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!

Reporting on the Mitchell Report . . .

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by BillyT, Dec 13, 2007.

Page 2 of 3
  1. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    this part made me want to vomit:

    To paraphrase: It doesn't matter if we are right. We want to be aggressive and combative. And we can, because were Fox. And if you don't like it, fuck you. Our ratings are going up.
     
    Some Guy, Dec 14, 2007
    #13
  2. joe king

    joe king Active Member

    Headline of the day:

    [​IMG]



    Edit: Doh!!!!! Just saw this on another thread. Sorry.
     
    joe king, Dec 14, 2007
    #14
  3. dieditor

    dieditor Member

    Exactly. I thought journalists were supposed to be aggressive and hard-hitting, but when did combative enter the scene?
     
    dieditor, Dec 14, 2007
    #15
  4. Pulitzer Wannabe

    Pulitzer Wannabe Guest

    Looks interesting. I know it becomes a parlor game sometimes, but I've wondered myself how far it might go back - is it possible that Maris was using in 1961? Spike in performance. Hair loss. Hmmm ...

    Joe Morgan I call B.S. on, though. His power numbers follow a natural path - spiking in his late 20s/early 30s.
     
    Pulitzer Wannabe, Dec 15, 2007
    #16
  5. tjbball54

    tjbball54 New Member

    Looks like a Bill Clinton expression...guilty
     
    tjbball54, Dec 15, 2007
    #17
  6. Dave Kindred

    Dave Kindred Member

    I posted this on the Boswell thread, only to realize it fits better in a discussion about the reporting Mitchell's task force did. It just seems to me that the press has been too quick to accuse itself of missing the steroids story the last 15 years. Boswell himself didn't put Canseco-on-steroids in print; nor did the Post pursue it. To me, the question becomes...

    If a $20 million, 20-month, senatorial level-staffed, MLB-sponsored, FBI-supported investigation offering a federal prosecutor's goody bag of favorable treatment can get nothing rock-solid on steroids/HGH/PED from the clubs, players or even a single not-under-arrest source, how in hell were America's sportswriters supposed to get that story into print?
     
    Dave Kindred, Dec 15, 2007
    #18
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I don't understand Joe Sheehan's take. What did he expect Mitchell to be able to do? Take the $20 million price tag out of it because this isn't our money and it is toy money in the grand scheme of baseball finances... What do you have? Mitchell had no subpeona power, no legal authority, was stonewalled by the union, and even though mlb personnel had "orders" to cooperate, he was lied to and stonewalled by them too, because they feared being made scapegoats. Criticizing him for not breaking the lid off steroid use on his own, is like criticizing anybody here for not having been able to do some Kreskin-like job of investigative reporting. It's like criticizing the police for not knowing where all the criminals are. You'd have to be clairvoyant.

    Mitchell obviously piggybacked off the work the Feds did (who do have legal authority to REALLY investigate), but the way I look at it, that shouldn't be a criticism of him. He went with what he could get his hands on. And without baseball having appointed him and a commission, the Feds wouldn't have been able to pin Radomski and McNamee to tables and force them to spill their guts to Mitchell as part of their plea agreements, and we'd still all know less than we do today. Mitchell gave the Feds a place to air stuff they had to the public without them having to indict hundreds of users they don't have the resources to go after, and which no one really wants to see get prosecuted--just exposed. That was Mitchell's purpose. To do a little exposing. And in that regard, he did his job. Today, people are at least talking about PEDs and acknowledging the scope of their use in honest terms. I think we really needed that before we could move onto the other arguments people were trying to muddle before Mitchell -- whether it is a big deal or not--your opinions about PED use. Either you think there is an integrity issue in baseball or you think this overblown nonsense. Whatever you think is legit. But before discussing it in those terms, people had to be honest about, and understand, the scope of the problem. He obviously didn't name every user, and he obviously didn't have the capability to do anything even close to 2 percent of comprehensive, but in the wake of that report we all know that this stuff has been rampant and even the few people who still had their heads in the sand don't have much to say anymore. Now we can have the other discussions... Is it a big deal? How do you deal with it? Etc.
     
    The Big Ragu, Dec 15, 2007
    #19
  8. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    The day the story was breaking, CBSSports.com had a pretty good headline on the story -
    Mitch Slapped
     
    EStreetJoe, Dec 15, 2007
    #20
  9. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Clemens is doing his best to catch up to Tebow.
     
    dooley_womack1, Dec 15, 2007
    #21
  10. BigSleeper

    BigSleeper Active Member

    Both of those heds are tasteless ... but I still laughed.
     
    BigSleeper, Dec 15, 2007
    #22
  11. clutchcargo

    clutchcargo Active Member

    Accused players' two most common denials:

    1. "I have never tested positive." (Clemens, etc.). Which means absolutely nothing in terms of whether he actually did them or not. Ever hear of masking agents?

    2. "I did it under physician's care/supervision." (Byrd, etc.). Well, duh. All that means is that a physician----just keep asking until you find one willing sucker---had a price for writing the Rx and rationalizing it as some sort of lame medical purpose.
     
    clutchcargo, Dec 16, 2007
    #23
  12. BillyT

    BillyT Active Member

    Dave: Wouldn't you have had a source good enough to talk about the discussions over whether or not to sign a guy because of steroid rumors? (Or a similar situation in another sport).

    I just don't know if people were asking the questions.
     
    BillyT, Dec 17, 2007
    #24
Page 2 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page