Mister Faded Glory | The critique of everything

These are always so fun!

Let’s recap, in case you’ve been away from ESPN’s Mike and Mike, the ESPN ticker, and even ESPN Outside the Lines today.

• First, a blogger on Midwest Sports Fans explores the reason Phillies’ left fielder Raul Ibanez is enjoying a banner season at an advanced age. Read the piece; it’s exactly what you would expect from a thoughtful sports blog. The author evenhandedly examines the stats and postulates theories.
• Second, a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist publishes a column excoriating “Jrod” for daring to mention any possible substance use for Ibanez.
• Third, a new story is published, by a different Philly sportswriter named Jim Salisbury. Apparently Ibanez lashes out after reading the column, professing innocence, and opining that the court of public media is unfair – especially the actions of this “42-year-old blogger living in his parents’ basement.”
• Fourthly, Jerod Morris, the blogger, posts an evenhanded response to the unforeseen media swirl. He doesn’t even rip on Inquirer columnist John Gonzalez. Not surprisingly, with mass-media readers on the case, he’s suffering a deluge of knee-jerk hatred.
  
• Finally, the national media picks it up. Mike and Mike wrap this into an ill-fated discussion of libel law.  ESPN runs Ibanez’ story on its crawl. Did I mention Outside the Lines?

Before you take any sides at all, read the original piece. Especially take note of Morris’ use of terms like “acknowledging the elephant in the room,” or endeavoring to call his steroid speculation exactly that – speculation. Hint: It’s in the title. Did we mention this post was originally about his fantasy team?

But now we’ve reached ground zero, again, in the tiresome sports reporting vs. sports blogging debate. And lucky for us, a story that shouldn’t have been snowballed into a question of journalistic ethics. (Yay?)

Bloggers are not bound by the same canons reporters and journalists adhere to. Sorry, they’re just not. Blogging rests heavily on opinion and analysis, and irresponsible stuff doesn’t get noticed. (In fact, as I can attest, good stuff doesn’t even get noticed.) Bloggers readily admit their stuff is humor, or opinion, or casual analysis; decidedly less important than actual journalism.

In fact, Morris’ blog post features the kind of careful speculation that’s missing from most mainstream sports opinion. He presents evaluations of stats, his opinions, and acknowledges conceivable speculation. He neither accuses nor alleges. Quite honestly, he posits the exact type of critical questions or analysis missing from baseball writers who refuse to admit that the investigative-report Game of Shadows uncovers truth about Barry Bonds, or continue to rationalize HOF votes for steroid-users absent actually seeing the usage with their own eyes.

Morris isn’t bound by journalistic ethics – he’s not practicing journalism. He’s practicing opinion. He’s practicing writing. He’s offering a thoughtful discussion about a public figure – a sports figure who no doubt would never have heard of this particular case of speculation without Gonzalez and Salisbury’s attention.

On Monday, Morris wrote an article about his fantasy team. By Tuesday, Gonzalez had hand-picked his straw man and wrote his own irresponsible column, knocking an unseen blogger down and claiming victory for journalism. He certainly could have taken a high road by asking the writer to clarify his ideas, or even simply contacting the blogger, were his journalistic sensibilities so offended:

“There was a time when a small, regional site like MSF could write something like that and no one would notice. Not anymore. Not long after the Ibanez post went up, Hugging Harold Reynolds – a popular national blog – linked to it on its Twitter feed. And just like that, we were off. Less than an hour later, I had several e-mails in my inbox asking if I read the MSF story and whether I believe Ibanez is chemically enhanced.”

I’d think if I was simply so shocked at the mere mention of steroids in a random blog, I would perhaps explore the issue further, rather than writing a condescending, hypocritical response even more one-sided than the blogger’s post. But there it was. A response in print and online, with thousands of readers furious at this unknown blogger. (Can I be next? I need the clicks!)

Then, Salisbury eagerly confronted Ibanez with the column, solicited comments from Raul, who understandably is perturbed about any whispers of steroid use (After all, he’s 37, and playing on a winning team has been a long time coming, and he’s a good guy). Sorry that it comes with the territory these days, Raul.

In fact, he was so perturbed he uttered the line about “a 42-year-old blogger in his mom’s’ basement,” a quip so perfect it couldn’t possibly have been planted by a reporter, let alone an ink-stained media wretch or two, right? And thus we had our storm.

But I suppose I’m just supposing. How irresponsible of me. Before I do that, I should probably get all my court decisions, case law, and affidavits in order.

After all, I’m apparently practicing sports journalism, and I can’t even call speculation speculation without approval. How dare any of us?

MFG’s late-night update: On Outside the Lines, Jerod Morris did a great job fending off John Gonzalez, who seemed fair and engaged in the debate, and Ken Rosenthal, who seemed pompous. I would guess Rosenthal never read Morris’ post, choosing to ignore any points for the sake of his own soapbox. I openly invite Mr. Rosenthal to visit us, where we can continue the debate.

According to him, we’re bound by the same Internet principles – decorated news reporters and part-time writers, aren’t we? Wouldn’t be fair to ignore us, using his logic. Basically, Rosenthal and Gonzalez seem threatened by solid, well-intentioned bloggers, whether or not they are. But that’s their inferiority complex, not ours. I mean, I’m in my mom’s basement right now. She’s got HBO!