The Tenth Inning

Ben_Hecht · Oct 5, 2010

Joe Williams said:

In the first two hours, I just winced when Verducci and Costas appeared to be revising their steroids stances.

In the second two hours, Burns tried to give Verducci credit as a steroids exposer without noting his hook-line-sinker swallow of Clemens' charade. Much worse.
Click to expand...

Not much else to expect, from an ardent Red Sox toady.

YankeeFan · Oct 11, 2010

Boomer7 said:

Boom_70 said:

Burns needs to find a new female face of baseball instead of Doris Kearns Goodwin. After her plagiarism scandal had to take her seriously.
Click to expand...

Between her and Mike Barnicle, one might presume that all Red Sox fans are plagiarists. We're not. Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

Writers to PBS ask about using Barnicle & Kearns Goodwin. Burns refuses to reply because they didn't sign their emails.

So, PBS ombudsman takes a stab at answering the question:

This, like a lot of challenges viewers raise, is a tough question. Both Doris Kearns Goodwin and Mike Barnicle are smart, articulate and very compelling commentators about a sport they love and the culture surrounding it. I've read, and enjoyed, most of Goodwin's books and, having grown up in New York City in the 1940s and '50s, that includes "Wait Till Next Year: A Memoir" about the city's three great teams of that era and her then-heartthrob, the Brooklyn Dodgers. She was also in the earlier Burns series on baseball. Aside from his written commentary, Barnicle's voice also is now commonplace on cable television, and his devotion to the Boston Red Sox is well known.

As the viewers point out, however, both Goodwin and Barnicle, aside from being ardent Red Sox fans, have been involved in literary controversy in earlier years. Barnicle lost his job as a Boston Globe columnist in 1998 after two charges of plagiarism, and Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and biographer, also faced charges of plagiarism in 2002.

We all, of course, make mistakes, and most of us, I think, believe in redemption and second chances. And when it comes to capturing, on the air, the sheer grip of baseball on the devoted fan, families and entire communities, it is hard to beat Barnicle and Goodwin. So you can understand Burns' artistic choice and this is, after all, baseball we are talking about. So as a viewer, the use of these two among many others didn't bother me. But the likelihood that it would bother some, and the fact that there are other very expressive potential interviewees out there, is important because it is the body of work itself that is most important rather than personal ties and choices.

Burns has become the most well known American documentarian and is certainly among the most widely respected. He, along with Novick, has become the keeper of popular Americana, producers of several iconic perspectives on everything from jazz and the national parks to the Civil War and World War II, and a lot more. So it is the work that is central and the need to protect it. Does the use of Barnicle and Goodwin distract? Could others have been chosen? Should a director's choice be influenced by some would-be criticism? Those are hard calls. I have no idea if they were considered by Burns and Novick but they should have been.

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2010/10/the_mailbag_what_to_include_and_who_to_leave.html
Click to expand...

Joe Williams · Oct 11, 2010

Didn't sign their e-mails?

I guess we've got no shot at getting Ken Burns to 'splain himself here ever.

Ben_Hecht · Oct 11, 2010

Were Royko still alive, he'd walk up to Barnicle and spit on him.

Of course, Royko will always be alive, in our minds . . .

Log in or Sign up

The Tenth Inning

Ben_Hecht Active Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Joe Williams Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The Tenth Inning

Ben_Hecht Active Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Joe Williams Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches