Barry Media Bias: Former Teammate Version

So now that Barry has tied the home run record, there are two things that you can expect; 1.) Barry is going to get walked like crazy. Seriously, nobody wants to be "that guy" that gives up 756. Barry walked three straight times after hitting 755, a streak that could continue for quite some time. 2.) The media is going to ramp up the lynch Barry campaign. While the first of those two points will have to wait until Monday, the media throwdown has already begun.

This time the media bias is coming out in this story over at ESPN about former Bonds teammate Brian Johnson.

I didn't know who the heck he was either.

In the article Johnson imparts the following bits of wisdom;

"You can make a fair argument that he may have been cheating," Johnson said. "Based on what has been documented, it's hard to dispute that argument."

"It was kind of a cloak-and-dagger society. Guys that were taking knew of each other and talked about things among themselves," Johnson said. "What I saw was that guys who were taking would never admit it, would never allow anybody to see. But it was pretty obvious to all of us that they were taking. ... Some people sold their soul to the devil and other people didn't."

Oh man, this is big news here! A former teammate seeing Barry huddling up with other steroid users? Saying it is hard to dispute that Barry cheated? This is such a smoking....pile of crap. What the story chooses to brush over is the fact that Johnson was only Bonds' teammate in the 1997 and 1998 seasons. For those not familiar with the Bonds' alleged steroid use timeline, that would be before Barry is alleged to have begun using steroids. Nobody has alleged that Bonds was juicing in '97 or '98...so why is Johnson such a Bonds expert, one worthy of being interviewed on TV and having his comments plastered on the front page of ESPN.com? The answer is that Johnson is not an expert on the situation, and that his interview is being spun against Barry just like the memorabilia story from yesterday.

It also really doesn't bolster ESPN's neutrality when this is on their front page as well:


Bookmark WTB!
Press [Ctrl + D]

Barry Media Bias: Auction Version

Today another Barry Bonds story has hit the wires and as usual the media is trying its hardest to spin the story against Bonds. The story is as thus; Some auction company called Mastro Auctions had a baseball memorabilia auction yesterday. Some of the items that were sold included an autographed Hank Aaron jersey, Aaron's signed rookie contract, an autographed Aaron rookie card, an unautographed Aaron rookie card, and Bond's 70th home run ball from the 2001 season. During the auction the Aaron items each sold for more than the Bonds ball. So as can be expected from the Barry hating media, here is a sample of some of the headlines of the story:

Sportsline: Aaron items outsell Bonds' No. 70 HR ball
ESPN: Aaron memorabilia fetches more than Bonds items

And then here is an excerpt from the AP story:

"The ball was one of only a handful of items that didn't meet its estimated selling price, while all the Aaron memorabilia met or exceeded expectations, Allen said."

Now for some perspective that is sorely missing from both the headlines of this story and the story itself.


Point 1. We are talking about home run ball #70, not the record #73. Why should #70 really be expected to break the bank in an auction? Because it is a round number? I concede that the ball didn't meet the expected price, but who the heck appraised it? Expected auction prices are not an exact science by any means.

Point 2. The comparison of a Bonds item to Aaron items is inherently unfair. The price of sports memorabilia is highly dependent upon time and historical context. So is it really that suprising that fifty year old pieces of rare Aaron memorabilia outsold a not terribly historically signifigant Bonds home run ball that is less than a decade old? Of course not.

Point 3. It is not like these were the only items for sale at the auction. The press merely chose to ignore the other items, focus on the Bonds-Aaron angle, and make a binary Good/Bad comparison. What a joke. Anyone who believes the press isn't biased against Bonds after reading a story like this needs a lobotomy.

Also, the assertation by the auction house spokesman that the steroid scandal will forever hamper Bonds memorabilia...please. The 10th best selling piece of baseball memorabilia of all time is Shoeless Joe Jackson's "Black Betsy" bat. I guess the whole gambling scandal really had a lasting effect there.

I LOL'D: ESPN Needs Younger Employees

Seriously, ESPN needs to start employing some younger people in their company, if only so things like this do not find their way onto their web pages:





If I have to explain the double etendre to you, you are probably in the same age category as the people that are doing ESPN's website. By the way, my vote is for Diana Taurasi if only because thinking about the other four nominees....

Held Hostage

Hey you.

Yes, YOU.

The one reading this.

I have a little secret for you. You're supposed to hate Barry Bonds. Even more than any of the other accused steroid users that have been in the majors the past few years. More than Sammy Sosa, and even more than Mark McGwire. Bonds is supposed to be epicenter of your moralistic scorn. He has single-handedly ruined baseball, and right now he is pooping on the sacred baseball record books.

Well, at least that is the impression that you would get from watching and reading the media coverage on Barry Bonds the past few years. The media has decided that Barry is a villain, and editors everywhere are just letting unabashed potshots at Barry into stories every single day. A couple of examples. Rob Neyer today wrote this;

I won't bother much with Alex Rodriguez's injury, because apparently nobody's really going to know anything until he gets himself into an MRI machine. Obviously, if he's out for more than a few days, he's probably not going to break Roger Maris' record.

Over at CBSSportsline Scott Miller decided to jump on the bandwagon with this terribly original writing device:

No, the most fascinating development of all -- in either league -- was that San Francisco had to kick its marketing department into high-alert status and paper the house when it came to the resident Hometown Favorite*.

Between the penultimate release of the All-Star voting results and the final count on Sunday, Barry Bonds* made up 119,158 votes on Chicago Cubs outfielder Alfonso Soriano to earn a starting position in what very well could be the final All-Star Game for Bonds* and shove Soriano onto the NL bench.

Just imagine three more asterisks scattered throughout the column and you'll get the idea. The point is, it is both acceptable and downright trendy for the sports media to bash Barry Bonds at every single opportunity. Isn't the main stream media ostensibly supposed to be unbiased and neutral? Shouldn't a neutral media refer to Barry's efforts as a "chase" of the home run record rather than an "assault"? Evidently not, but this week saw something happen that has put a speed bump right in front of the Barry Bonds hate mobile being driven by the media.

The fans told them they were wrong.

Bonds made up a huge margin in the final days of All-Star balloting (119,158 votes behind to be exact) to be named a starter in the Mid-Summer Classic. It is almost comical to see how the media is dealing with this fact. Most are flat out ignoring the story, and the obvious statement that baseball fans don't hate Barry Bonds nearly as much as baseball writers do. Others are trying to explain it away as something else. Check this silly little spin from Miller's column:

Plus, the All-Star Game is being played on Bonds'* personal playground, in the one city in America that remains sympathetic to him.

And yet, until a late surge, he still almost wasn't voted into the game.

So where was all this hate and vitriol last week when Sammy Sosa hit his 600th home run? Why is Jason Giambi, who has actually admitted to using steroids, being painted almost as a sympathetic figure as he heads into his meeting with George Mitchell? The answer is simple. Jason Giambi is a likable human being. Sammy Sosa is a fun loving guy that has always been very cooperative with the media and joked around with them. Barry on the other hand is a recluse. He has never been buddies with the media, and in turn they have turned on him now in viper-like fashion. It really isn't anymore complicated than that. This is middle school style payback. "You stole my brownie, I'm gonna spit on your lunch box".

And yet...

Somehow Barry was still able to be voted into the All-Star game by the fans. How could this be? I mean, isn't he hiking a leg all over the sanctity of the game? Yeah, him, Pete Rose, and Shoeless Joe all are. Those dirty scoundrels. They are the BAD GUYS that the Hall of Fame voters (read: baseball writers) have decided to martyr for the rest of eternity for their variety of sins. Forget that unabashed racists like Ty Cobb and Cap Anson are in the Hall. Or that notorious ball doctoring (read: cheating) pitchers Whitey Ford and Gaylord Perry are in there as well. Bonds and company just are plain old meanies. Booooo!!! I'm gonna spit on their lunch boxes.

Yet somehow baseball fans see beyond all of the media bias. Why? Simply put, baseball fans are a lot smarter than they are given credit for by the media. Perhaps they voted Barry in because, well, he deserved it. And perhaps they recognize that coming out of the Steroid Era in baseball it is utterly foolish to cherry pick a player here and there and label them as the bad guys in this mess, even if it would make them feel better about themselves and satisfy some deep-seated moral fairness complex. Maybe fans just plain get it, that there is no fixing the past and that dumping on a few players isn't going to make the stink of the steroid era go away. That the only way to go forward is to appreciate what is left, because once you start putting asterisks on one record in all fairness you would likely have to strip the majority of records set in the past two decades. As for evidence? Well, there is a lot of circumstantial stuff, a lot of dodged questions, and a lot of freakish photo comparisons. Nothing has been proven though, and as dramatic a change as Bonds and Sosa's bodies have undergone during their careers a similar look at Roger Clemens' physique would be likewise damning if guilt is what you are looking for. (I'm not accusing Clemens, just making a point) There is some hard evidence in all of this though. Barry's selection to the All Star team by the fans shows that he isn't necessarily the hated figure that the media wants him to be, and the media's continued assault on Bonds proves that they are out to get him no matter what. Because he is a bad guy. I'm gonna spit on his lunch box

Umm...Can We Get A Refund?

In his latest column the always reliable questionable Peter Vecsey ranks the top twenty prospects in this week's NBA draft. That seems like a simple enough task. Heck, Peter even employed the services of "Jim Clibanoff, President of ClibHoops, a scouting service subscribed to by most NBA teams". After looking at Vecsey's list though, I am stunned by its awfullness. Here are some of the lowlights:

- Durant over Oden at #1...OK, but still questionable given what follows.

- Spencer Hawes and Jason Smith are ranked #8 and #9 respectively, right ahead of Brandan Wright. Umm...Peter?

- #'s 13-15 are Rudy Fernandez, Glen Davis, and Josh McRoberts. At this point it is time to question whether or not Vecsey watched a single basketball game this past year not featuring the Knicks.

- Dominic McGuire comes in at #19 right ahead of #20...MIKE CONLEY? No disrespect to McGuire, but I have not seen a mock draft this side of Pluto that has him in the first round, much less anywhere near Conley's level.

The list feels like an effort by Vecsey to "go against the grain" that went terribly wrong. Either that, or Vecsey is flat out ignorant when it comes to basketball. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the former, but after his Rashard Lewis debacle last week you just never know.

It's not THAT Common Of A Phrase...

Notice something a little similar about the two pictures up there? I mean, it would be one thing if it were an obvious play on words, for example if the story was about Juan Montoya winning the Nextel Race today and both headlines happened to be "Juan In A Million" or "Juan Of A Kind". The phrase "smoking aces" though, just isn't that common or that obvious of a pun for this story for these two headlines to be a coincidence. I mean, the AP photo is even the same, Sportsline just cropped it tighter. (For the record the SI headline was up first) I hope the headline writers at these websites try a little harder from now on.

Today I Became Cool

I have a confession to make. I am cheap. I just really, really don't like to spend money. For example, I own three pairs of Starbury's instead of one pair of Nikes that would cost twice as much as all of my Starbury's combined. I have roughly 70 different t-shirts, and almost all of them were purchased for a dollar or less at a thrift store. If I want to watch a TV season on DVD, I check it out from the library instead of buying it at a store. I read the novels for my English classes in college online instead of buying them. The Crocs that I wear almost everyday were procured from a dumpster, not a Hallmark. I think you get the picture.

So I think you can understand why I have had a very annoying problem. You see, like most any other sports fan I go to ESPN.com all of the time. For the most part it is good for breaking news, fluff stories, some occasional analysis, and perhaps one out of ten Page 2 articles will be good. What I always wanted, and up until a few years ago, had, was in-depth analysis. Stats. Graphs. Charts. You know the drill. To my ever increasing annoyance however, ESPN had decided that any sort of interesting analysis or rumors they had access to were off limits to you and I, the cheap and independent sports fan. Something even as simple as a mock draft was held hostage by...ESPN INSIDER

Now, at first it never really bothered me. Then ESPN started making more and more of their content insider only. And then the national writers I was used to reading started having all of their interesting articles eaten by the insider monster. The easy solution of course would be to pony up the $30 or so a year and get the service. As already established however, I am a cheap, cheap man. So I resigned myself to silently protesting ESPN Insider, instead shifting more of my sports surfing time to SI.com or even CBSSportsline. And I was ok with this, although I would still get quite peeved whenver something interesting popped up on the ESPN front page, only to see that it was accompanied by that nefarious little orange "in" logo. It was like 3rd grade all over again, and I had to go sit in the corner at the uncool lunch table and read the paragraph and a half long preview before going back to SI.com and reading another chapter in "Peter King's Coffee Adventures" or another passage from "Why Dr. Z Hates Young People". Deep down though, I always wanted to be part of the in crowd.

The insider service however, just never seemed like something that I would be willing to spend money on. I mean, analysis is what blogs are for right? And internet sports news should be free right? Still, the little orange logo kept tempting me. I even went so far as to fill in the entire sign up form, only to chicken out right before hitting the final button. Then something funny happened. I looked around one day, and saw that my family had begun to recieve a subscription to ESPN the Magazine. I'm not exactly sure how that happened, whether it was a gift or whatnot, but there it was sitting in the living room. Now, this might not mean anything to you, but here is what that means: ESPN the Magazine = Insider. If you have one you get the other. So I took the magazine, walked over to my computer, and after putting in a little ten digit code and filling out a couple of address forms I was set. I was on the inside. (On a related note: I realize now that you could pretty much do this with any ESPN the Magazine you see that has the address label on it. I.E., the copy you see in the doctor's office or the dentist, or the one down at the barbershop. Now, I am not saying mooching someone's insider is an honest thing, or that you should do it; I'm just saying it seems like an option.)

So after all this time, I am on the inside and...well, I didn't really know what exactly I had access to now, to tell the truth. So after poking around a bit, here is a summary of what insider membership gets you:

- Rumors and Breaking News
- Analyst Articles
- Blogs
- Realtime Scoring
- Radio
- Fantasy Content
- ESPN the Magazine
- Recruiting
- ESPN Local

For me, I could really do without the majority of the blogs and analyst articles. Some of them are indeed truly unique and interesting, but for the most part I can find content of similar or greater quality across the blogosphere. To me the most interesting blogs offered on the site are the most specialized ones, such as the football and basketball recruiting blogs, Joe Lunardi's, the NFL Scout blogs, and Dan Rafael's boxing blog. The ease of use of the ESPN Local is also very appealing to me, since I can just drag a menu to whatever team I want to know about from any of the major sports. I also personally really like the radio stuff as well, since I have grown to enjoy a number of the ESPN radio guys during some long road trips. I also enjoy the recruiting stuff, so that now I can learn even more about the guys coming out of my old high school. (Fort Campbell Falcons baby!)

I suppose the end question is this: after getting my hands dirty with it, would I actually pay for this service. I must admit, I am now a bit torn, as I really do enjoy a number of the new toys I am getting to play with. I have to ask myself though, are these features that unique? I mean, SI.com's FanNation, although I find it quite stupid most of the time, is a good source for team news and rumors. And there are a number of places that have good fantasy sports content for free. The difference I suppose, is in the Radio and Recruiting sections. I would be really tempted to pony up just for those alone, which makes the wealth of other content that much more of a bonus. I'm not sure I ever will though. Lets just say, if you are a dentist that values your insider membership, you better take your address labels off.

Cleaning It Up

Have you ever noticed any glaring factual errors when reading sports articles online? I would say at least one of every ten articles I read have fairly large mistakes. This space will be used to both point out and correct such errors. Feel free to email any such instances to kiduterus@gmail.com.

-In Tom Verducci's article on SI.com today entitled "Odds are Yankees Won't Make Playoffs" he presented a chart with the worst April records of teams that have made the playoffs in the wild card era. He cites the Yankees record in 1995 as 10-13, whereas ESPN.com's schedule from that year has the Yankees record for that month standing at 10-14, with the Yankees only winning the 10th game on the final day of the month. Point being, admitting that the Yankees had the same exact 23 game record two years ago yet made the playoffs would have hurt Verducci's argument, so this is a serious error.

-In Charlie Casserly's draft analysis over on CBS Sportsline, he presented a very detailed and well informed analysis of the draft's of all 30 NFL teams. Only problem being....there are 32 teams. Casserly, going in alphabetical order no less, forgot to list the Cleveland Browns and Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Now, I am not sure how this slipped by Casserly and his editor, but somehow they thought it would be ok to leave out the team (Cleveland) that was arguably the biggest story in the draft. Youch.