Stick to baseball, 3/30/24.

I had two new posts for subscribers to the Athletic this week, my annual season predictions post and scouting notes on the Nationals’ Futures Game at Nats Park. I wanted to do a chat, but about 20 minutes before I was going to do it, our Internet went down for four hours. Good times.

Over at Paste, I reviewed Wyrmspan, the new standalone sequel/spinoff to Wingspan, adding a few rules changes to make it more complex while also replacing the birds with dragons.

I spoke to my friend Tim Grierson this week for RogerEbert.com about baseball movies, good, bad, and horrendous. I also appeared on WGN-TV to talk Cubs/White Sox.

I did indeed send around another issue of my free email newsletter, which you should definitely subscribe to if you enjoy my ramblings.

And now, the links…

Comments

  1. That Stanford essay is very good, and I often wonder how I would do in a college environment these days. Coming to either side here, quickly, has the result that a person can at least find shares community. Whereas taking time to listen and learn from multiple perspectives can leave a person very alone.

  2. Surprised to see your approval of the Atlantic article. There’s a lot to critique IMO, from the meta-critique of how it repeats the same arguments of the dozens/hundreds of articles tsk-tsking college activists to its almost complete lack of an analysis of the power dynamics of domestic I/P advocacy, but I think the most interesting/telling part is this:

    “The attack was as clear a litmus test as one could imagine for the Middle East conflict. Hamas insurgents raided homes and a music festival with the goal of slaughtering as many civilians as possible. Some victims were raped and mutilated, several independent investigations found. Hundreds of hostages were taken into Gaza and many have been tortured.

    This, of course, was bad. Saying this was bad does not negate or marginalize the abuses and suffering Palestinians have experienced in Gaza and elsewhere. Everyone, of every ideology, should be able to say that this was bad. But much of this campus failed that simple test.”

    This section does a couple particularly dishonest things. First, it centers claims of atrocities committed by Palestinians above all other moral concerns. Even if we were approaching this from some impossibly neutral viewpoint, those atrocities have been eclipsed by orders of magnitude by Israeli actions both before and after 10/7, making it very odd to to not at the very least mention those in the same breath. Second, it treats some highly dubious claims as fact (see here for one counter: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/), and then interprets contention on this factual matter as instead a matter of moral failing.

    • Thanks for this comment; I’m with you and was similarly surprised.

      Relatedly, it’s sad to see what’s become of the Atlantic.

    • I’m at the UT-Georgia game so I can’t reply in full, but I took something very different from the article. Not that your interpretation is wrong in any way – I just saw it differently.

    • Agreed. I resent that the author is a teenage nepo baby condescendingly lecturing people that they’re not as intellectually curious or nuanced as him.

    • As a work of student journalism, it’s really good on-the-ground reporting — well-sourced and including a range of perspectives, although it could have used an editor to quell the young writer’s worst impulses (as when he undercuts the Palestinian protestor by tagging her protest outburst to her subsequent words out of context to highlight what he regards as her self-congratulation). Revealing one’s political leanings is not the affront to journalism that it once was — readers want it, they just get upset when unexpectedly confronted with what they suss out as an opposing view. As a piece elevated to being published to a professional general interest mag, though, it needed to have been done with more care. Is he nepo? I mean, that likely does explain why we’re seeing it.

    • @ML @sansho1 I think your comments show why this specific piece is so illustrative of the practice of corporate media. That the author did real, adversarial *journalism* in the past then grants him access to do what is functionally *punditry* that does not challenge existing power structures. But at the same time, that familial background/privilege/etc is often effectively required to get yourself in a position to do *journalism* on such a stage is perhaps exactly why the resulting *punditry* affirms the status quo. Either way, its a profound demonstration of what the structural barriers of modern media will and will not allow.

    • I’m interested to hear more about Keith’s reading of the article, which seems similar to mine except that I’m actually having a hard time picking out the thesis beyond the challenges of communication on college campuses, and that no one – not teachers, not administrators – seems to have any idea of how to address those challenges.

  3. Agreeing with Mike and Malcolm’s surprise at praise for the Atlantic article.

    I’m less surprised to see The Atlantic publish it, though. It’s run by someone who left college in the US to voluntarily enlist in the IDF to be a prison guard in conditions that Human Rights Watch reported violated Geneva conventions, among their other awful treatment of their Palestinian prisoners:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Goldberg#Early_life_and_education

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ktzi%27ot_Prison#Conditions_in_1991

    • Agreed. Didn’t mention this in my OP bc I wanted my critique of the piece to stand on its own, but it’s pretty important to approach anything from The Atlantic on this matter with, at the very least, a healthy dose of skepticism.

  4. “Elon Musk tried to use the Center for Countering Digital Hate ”

    I assume that was intended to be written “sue” not “use”.