On LeBatard, LeBron and the Media

Dan LeBatard has always struck me as a smart guy, and an excellent writer. I even enjoy his loopy persona on Pardon the Interruption. I appreciate his general tendency toward contrarianism in the face of the journalistic orthodoxy. That said, this column is a bit of a scattered mess. First off, what's been real about Barry Bonds since, say, 1991? Second, the reason Chad Ochocinco forms "his own media" is because he is an inveterate self-promoter, and the Internet presents him with the opportunity to form that media.*

Third, Chad Pennington did not lecture the New York tabloids about "fairness"; he lectured them about what a privilege it was to cover the New York Jets, and that they should treat such a privilege with respect, mostly because they were criticizing Pennington for playing poorly at a crucial time of the season. This is New York; this is what the tabloids do. Fourth, Isiah Thomas complaining that articulate athletes like Bill Russell and Jim Brown and Muhammad Ali could never survive in today's media world seems to ignore the fact that much of the sports media in the late 1960s was not only far more conservative, but at least in some cases, overtly racist. Every one of those athletes did have to deal with widespread condescension, even if the media wasn't quite as saturated with the sheer number of opinions as it is today; to say otherwise seems disingenuous, at least to me.

Now I understand--and I agree with--LeBatard's larger point: That the general tenor of media is coarser and meaner than it's ever been**. Most of that has to do with the acceleration of the news cycle, with the proliferation of news outlets and "news outlets"--with, in fact, the same lack of a professional filter that allows athletes like Ochocinco to essentially report on themselves without independent verification. It works both ways: If an athlete wants to shape his own brand, if an athlete refuses to permit any independent access to his world, if he expects us to form an opinion of him through a series of television commercials and publicist-written "blog posts," then he has to expect that the media's judgment of him will be harsher when he strays from that company line. This is exactly what happened with Tiger, of course--the last time we'd heard anything remotely real from him, he was telling dirty jokes to Charles P. Pierce a decade ago--and this is now what's happening with LeBron James.

The other day, LeBron tweeted that he was now keeping "mental notes" about those who had spoken poorly of him. This, of course, has long been the modern strategy for parrying media criticism, whether deserved or undeserved: You invent an enemy, you blame the haters, and then, when you succeed, you lash out at your imaginary blacklist. It's a way of motivating yourself, but it's also a way of denying the fact that there may be a legitimate basis for people finding some of your decisions specious. That's where LeBron's lost his way, and that's really the problem with LeBatard's column, too: He buried some legitimate criticisms under a blanket of condemnation. 

*Though LeBatard is half-right here; the media, and the sports media especially, inexplicably tends to lump harmless goofballs like Ochocinco in with convicted criminals. Twenty-five years from now, I guarantee we'll be looking back with nostalgic wonder at T.O. and Ochocinco and all those self-centered but otherwise harmless products of the Twitter generation. As someone who spent the past several years engaging in Jim McMahon-based nostalgia, I know of what I speak.

**LeBatard also claims sports journalism is now "dumber," but I'm not sure I can completely agree with that. It's just that the best sports media is far smarter than it's ever been, and the worst of what passes for sports media is far, far dumber. Speaking of which, Bill Simmons asked several intelligent questions of Mark Cuban a few years ago, which Cuban then turned into a referendum on how much SportsCenter anchors are paid. So it works both ways.

(Photo: Boston.com)

On "Bias"

It is a miserable day in New York City; if ever they were going to shoot a sequel to Seven,* today would have been the optimal time. Therefore, I am going to engage in that time-honored Internet tradition of complaining about something that someone else is complaining about.

Headline: San Diego Padres' Heath Bell complains about "East Coast Bias" in sports coverage. "I'm really turned off by ESPN and 'Baseball Tonight.'," he says. "When Jake Peavy threw 8 1/3 innings on Saturday, they showed one pitch in the third inning and that was it. It's all about the Red Sox, Yankees and Mets.”

Addled Bloggers' Response: I've never understood why people seem so preoccupied with pointing out "bias" when that "bias," in the grand scheme of things, means absolutely nothing at all. I remember watching Penn State football games as a child and hearing people complain about the Southern "bias" of Frank Broyles, who used to do color commentary with Keith Jackson back in the days when the game clock we saw on our television screens was actually an encapsulated version of the stadium's digital scoreboard clock. And you know what? They were probably right about it, since Broyles wound up becoming the longtime athletic director at Arkansas. And yet I cannot remember this "bias" affecting my enjoyment of any Penn State game, ever. Nor did it affect the outcome, as far as I know.

But let's say it is true. In fact, let's say every announcer is, in fact, "bias" (and yes, I know "biased" is the proper usage, but this is the Internet, and grammar is optional) against somebody for reasons we cannot even begin to comprehend, usually because of a grand and improvable conspiracies involving the National Security Agency, Jimmy Hoffa and the plot of a Warren Beatty film. Let's say Al Michaels hates the Cleveland Browns because he once got food poisoning from the cafe at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.** Let's say Dick Vitale is actually receiving graft for a wildly experimental hair treatment from Mike Krzyzewski.*** Let's say Brent Musburger holds a grudge against the Montana State Bobcats, since the University of Montana once gave him an honorary doctorate.**** Let us say all this is true, and then let me ask you this:

Who cares? How does this affect you? How does this affect anything?

We are both blessed and cursed to live in an age where most of us have access to infinite sources of information, all the time; therefore, "bias" should be less relevant than ever before, and yet it has somehow become an excuse for everyone everywhere to blame their problems on the purveyors of the information.

And so I would just like to remind Heath Bell, who complained about ESPN's apparent East Coast Bias, that the information he is seeking about his own team and others located three hours to the west of Bristol Mean Time--including more highlights of Jake Peavy, his teammate, who, I'm assuming, he gets to see in person every so often--is readily available in approximately 13 million other places, outside of ESPN, including the MLB Network, which Bell mentioned, which, of course, has no "bias" at all*****. The larger point is this: Have you ever been to San Diego? Why, if you live in San Diego, are you ever inside, watching television? In fact, why anyone out there gets worked up about anything besides Dr. Zog's sex wax and fish tacos is beyond me.

Among these additional sources of information, of course, are your local newspaper. However, I also understand that this local newspaper is no doubt "bias" because it employs a columnist/editorial writer who is "bias" against whichever political persuasion you happen to ascribe to, and is therefore thoroughly infected with "bias," and could not possibly report objectively on anything, ever. It is a vicious cycle, and there is no real answer except to boycott television, the Internet, and newspapers, move to the Mojave desert (West Coast desert "bias" alert!), and live among the wolves (despite their vehement anti-sheep views).

Then again, I live in New York. So I have no idea who Heath Bell actually is.

*Now with extra gluttony!
**Unsubstantiated.
***Unlikely, but not impossible.
****This is actually true. The honorary doctorate part, that is. I do not know if Brent is anti-Bobcat, but it would be a hell of a lot cooler if he was.
*****Except perhaps against the NFL Network.