by Tom Friend: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3247534

 

[billikens]

Fantastic story. Losing Posnanski and Whitlock during the last two years were rough on the KC Sports section, but Mellinger has really stepped up.

I rarely read comments on the web, but I started looking through the posts about this one and, what do you know, Tommy Morrison himself pops up more than a few times. My favorite:

Hey Sam -
It took you a year to write this article? Your memory must be fading a little...I remember talking to you about my first paperback BOOK:
TOMMY: My Boxing Career...you said you were going to mention it...guess you must have forgotten to write it on the back of your hand bro!
For all the "denialists" on HIV....you can't spread something that doesn't exist....so "Trisha" the "mensa idiot" after 3 years does not test "positive"...now "what" does that tell you?
Sam- really appreciate you keeping the HIV HYPOTHESIS (which means "theory" ) out there in the public...let's do another interview bro on just that subject.
To buy my book..so Trish and I can afford to go eat at more expensive restaurants of your caliber go to my website:
www.TommyTheDukeMorrison.com
Appreciate you showing us a photo of your dog Sam.
And FYI...the GYM is 20 minutes drive from where I live (each way)...and YES I have taken quite a few hits on the head..but I can chew bubble gum, walk,talk and work a blackberry and GPS !
God Bless you Sam looking forward to the next one man...bring your gloves with you..OH and don't forget your boots!
(and by the way...you forgot to mention that there is NO.. repeat NO ...test on the market that detects the presence or the absence of the HIV VIRUS.....ask Dr.Gallo and the FDA and the CDC yourself.

 

[BillyT]

Thanks for pointing that story out.

I thought it was really well-done.

I am not so sure I needed to start reading the comments.

 

[fishwrapper]

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/02/12/2651357/tommy-morrison-now-42-still-clings.html

How would you suggest handling such an odd subject as this?

Something like this would work: http://goo.gl/EzHGp

 

[dkphxf]

Mellinger covered infamous birther Luke Scott in a recent column: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/03/2847923/being-an-athlete-doesnt-make-you.html. Should we, as journalists, be giving these (insert your own word depending on your political allegiance, but I would say crazies) the opportunity to speak on topics like this? We have the megaphone to reach our audience. Should we use that for certain segments of the population?

 

[flexmaster33]

can't get it via the link anymore...did they take it down?

 

[HanSenSE]

Mellinger covered infamous birther Luke Scott in a recent column: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/03/2847923/being-an-athlete-doesnt-make-you.html. Should we, as journalists, be giving these (insert your own word depending on your political allegiance, but I would say crazies) the opportunity to speak on topics like this? We have the megaphone to reach our audience. Should we use that for certain segments of the population?

Granted, what we do in sports isn't rocket surgery, but I lump jocks' opinons on anything outside the lines in the same category as the opinions of entertainers and socialites on things outside their areas of expertise: It's great fodder for the talk shows and it fills the news cycle, but in the big picture, who gives a flying fork?

 

[flexmaster33]

you are correct again HanSen, well said.
I don't care what athletes put up on Twitter, follow a favorite athlete if you wish, but if you're not telling me what tipped you off on the blitzing linebacker on that winning drive, I don't really care much.

 

[dkphxf]

HanSen, I understand your not taking athletes' opinions seriously, but there are millions of fans that worship these guys and gals. Can/will this industry avoid reporting on the Luke Scotts of the world?

 

[HanSenSE]

HanSen, I understand your not taking athletes' opinions seriously, but there are millions of fans that worship these guys and gals. Can/will this industry avoid reporting on the Luke Scotts of the world?

Unfortunately, they probably won't, not when they seem to care more about Donald Trump and Lindsay Lohan than, say, California's economic woes or the latest Bin Laden still dead stories. What it really boils down to is space though. Just because it's written doesn't mean I have to use it, and, with that ever-shrinking news hole, I'd just as soon run stories of greater general interest than the ramblings of Luke Scott or Bruno Mendenhall.

 

[dkphxf]

I understand why the media cover Lindsey Lohan and stories like that, but why give such viewpoints a broadcast like this? For example, the Westboro Church members. They protested the funerals and then thanked the media for providing them with a megaphone (or something to that effect). No coverage means no spreading of their skewed beliefs. Why not treat it like middle school lacrosse?

 

[HanSenSE]

I understand why the media cover Lindsey Lohan and stories like that, but why give such viewpoints a broadcast like this? For example, the Westboro Church members. They protested the funerals and then thanked the media for providing them with a megaphone (or something to that effect). No coverage means no spreading of their skewed beliefs. Why not treat it like middle school lacrosse?

I don't think that's our call, not if we're going to be true to journalism. You can report something, but that doesn't mean you endorse it. A lot of readers get hung up on the fact that, while we cover Podunk High, we don't live and die with them as a fan does. Do you think a cops/courts reporter, by writing about bank robberies and murders, is encouraging such activities? At least lets hope not.

 

[dkphxf]

I don't think the reporter is supporting such actions by writing about those things, but those things are important to the community -- where is there crime, who's been killed, etc.

But why does it matter whether Luke Scott believes Obama was born or not born in Hawaii? I believe this type of sensationalizing, taking advantage of a strange viewpoint because you need something, strengthens those viewpoints in the public's eye. For example, when suicides are reported, more people commit suicide, thinking it's more of a societal norm.

Why can't the media just ignore stories like this? Are we really that desperate and lack the reporting skills to chase real stories?