So, our paper isn't going to remake for Bonds' 756th...is yours?

DGR, your assertation that my career just doesn't matter makes it hard to respond.

The asterisk does have an absolute meaning. It represents extenuating circumstances surrounding a record -- just as the asterisk which was rumored to be swirling around Maris' record was because he played a 162-game season rather than 154.

There are no proven extenuating circumstances here. There may be no extenuating circumstances even if Bonds comes out and says I used steroids daily, because the question remains, how many of those around him were doing the same thing and "leveling the playing field"?

 

Precisely. The use of the asterisk makes a point about Bonds' record having an asterisk attached to it in the record books. OK, so, let's follow the idea. Let's look in the theoretical record book. There's an asterisk next to Bonds' record. At the bottom of the page, what exactly are we proposing to have it say? "*-Despite no empirical evidence to support it, Bonds was widely believed to have used steroids repeatedly during his career."

You don't put that in a record book. It's about fact, and right now, there are no facts to support what we've got here. There is circumstantial evidence and certainly very good reason for assumption. But to put an asterisk in there is making the point that Bonds' record doesn't count. Right now, it very much does, and we don't get to just say otherwise.

 

I would counter that the extenuating circumstance at this point in time is the doubt about the record's legitimacy itself.

And please remember that we're not editing the baseball record book here. While the publications we work for may be "papers of record," this is a discussion about what constitutes an appropriate headline, not a discussion about whether on not an asterisk belongs in the record book.

 

When you use the asterisk, you bring that into the discussion.

 

It's my career as well....

Clearly, I understand the value in sports writing. I also understand that sports writers can and do write important things (hell, without the BALCO reporting we aren't having this discussion).

I was suggesting that the all-time home run record isn't as important as we make it out to be (or, more accurately, it's exactly as important as we have made it out to be). It's scoreboard reporting. As others have said, we need to entertain and inform in our scoreboard reporting.

The story isn't just about Bonds hitting the ball over the fence. It's also about Bonds hitting the ball over the fence in the circus environment and suspicion that surrounds him. Any story that fails to mention that aspect of the record is a poor story. I think we can all agree with that. So, I fail to understand how writing a headline that reflects the whole story is unethical or editorializing.

 

I know in my heart that Bonds is probably even guiltier than most of us imagine.

And yet, I still wonder at the columnists who write as if he's been tried and convicted. What if he should actually beat this rap? Do these guys crawl under a rock, or do they step up and say, "god, what an idiot I was there"?

 

I wondered the same thing about OJ.