Tuesday, May 01, 2007

What a load of shit ...

I don't have time to dissect it, but I really shouldn't have to: this is the single worst piece of so-called journalism I've seen perpetrated in months. Talk about inventing a story; that's fucking ridiculous. It's like a how-to for being a sensationalist hack: the main players won't say anything, so she seeks out an interview from a person involved only peripherally in anything important, one whose tongue has been known to slip in the past, then takes everything he says out of context, implies an intent behind what he doesn't say (while also hypothesizing and conveniently conflating the two categories), then uses a complete non-response to prop up her ignorant fucking sensationalist soapbox. What a horrible job of reporting.

She should apply at ESPN.

(EDIT: In contrast, here is a great interview, if not necessarily a great piece of journalism. That is exactly the kind of thing I rarely or never see in sports-magazine reporting.)


Ryan said...

Wow, horrible. I too would hate sportswriters — and the craft of journalism — if I had to read this paper every day.

Let me save you the hassle of writing your Hancock piece:

Hancock was obviously drunk — drunk enough that passers-by thought he was incoherent at the bar — when he got behind the wheel and sped down the freeway. He hit a PARKED TRUCK, drunk, and died.

Why are people bending over backwards to paint him as a good teammate? — and, really, isn't that what they say about someone with no other positive traits? And why should we canonize a guy who had been making poor decisions like this one his whole career?

AND — while I'm at it — how has Tony LaRussa made this whole thing the media's fault? Because they reported that this "excellent teammate" was bombed when he left the bar that's owned by the Cardinals' color guy? Isn't that just being a good reporter?

Right, Tony. And Big Mac got that way by eating his spinach.

Diesel said...

Depending on where Justin goes with his Hancock piece, I might do a little bit of media criticism myself, since it seems that absolutely everyone is going to handle this situation in the worst possible way.

Until then, I can only say this: I will spit in Tony LaRussa's face if I ever see him in person.

"The first time I hear insincerity, man, I'm going to start swinging this fungo," (LaRusssa) told reporters, resting on a practice bat.

I realize that the St. Louis media is a particularly fawning subset within the profession, but where's the writer walking up to LaRussa there and daring Sunglasses Inside to actually swing it? Why on Earth does the media, on a local and national level, continually protect LaRussa, who is clearly one of the worst people in baseball (not to mention stunningly bad at his job)? All he's done is bait the media and be a cocksucker to everyone in general, yet the writers still form a human shield around him the second he's criticized.

Anyone else wonder why LaRussa's so sensitive about the fact that Hancock was shitfaced? It couldn't be this.