You (I mean, we) media guys
I was not there yesterday when Adalius Thomas spoke by conference call to the local writers, so all I can say about it is based on what's been written. And no, this isn't a slap at my columnist colleague, Peter Schmuck; I'm not trying to work some kind of PTI or Siskel and Ebert thing with him. He just happened to be the one who wrote about what sounds like a somewhat contentious session with Thomas.
It's just strange timing for it to happen. For one thing, we have a perception about Sean Taylor's murder (speaking of which, people still have trouble referring to it that way) shaped largely by the fact that Taylor withheld himself from reporters throughout his NFL career. For another, we have a prosecution of Barry Bonds in court and in public that appears largely shaped by the fact that he spent his pro career being impolite with reporters.
We also have a long, long history of positive images about athletes and coaches being shaped by how they interact with us that, at some point, get blown to smithereens by reality. Eugene Robinson, the Falcons player, man of faith and wonderful interview, busted the night before the Super Bowl for soliciting a prostitute, comes to mind. So does Marion Jones, all sweetness and charm, right up until the moment she tearfully confessed to doping up throughout the prime of her track career. And, as I feel compelled to point out as often as possible, Jeff Kent, who was always around to talk to reporters -- and whom reporters admittedly liked because he did talk to them, unlike Bonds -- but who was subsequently revealed to be an enormous liar (the truck-washing/wheelie-popping story to explain his broken wrist) and phony.
Now, Adalius Thomas, being portrayed as being ungrateful for the love showered upon him while he was here, based on his comments about the Ravens in Sports Illustrated earlier this season and his prickly comments yesterday. After the initial Thomas-Ray Lewis exchange, a few reporters made it clear -- sometimes on the record -- that Thomas had "changed'' last year, had gotten full of himself, had blatantly grabbed for media attention as free agency approached, and had stopped talking to the locals in favor of national outlets. Without wanting to discount what they said, I can say I never, ever, saw that from him. I don't remember him ever brushing me off. I don't remember him ever being rude or uncommunicative or unavailable. The opposite; he was great copy all year. But I'm not around the team as much as they are. I was around enough to know that he was a freakishly great player who deserved every accolade, and subsequent dollar, he got, no matter who he spoke to.
The point is this: It's scary sometimes how much power we wield over how these guys are perceived by the world. They need to be more aware of it. Generally, the Ravens players are. You never know exactly when it will come back and haunt you, because there is no doubt that we hold grudges and take out vendettas. I will always believe that had Bonds not been so surly all those years, baseball might still be neck-deep in every steroid known to man, no one would be questioning baseball's records (like the ones Mark McGwire was setting), and there would be no such thing as a Mitchell investigation, a BALCO scandal, or "Game of Shadows."
Or, if Bonds had been given a pass for his testiness the way McGwire was, we'd be in a different place.
Worse, had Sean Taylor been as eager and engaging with the media as, say Curt Schilling -- or, in NFL terms, Chad Johnson or Tony Romo, or at least as neutral as Tom Brady or Donovan McNabb -- we'd be having a completely different conversation about his slaying right now. The fact that Taylor, in doing that, might have been completely full of you-know-what, the consummate phony, wouldn't have mattered. There would not have been that void in knowledge and personal interaction, which so many people filled with the thin, unsupported connection between his past misdeeds and his violent death. It would have been, "How could this have happened? He was such a good guy!''
That whole exchange between Thomas and Lewis earlier this year was one of the highlights of the season. The next chapter is Monday night (unfortunately, they won't face each other). One day, Thomas will spill about it. Inconveniently, that day wasn't yesterday. I won't hold that against him.
I will say this, though. Fifteen minutes of charm from Bill Belichick one afternoon doesn't make him less of a jerk.
Comments
Well said. Some media members need to understand that athletes are human also, regardless of how much money they make. Don't expect these guys to live up to some "good boy/good girl" standard from the 60's, when they(media member) grew up. A lot of the "good guy" athletes from that era, would be on the police blotter for drunk driving, spousal abuse, and any number of issues. It was a different time, when you were allowed to make a mistake without some reporter or media outlet providing 24-hour coverage, analysis, and public thrashing. Athletes now don't trust the media the way they did back then, because a lot of the media guys are looking to make a name for themselves (spotlight grabbing), and will use the athlete's story to bolster their career, under the guise of "reporting". Some stories do deserve lots of coverage, however, sometimes its too much, and only serves to villify a human being (generally young and immature), that has made a mistake many others have made. Yes they are role models, but they aren't perfect, and can change for the better. The good media members know this, and use restraint when reporting on these stories.
Posted by: JB | November 29, 2007 12:16 PM
"Fifteen minutes of charm from Bill Belichick one afternoon doesn't make him less of a jerk."
What? I've never met the guy, but he's doing his job extremely well this year, and, aside from the video camera controversy, to sports fans that is what's most important. After spending the entire article analyzing the media's role in shaping the public's perception of players and coaches, you end with the type of cheap shot you questioned.
Most sports ain't rocket science, so media interviews, though occasionally interesting, are not that revelatory.
If a player or coach does his job well on the field and keeps out of trouble off of it, that's good enough for me. Some players are laconic, shy, private, etc.; it does not make them "jerks" if they don't buddy up to the media.
I'm reminded of how Eddie Murray was treated by our local press as a result of his terseness, much like how Bedard gets treated today. It's not their job to fill up press articles with great quotes.
Posted by: Ray Venn | November 29, 2007 2:07 PM
Dave,
As always, great read. I wish people would not rush to judge. I wish somehow you could get your own radio show and switch places with Colin Cowterd
Posted by: Mike V | November 29, 2007 6:38 PM
Barry Bonds is receiving scrutiny because he lied to a grand jury, under oath, number one. Number two, he broke the most hallowed record in baseball and obviously used performance enhancing drugs to do it. If it was Mark McGwire chasing Aaron he would have had the same scrutiny as Bonds. McGwire hasn't been given a pass he left the game and he holds no major home run record. Yeah the media can absolutely be biased based on their personal interactions with players but Bonds has the scrutiny that he has earned. I don't know about you but I clearly remember before the sterroid allegations, Bonds seeking media attention by saying it was his goal to surpass Babe Ruth's record and he didn't even want to beat Aaron. Obviously another blatant lie. Bonds may have not been well liked by media members or anyone else for that matter but it's not why he is facing scrutiny. Don't forget that Bonds also has always been a guy that would go to the media when it suited his purposes to get his message out.
Posted by: melissa | November 29, 2007 8:00 PM
Nice article! I should say it takes a lot of guts for someone in the media to write about its shortcomings - commend you on that. I recently unsubscribed to ESPN magazine and infact wrote them a letter stating how displeased I was with the lack-of-restraint shown by their reporters and talk show hosts in their unfair accusations and criticisms of players. It is not fun to watch those ESPN shows anymore as we don't hear about facts - but opinions from screaming and yelling border-line-mental cases like Bayless and his other cohorts. I thought we Americans were the smarter bunch in the world. Are we so incapable of conjuring up a 1-hour-sports show without resorting to bashing players and coaches, even going as far as calling them id*ots(as it happened with punter Sauerbran last week).
ESPN has turned in to a tabloid-like sports media and it sickens me. I wish there was a rival sports network (not Fox) something that would keep the sports interesting without resorting to below-the-belt knocks. As a fan, it is disheartening for me to see this anger and negativity on a daily basis emanating from these shows. I really feel for the players and coaches. I don't blame Belichick and other players for their cryptic interviews to the media as the hawks are waiting to twist the quote everytime. Who in the right mind would want to open up to them?
Posted by: Football fan | November 29, 2007 9:29 PM
I miss Sean Taylor so much that i will make my kids wear black arm bands till Tueaday.
Posted by: Allen | November 29, 2007 10:41 PM