Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?
posted at 4/17/2012 7:27 PM EDT
The fact of the matter, like any profession, there are good reporters and bad reporters. Just because a reporter is a good reporter, it doesn't mean he's always writing positive stories, and vice versa. Bad reporters can be positive and good reporters can be negative.
And just because a story is negative or full of drama, it doesn't mean the reporter is "getting involved in the melodrama." Sometimes the story is what it is.
Take the Youk story this week. Channel 7 asked a basic question about Youk. Valentine answered and that created the story. The media didn't really make a lot out of it. There was enough there -- not being there physically or emotionally, or however Bobby V. put it -- that of course, a reporter was going to question Youk about it. From there, these things take on a life of their own.
Many times it's not the reporter wagging the story, so to speak, it's the story wagging the reporter.
Then if you look at the Hohler story last fall. It was an epic collapse. Of course, the fans want to know what happened, and Hohler reported what was told to him. From there, it's others -- fans, talk show hosts, columnists -- who build it up into more. (And columnists and reporters have separate duties.).
In the end, it's often not reporters who make stories into something they're not (although, of course they do at times). It's how we (readers, fans) interpret the stories.
For example the collapse. There was disfunction on the team, even the players admit to that. But was that the primary reason? The Sox pitching staff gave up five or more runs in 20 of 27 games in the month of September? Was the disfunction the cause of that (Beckett involved in just two) or was it more basic -- just not enough talent?
At this point, it's everyone who is putting their own spin to develop their own reasons, and there's nothing reporters can do. Columnist and talk show hosts can amp up one various sides, but are they really changing anyone's opinions? I don't think so. At this point, fans already have their minds made up. If you think it was this disfunction that was 100 percent to blame, then Felger (especially) and Mazz are "telling it like it is." If you think it was 100 percent pitching due to lack of talent, then you think they're full of s&it.
And so it goes. If the reporter writes a story that's 100 percent accurate but it's negative and you don't want to believe it, you blame the reporter for the story, not the participants. So much of media bashing is so predictable.