Many ESPN staffers are upset with the network's decision to run a reality series on Barry Bonds (Bonds on Bonds) with Bonds sharing in the marketing revenue. Phil Mushnick and Richard Sandomir weigh in on what Mushnick says is "the closest thing to a palace revolt ever conducted against ESPN."
Friday, March 10, 2006
Jon Friedman takes the media to task for not investigating Barry Bonds sooner than the two Chronicle reporters whose book is about to come out. And in a letter to Romensko, author Evan Weiner says "baseball writers are baseball apologists first, baseball lovers second and journalists third." I'm sure there's some validity in both opinions, but my same question remains: Without the grand jury testimony, what were newspapers and other media going to do about Barry Bonds -- say he looked like he was on steroids? Rely on the word of other -- disgruntled exes, friends and hangers-on -- that he was doing them? With everybody looking at themselves these days -- and others like Friedman and Weiner doing it for us -- I still wonder where the Chronicle investigation (wonderful work, no doubt) would be if BALCO and the grand jury hadn't come along. What reportable information would have led us to connect Barry Bonds and steroids sooner? Nobody seems to have a good answer to that.
Posted by SWE_BLOGGER at 7:54:00 PM
Thursday, March 02, 2006
In advance of Poynter's Sports Journalism Summit, senior scholar Roy Peter Clark writes about sportswriting in Passing the Torch: Don't Let Great Sportswriting Flame Out, which was posted on the site yesterday. Good stuff.
Posted by SWE_BLOGGER at 12:36:00 PM