I’ll be on XM Radio channel 144 with Bill Pidto and Bruce Murray on Tuesday at 9:25 am EDT, and will appear via phone on First Take at either 10:50 am or 11:25 am EDT, time TBD. I’ll also be on with longtime friend Jeff Erickson’s Fantasy Focus Internet radio show, although we won’t do straight fantasy content. If you remember Jeff’s radio show on XM, this is the same show, but he moved it online after the Sirius-XM merger.
My most recent post on my main ESPN.com blog now has BP video of Buster Posey. There’s also video up of Tim Wheeler and Drew Storen in my most recent draft blog entry. I should have more draft notes and videos later this week.
Jason Whitlock had some strong (and dead-on) words about Selena Roberts and accuracy. Shysterball had similar words last week. I’ve pointed this out previously, but Roberts has gone after A-Rod at odd times before, like writing her 2007 World Series post mortem about him, even though he hadn’t played in that or the previous series. Squawking Baseball takes aim at Roberts’ implication that A-Rod couldn’t have tripled his bench-press ability without the use of PEDs.
Is Twitter the CB radio of Web 2.0? (HT to Shysterball.) I kind of hope not, now that I crossed the 1000-followers mark.
JoePo is obsessed with cycles. I couldn’t agree less; I think cycles are boring – statistical oddities that hold no interest for me. One reason is that a player who goes 1b-2b-3b-hr has hit for the cycle and goes on that list that some guy keeps that gets trotted out the next time some Joey Bagodonuts goes 1b-2b-3b-hr, but some other player who goes 2b-2b-hr-hr had a better day and doesn’t make any list, unless there’s some other guy keeping some other list that he really doesn’t get to trot out that often because no one gives a crap about guys who went 2b-2b-hr-hr.
This clip cracks me up: auto-tuning the news. (HT to mental_floss from their post earlier this week auto-tuning.) I’m not sure which I like best – the facial expressions on the guy “talking” to Katie Couric, the angry gorilla, or the ever-present tambourine.
brian-
To back-up Adam, I DO NOT see where you addressed his specific points. I feel like you are dancing around the issues, not engaging the proof we are giving you and not willing to look at your argument from another perspective. Point us to the post you specifically address those points, address them again, or engage the new arguments since clearly your point is lost on many of us.
3 posts up of mine from this on this first paragraph of Adam’s.
4 posts up of mine from this on the second paragraph of Adam’s.
Lets refocus. We agree that Whitlocks point was essentially Roberts shouldn’t be trusted as journalist and it is the medias responsibility to police itself. We can agree?
What we don’t agree with is whether or not that bias critically prohibits fairness when discussing athletes. I suggest it doesn’t happen often, and you suggest it does happen often. We disagree. (we may also consider what “fairness” means here for clarity).
But really I’m done. We disagree. Bias exists. Athletes are a multiplicity of colors and we live in a world where it’s okay to be a different color (See Obama, Barack). Big star athletes get that spot light (see Leaf, Ryan) and they react accordingly. Bringing race into that seems to me absurd and counterproductive. I’m not even convinced you were able to offer a valid example where it happens outside of “Arod has been treated badly because he’s brown!” or “Bonds was treated differently than Kent!” I think they are treated badly because they are big stars in big media markets who aren’t the best of people.* If you treat a reporter badly generally they won’t treat you kindly either. Remember how I reacted when you called me a racist?
The point is we disagree. None of the examples provide convinced me just as they didn’t convince you. Lets end this and agree to disagree. We can celebrate by hoisting a venti cup of Starbucks Coffee in honor of the host of this discussion.
*as a side note I can confirm second hand that Bonds was a HUGE jerk in college at ASU. I’ll leap and say that continued on throughout his career.
brian-
The issue is that you say “We disagree, let’s leave it at that,” but then go on to say it’s absurd and counterproductive to bring race into the conversation. That is partly why I think you are receiving some of these strong reactions; calling someone’s viewpoint “absurd” and “counterproductive” to the discussion essentially eliminates them from the conversation, and goes from disagreeing to dismissing rather quickly. Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion about the validity of this viewpoint, but you must also accept what comes with having that opinion.
Also, perhaps I miscounted or you miscounted, but I didn’t find the posts you were referring to that deal with Adam’s points. Can you quote the first line or something to make it easier to find?
To clarify my point, I think we are having two different conversations:
I (and others) are attempting to bring race into the conversation, because we think it is a valid point of consideration when discussing the media’s coverage of athletes. I am up for debating the level of impact that race has on coverage, whether it is far, and what other factors may contribute to mainstream opinion.
Brian, you, based on your last post, seem to be discussing whether or not race should even be in the conversation, and your viewpoint is that it should not be.
If I am correct in this (which I may not be), than we are having two different conversations predicated on different assumptions.
You deserve a response so I present you with this link. I went to school in So Cal and we always tried to one up one another by getting onto TV shows and then try to be taken seriously with absurd facts. One friend got on Phil Donahue and Jerry Springer with the same Dating my Sisters best friend act. He got punched! Well this guy destroys anything we ever got accomplished. And if he’s telling the truth then life meets the absurd in the best places sometimes.
http://deadspin.com/5240974/the-69-price-is-right-for-gynecologist-steelers-fan
As for the rest of the stuff written, we disagree and that’s enough for me.
Um, okay. I think I’m going to avoid getting into discussions with you here in the future. I am all go disagreement, dialogue, and discourse. But it seems as if you were more intent on spouting your opinions, ignoring the ideas of others, and refusing to actually engage the conversation when you are challenged. Good luck with that.
KLaw-
Sorry (again) for mildly threatjacking here. I tried to stay on the topic at hand better than last time, but I just feel like I can’t get into it with this guy because of differences in how we want to engage. While try to keep the boards cleaner from here on out.
Oh geez, Brian’s back with his long entries.
One thing I don’t get:
What’s so bad about tipping pitches? You’re trying to win, right?
In related news, Manny is going to get absolutely killed by the media. You just watch.
And Manny is even MORE hispanic than ARod!
I would like to share with you a radio program that sort of illustrates the issue I have with talking about race in a way that isn’t appropriate. It is harmful and difficult to break away from. It is is the WEB De Bois story in the link and maybe 10 minutes long.
It is a program at Harvard so there’s some connection here. I think this is the perfect illustration and why I’m really anti-race unless there is actual merrit. Manny being suspended isn’t a race issue.
http://www.hereandnow.org/2009/05/rundown-57/
No one said Manny being suspended is a race issue. It’s how the media will cover it and how that will shape public opinion. Will he get the same slack that Giambi got? Will an empty non-apology make him the good guy again? If he gets raked over the coals BY THE MEDIA, is it not worth discussing the way his race/ethnicity/language have impacted the media’s approach to him?
And, I have no idea how you see this radio-program relates to ANYTHING in the conversation. Is your point that black kids just need to work harder and they’ll be successful? Really? And that ONE of the challenges they had to overcome has to do with the way in which intellectualism is perceived by SOME young blacks? And, therefore, there is no race issue and we have officially entered the “post-racial” stage of America? Yikes.
I challenge you to read “White Like Me” by Tim Wise. It will open your eyes to what privilege really is.
I know I keep saying I’m done, but I have trouble with people promoting ignorance in the face of deepening understanding. Brian, I thought YOU were done with this? I guess you had another talking point so you were ready to “discuss” again.
I’m working through my own thoughts so bear with me. I am fearful that people placing race into situations where it isn’t supposed to be will foster continued divisions between race and accomplishments. I am all for letting Manny stand up to his crime for what it is. When race is put in discussion then the next situation you will question whether race has an issue and the next issue etc etc etc. You will always want to bring up race instead of bringing just the facts. Essentially you create/continue a racial divide when I think we’d like to move past that. I think that is essentially my thesis when it comes down to it. I think that is easy enough to understand.
I think you disagree. You still hold on to an idea of “white privilege” because any time you deal with someone you dislike who is white you automatically throw that out instead of examining the facts. That’s what I hate.
If you cannot see that in the story then I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I guess I’m mostly interested in continuing this converstation for my benefit.
My interest in race in sports is twofold. One, I know from experience that baseball players are evaluated differently by some scouts and executives based on their skin colors. You will have to take my word for it, because I’m not going to out the evaluators in question.
Two, I believe that the white-dominated baseball media treats players differently based on skin color. Small-b brian likes to tell us what a big-time jerk Barry Bonds was. This may be true, but Jeff Kent was absolutely a worse teammate according to most people who played with both men or were in the Giants’ organization at the time, yet Kent – who won an MVP award that Bonds deserved – received less than half the opprobrium that Bonds received, even before Bonds became the poster child for PED usage. I’ve pointed out the discrepancy between the treatments of cocaine use by Tim Raines and Paul Molitor. I do believe there is a subtle bias in the treatment of minority baseball players. It’s not overt – I heard one racial epithet in my four-plus years in a front office and it was from someone with no decision-making power – but that just makes it all the more important, in my mind, to shine a light on it. If it’s not there after all, little or no harm will be done by looking.
This has been on my mind all day. That essentially leaves a paradox. We have the same end goal in mind which is essentially to eliminate differentiation by race.
Start with my thesis listed above. That’s the first part of the idea. We can then assume that Hate in sunshine will whither. That is essentially what BSK has advocated for. Shine that light to have that hate go away.
We have simliar goals but different approach. We disagree but are in a bizarre way in agreement. It’s a clear paradox. Both arguments apply equally yet acting in conjunction continues the very idea we’re trying to eliminate! If there is a solution to this I’m all ears. er…eyes?
This has been on my mind all day and why I returned to this thread. I think this is interesting and hopefully enlightening.
First off, just to be clear, I’m white. I speak so much of white privilege because I am trying to understand how it has impacted my life and in what ways I can do my part to change the system.
Secondly, I see what you’re saying. But it seems as if you’re saying, “Let’s be colorblind and the issue will go away.” That’s all well and good if EVERYONE agrees to be colorblind. But most people aren’t, consciously or not. That is the idea behind the anti-racist movement. If you have a bunch of people who are racist and a bunch of people who are essentially neutral (not racist, but not actively working to end racism), than the system tilts racist. Unless you are actively engaged in anti-racism, you are tacitly perpetuating a system that is inherently racist (and sexist, and classist, and many other things). This does not mean we must all be race warriors; but it does require that we actively look at the changes we can make and stand up where and when we can to make a difference. And this does not mean that people who don’t choose this root are bad or racist or anything else negative. There certainly are situations in which race is injected to a degree that is beyond the scope of the situation. But, for people of color, in some way, shape, or form, every situation they find themselves has somehow been impacted by their race, directly or indirectly, in a big or tiny way. It is easy for white people to argue on behalf on eliminating race so as to not divide people where it is not necessary; but for people who are constantly reminded of their “otherness” in our society, and who do not have the luxury of ignoring race, it is arrogant for us to demand this.
I will now step down from the soapbox.
(The you is not specifically directed at brian; it’s more proverbial)
Thanks for your post, Keith. No interest in being a whistleblower on this? I bet we can get you a book deal with Selena Roberts!
Double-standard #1: Jayson Stark has already torn into Manny, asking fans to “Forget Manny, Not Forgive Him”, calling him stupid, blaming him for personally destroying the Dodgers season, and saying that Manny has done nothing to earn forgiveness.
Who does he compare him to? Andy Pettite. Lest we forget that Pettite LIED about his HGH use (said he used it once; report came out and said he used it twice; he amended his statement to say that he meant twice), and Pettite didn’t face 1/100th the questions scrutiny that other players did (Clemens included).
Let’s ignore the fact that all the facts haven’t come out in this case yet. Yes, Stark is just one writer, but I’ve also heard Plaschke go nuts on him on “Around the Horn” in a similar fashion. While it’s possible that individuals can take some of this with a grain of salt, the fact is, these writers help shape public opinion, and, as many of us have pointed out, there is a clear double-standard that exists in the media. I am not calling these guys racist; but I certainly think that race plays a factor in the idea that Manny = dumb and Pettite = honest, despite what the facts thus far show us.
Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=4150444
Plaschke actually suggested that the Dodgers “fire” Manny in an interview yesterday about 1 pm eastern on the 4-letter. I’d like to make a similar suggestion to Plaschke’s employer re: Bill himself.
I’m not even sure what that means; but if it means cut him, eat the +/- $38 million they owe over the next 2 years and let someone else sign him for the minimum, then it is far and away the worst baseball-related suggestion I can remember from someone who covers and should understand baseball.
I’d agree, but I think some NY Mediot (Bill Madden, perhaps?) has called for the Yankees to do the same with A-Rod.
To think that we should all be able to be colorblind and everything will work itself out is naive. I believe the ideal situation is one where race is never a factor in how people are treated, but we all know that is not the case. Therefore, we can’t just ignore it and pretend it will go away. People are naturally prone to prejudice towards some one or some thing they are not used to. I admit that I’ve had some negative feelings towards people based on such prejuduces just because I grew up in a town that had zero racial diversity. I didn’t know how to react to people that were different than me at first, but I learned quickly. I don’t want to dislike anybody and I believe people should be treated equally and with respect but that is easier said than done. The key is to not let it effect my decision making or attitude towards people. A lot of people take those feelings at face value and never try to learn to go beyond them for a greater goal.
Only a generation or two ago you could call somebody an ethnic slur or tell them they weren’t being hired right to their face and that was just how things were done. Now, you can’t get away with that even if you want say those things. Especially media and corporate types would be absolutely destroyed. There are numerous examples of this.
I’m not saying everybody is racist. We’ve progressed greatly in the last 40 years or so. However there are certainly people out who are but their actions are subtle enough that you can never really know for sure. There are also people who aren’t racist but they are subtly prejuduced enough to perpetuate a stereotype or myth. The point is there is no definitive proof of racism unless that person is an absolute moron and makes it clearly known. Then they get fired. However because these factors and other, people ARE still treated differently because of their race and it IS a problem. This sort of subtle bias or stereotyping is still somehow acceptable.
That’s why we can’t provide “proof” of it, but it is naive to think it doesn’t exist.
Some additional thoughts:
• Let’s assume there are two approaches to the problem BSk/Adams approach we’ll call A. and my Approach B. These equally work towards a similar goal yet seem paradoxical. I don’t think there is a way to amalgamate these. I might suggest a more granular theory: individualistic ethics. I reject the hypothesis there’s standardization in ethics, however there are generic goals we as humans essentially agree upon. (contract theory? I’ve been into Hobbs recently but I cannot accept his axiomatic notions.) It might be an expedient to suggest individual plans instead of searching for an archetypal solution.
• I’m also a little curious why those who support A aren’t following up with Keith. Seems the zealousness is really focused on being “right” or “winning” instead of being concerned with the issue. That might be a concern.
• Also, as a generic observation, from someone who disagrees with your approach, isn’t the idea of always shining that light really kowtowing to the few and not the many?
I don’t know what you’re talking about at this point. This is something I have studied and worked with for sometime. The “colorblind” approach has been proven to fail. You can argue all you want about your opposition to something being objectively right, but your approach has been PROVEN to be objectively wrong. The problem still exists. Ignoring it and pretending it doesn’t will not make it go away. We cannot will it away; we have to work to make it go away. Actively resisting bias is the only way to eliminate that has been found thus far, because so many people are actively working to promote it. This MUST be countered. Individuals must develop their own plans based on their own situations, but to actively promote change, this issue must be confronted, not ignored. That is a fact proven by the researchers in this field.
I don’t understand how we should “follow up” with Keith. Personally, I work to fight this on an everyday basis with my classroom of children. Right now, I am not in a position to combat it in MLB or the media; that does not mean I cannot involve myself in the conversation.
And it is not “kowtowing” if the few are right. Tyranny of the majority is still a bad thing, right? Most of the people who need this light shined on this issue are not in a position to shine it themselves in a way that will gain attention (people like yourself are likely to just dismiss them as inappropriately playing the “race card). Technically, we ALL need this light shined, but those in most immediate and direct need are put in a position where they are limited in the change they can affect themselves, so allies are needed.
We’ve moved past one another. I understand you think you’re right. I’m more interested in the big picture with lots of people with differing opinions yet similar goals. It appears as though you’re still dogmatically stating your way is the only right way. Proven in fact. We disagree. I’m not sure how you missed that.
I do however find it startling that you’re more than willing to call out a journalist on the faintest possibility of race (Stark in this case) for writing a hyperbolic article on a player who deserved his comeuppance in the media. You’re essentially starting with the premise of guilty before innocent.
You had someone in an instance where he interacted with people of racial intolerance and you didn’t even ask what he did. You didn’t ask whether or not he has a responsibility when he encounters these people. You made a joke and let it go. Essentially your position is to shine that light no matter what (innocent or not right?) yet you selectively choose where to shine that light? If nothing was done shouldn’t you take someone to task? Where is your consistency? You speak about allies but you refuse to act accordingly.
I think your last paragraph answered the final bullet point. Thank you.
I should flesh this out a bit further: you have posited in the past an axiomatic a priori set of ethics which you believe apply to all. You’ve continued that line of thought but stating that your methodology is the only acceptable avenue to eliminating evil.
I simply state that people are autonomous people with self evidenced ethics. You’re responsible for you. I’m responsible for me. We can certainly share our opinions and lessons learned, but ultimately your own responsibilty begins and ends with you. And my ethics with me.
That’s my frame work in a quick simple synopsis.
I just cannot agree with your relativistic viewpoint. The “I’m okay, you’re okay, we’re all okay” mindset just doesn’t work, as far as I’m concerned. Myself and others have pointed out why your approach to this situation (the “colorblind” method) is flawed. You have not pointed out why ours is wrong, and I am prepared to back it up with fact. You can insist that it is an individual determination, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you are opening to listening, I can demonstrate why that approach will not bring about the change you claim to be advocating for.
I think we’ve reached the Rubicon. Any criticism I lever is silly and anything you level is detrimental. And I’m the one uninterested in discussion! You failed to answer any questions I posited to you in your zealous interest in assuring me your view is the right view. You know those religious fundamentalists, who only are willing to talk about their views, share their “special knowledge” based on ‘their’ experience and will only shut up so they can gather their thoughts and continue their lesson to you? Never mind the other person said something insightful or potentially damning, they prattle on. Aren’t those people just the worst people to deal with? I sort of feel as though you are that religious person telling me how things should be and how anyone not believing as they do are just the biggest idiots on earth.
“You can insist that it is an individual determination, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you are opening to listening, I can demonstrate why that approach will not bring about the change you claim to be advocating for”
-BSK
This is the arrogance and closed minded approach I vehemently abhor. It is clear we’ve reached an impasse and the productivity of this has leveled off. I really enjoyed our conversations and certainly have a better understanding of where you come from and your story. I wish you well in your endeavors and would only offer these imparting words: remember that people are mostly good. When you start to see people as mostly bad, it is a reflection of yourself.
Regards
brian,
You described your approach as mutually exclusive to what BSK and I are suggesting. What leads you to believe your method will work?
I don’t see how supporting research-backed approaches makes me a zealot. I will look at any research that you have that supports your mindset, but I have not seen you offer any or even imply that there is any. You promote an individual ethos, which certainly works in some situations, and allows for individuals to just decide what feels right for them. But, as many researchers in the fields of sociology and race have founds, the approach you have advocated does not lead to the change you claim you would like to see. If you would like to see literature on this, I can certainly point you to it. I have already mentioned some here (White Like Me by Tim Wise) and summarized some of it in other places. If you have research or other data outside of the anecdotes you have provided that backs up your viewpoint, I am all ears.
Also, please know that I have not cherry picked the data I examine. To be honest, my viewpoint years ago was much closer to the one you seem to promote now. Further research into the area led me to realize a more effective path.
Supporting researched backed approaches makes you a rational human being.