User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.9188 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
Dialed In
—
—
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Threatening the Owners
It takes a lot to threaten MLB owners. Marvin Miller did it. Don Fehr has done it. You argue from a position of bettering the work environment, and a strike ensues. The threat has to be credible, and at first, few take it seriously. Only when it hurts do people see it means business, and sometimes even then stubbornness ignores the threat.
This morning at about 1 AM, FOX Sports columnist Ken Rosenthal threatened the owners. Rosenthal threatened the owners that if one were to dare sign Barry Bonds, there would be repercussions. Rosenthal pretends to open his ultimatum with an observation of rights, as many people do - hey, do what you want, that’s your right, but if you do…
I can appreciate people being unhappy that many, many baseball players have taken performance-enhancing drugs over the last fifty years. I can certainly understand that many want the “Steroids Era” to go away. But Bonds isn’t the only one. Rosenthal writes that Bonds “represents” the cancer that is PEDs. I wonder why that is, Ken? Could it be that you, and your brethren, pursue and villify Bonds more vociferously? Why isn’t Andy Pettitte representing the cancer? For that matter, why isn’t Roger Clemens? Or any of the other myriad of players known, rather than accused, to have taken them? That portrayal is propped up by *you*, Ken.
That’s all well and good. You don’t have to like Bonds because he once called you a shrimp and wouldn’t take your question unless you stood up (you were standing). You evidently can even wite that “Bonds is a cancer”. It’s distasteful, and should be beneath some journalistic integrity, but hey, get in there. It’s even admirable that you recognize Bonds is a much better player than, well, all but a handful of MLB players. That’s right, he’s still a top ten player. So, you can’t intelligently attack Bonds’ skills as though they were eroded.
What’s left? You do what any crooked actor would do: you threaten anyone that might help him.
Rosenthal writes: “The signing of Bonds would put the sport’s problem with PEDs back in the headlines at a time when the fallout from the Mitchell report is fading, a time when Roger Clemens is more of a question for the government than a question for baseball.”
Pardon me, Ken, but who writes those articles? Bonds? The owners? The fans? Does someone show up at your door at 11 PM with a gun and force you to write hateful things, rather than just writing about the game? If your finger is so keenly on the pulse of American interest, and you know they don’t want to hear more about Bonds and steroids, then (listen carefully, this is the revelation): Don’t write about it.
What? You can do that? Well, I am certain Jay Mariotti cannot, and probably not Bill Plaschke if Bonds shows up in LA, but I’m pretty certain you can write a different piece. There are about 1000 players in MLB, all with a story to tell. That should cover your three articles a day for the entire season. Bernie Miklasz doesn’t have to write about it. Rob Neyer doesn’t. You don’t have to work blue.
Then the best part: “Any owner who would prostitute himself by signing Bonds would face a storm of negative publicity...”. That’s reads correctly. If you, MLB Owner, dare to sign Barry Bonds, I, Ken Rosenthal, and my ilk, will rain down on you more articles about what an awful person you are, and rally as many fans to criticize you because we, the baseball media, control the information that most Americans get via newspapers and television. We won’t skip a chance to call you a prostitute, or question your moral fiber. We’ll harangue you at every turn, until you see the wickedness of your ways. If necessary, we’ll hold you underwater to see if you are a witch.
We’re watching a tightly contested Democratic race for the nomination, and every time Hillary Clinton pushes negativity in her campaign, everybody groans. “People don’t want to see that. Can’t they just focus on the issues?” I’m sure many sportswriters are appalled at that sort of tactic. But what do we see when Ken puts pen to paper? Is it focused on the baseball season? No. It’s negativity about Bonds, and a threat to stir the pot even more nastily should an owner sign Bonds, the all-time home run champ (career and single season), and one of the top ten players in baseball in 2007.
Threatening to publish disparaging columns about an owner that signs a player a writer doesn’t like. I cannot imagine performing my job in that fashion.
That’s a sorry level of “professionalism”. Shame on you, Ken. Shame on you.
Support BBTF
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2007 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I like Rosenthal, but this article of his was poorly conceived, badly written, crappily argued, and worst of all, totally unnecessary. I dislike Bonds as much as anyone out there (except for kevin) but I'll be the first in line to defend him from utter hack jobs like Rosenthal's latest.
To echo Dial, shame on you, Ken, shame on you.
Dial, sometimes you have excellent posts. This clearly wasn't one of them. Rosenthal in no way threatened owners. He's not in a position to threaten owners. Rosenthal did what he is paid to do - write. Or, have an opinion, and write it. Rosenthal didn't threaten the owners any more than you threatened Rosenthal.
I don't agree with Rosenthal, but he didn't threaten anyone.
I don't agree with Rosenthal, but he didn't threaten anyone.
He didn't say he was going to write nasty things about them if they signed Bonds? Where do you think "negative publicity" comes from?
Taking an action that is not generally well perceived by the general population.
"Rays sign Bonds" is going to make the headlines even if you fire every one of the sportswriters in America. The same is true about the coverage of Bonds perjury trial. That publicity exists without Rosenthal, and if it is newsworthy, I imagine most people expect Rosenthal to write about it.
You seem to think that Rosenthal makes news, rather than comments on the news.
Riiight. Some headlines just write themselves, you know?
You seem to think that Rosenthal makes news, rather than comments on the news.
Chris can speak for himself, but this sentence sums up my feelings nicely.
Exactly. I read the whole thing twice looking for a "threat". Of course there wasn't one. Given that, the little diatribe above makes zero sense.
I'm surprised you disagree. "Bonds is a cancer" isn't news until someone writes it.
I am certain the media can absolutely make a mountain out of a molehill, and am surprised that you wouldn't think that.
Sort of. I wrote about something that has happened. I didn't write "If Ken Rosenthal does X, then he can expect some negative publicity!" Moreover, while I appreciate the sentiment I should get the same national exposure that Rosenthal does, I expect his ability to get such a negative view of MLB owners and Bonds into a large venue is greater than my blurb here.
But I do appreciate your support that I get the chance.
Well, he's predicting what *he* will do. That's called a threat when you are predicting you are going to punish someone. Quite accurately? Of course, he controls his ability to present negative publicity.
what will happen in the event Bonds is signed by someone. Since Rosenthal doesn't really control what anyone writes besides Rosenthal, I can't see how he's really in a position to threaten.
He is in a position to threaten, even if he is only referring to his own three columns a day, and regular TV spots. And I think it is naive to think writers don't influence one another.
Correct. The part under that can say "Bonds may not play much and may not play well." Or it can say "The Rays should be ashamed of themselves for signing one of the top players because he, in my opinion, represents all things wrong with baseball".
Rosenthal is clearly saying he'll be writing the second sentence every chance he gets.
I think you are giving Rosenthal and the rest of the media too much credit. They've been beating the steroids drum for, what, 4-5 years? And I've never seen any sign that any baseball fans care about steroids in any meaningful way. Does it stop people from buying tickets? Or buying jerseys? Or logging on to mlb.com? No. Joe Fan doesn't give a crap about steroids, except to pass a little time during the off-season, or to engage in a little dimestore moralizing. So Ken Rosenthal can write whatever he wants about steroids and Bonds, and it's not going to make one bit of difference.
Which is odd, because BL claims I give Rosenthal too much credit for the exact opposite reasoning.
Really, where?
Where he says if the Rays sign Bonds, there will be negative publicity. Rosenthal writes such publicity. He can guarantee it. I don[t see that as complicated.
You're missing the step where Rosenthal says he'll be writing anything negative about such a signing (beyond this). Sure, he can guarantee it, but he quite explicity doesn't.
Rosenthal is predicting there will be negative publicity from a Bonds signing, which even the biggest Bonds fanboy would have to agree is true. Nowhere is he saying he'll be doing any such writing, which is the only way this could evenly remotely constitute a threat.
Will he? Probably. But it's not promised.
If this is a threat, than Rosenthal is the worst threat issuer in the history of mankind.
The author of this original article is posting as an employee of FOX, not as an individual. It is difficult to overestimate the power of a company that has so much media control.
Really? It is the first thing I hear about baseball, from casual fans. C-Span shows important hearings, but not many received the attention as the Clemens hearing. Many people appear to be passionate against players accused of using steroids, even though they have no direct evidence the player took the steroids or had his performance improved by them.
The author even states that the bad feelings will continue even if Bonds leads a team to the title and does not test positive. So even if he retains his high quality play without taking steroids?
I agree with Chris that this article is damaging. It is low level argumentative bunk designed to push a small minded hateful emotion-inspiring message that distracts people from pursuing important issues. How is this different than anything else you find on FOX?
Which, in a way, makes Rosenthal's article more despicable. It's not a threat to the owners, it's an active attempt to keep Bonds out of the game and impact his livelihood (granted, Bonds is plenty rich already). It's not about Clemens or other players because Rosenthal isn't trying to hurt those players. Further, as Chris notes, he can't argue Bonds isn't still a good player, so an article targeted to GMs isn't going to work. An article "gently reminding" owners of the crap they'll take if they sign Bonds is the most effective way in which Rosenthal can hurt Bonds.
(Before anyone points out that Rosenthal is only writing in response to recent reports that the Rays are considering signing Bonds, note that the Astros are much more seriously sniffing around Clemens without a peep from Rosenthal.)
If this is a threat, than Rosenthal is the worst threat issuer in the history of mankind.
If your boss says, if you do X, there will be repercussions - that's a threat.
If you park in the wrong parking spot, and someone says, "if you park in my spot, something bad might happen to your car."
Those aren't threats? Okay, my bad.
If your boss says if you do x, then people might talk about you--I take that as advice not a threat.
If you park in the wrong parking spot, and someone says, "if you park in my spot, something bad might happen to your car."
If I park my car in a spot where there is heavy gang activity, and a guy in colors says - Homes your car might get jacked there-- I might take it as very good advice, even if the person has been known to be influential in criminal activity.
For starters, it's not really a threat when you've already done what you're (allegedly) threatening to do. Rosenthal has already made his view clear on what a Bonds signing would mean. What does he have left, the promise to use bigger words? A vow to up his exclamation point count?
That's like me starting a post that says, Hey, I've got pictures of a naked Chris Dial canoodling with Rob Base. If you don't alter Manny's shitty defensive ratings, Chris, I'm going to tell BTF that I've got pictures of you canoodling with Rob Base.
Second, he's exerting a power everyone already knows he has.
"If baseball team A does something I don't like, I'll offer a negative opinion about it." Wow, Rosenthal has really laid down the gauntlet.
Finally, he doesn't actually threaten anything. He doesn't say he'll write more negative opinions about Bonds. He doesn't vow to do anything at all. Hell, he may have decided that he's done writing anything about Bonds until the end of time. We don't know, because nothing in this piece indicates what future acts Rosenthal himself will take. Sure, he CAN generate negative publicity. But he doesn't promise to do so.
This column is plenty shitty enough without manufacturing additional reasons.
No need to speculate. He already has. (Bonds is a cancer. There is no place in baseball for him). To the extent Ken represents the sentiment of baseball media (seems like he's not alone here), it's a power play to try and keep Bonds out of the game.
Owners can choose to pay attention to it or ignore it. Devil Rays would benefit in the short run to sign Bonds and ignore it. He's extremely likely to make the team better, and almost certainly draws fan interest, even if many are just buying their tickets to go and boo.
Long term, if the weasels hold a grudge it could come back to hurt the Devil Rays. They want to build a new sailboat-looking stadium. In the battles to secure their welfare payment, it would be to their benefit to have the media on their side instead of one holding a grudge.
He's no Steadman Williams.
Hmmm...
Bootsy, aren't you an editor?
Wouldn't this be a threat to all the reporters?
Perhaps a warning.
Perhaps a warning.
Shame on you, Bootsy. Shame on you.
Well, he's *supposed* to edit. That's his job title.
People can say they are passionate against steroids, or against players who take steroids, and I assume that a huge percentage of people would say that if asked in a poll. But when push comes to shove, and people have to decide whether to spend money on baseball, they do. Luckily for baseball, the most vocal contingent about steroids (the "old fart" crowd) doesn't spend any money on baseball to begin with.
The fan who decides to boycott baseball -- or even just spend less money on baseball -- because of steroids is like the family that loses its farm because of the estate tax -- DOESN'T EXIST.
This does appear to be true. It is cavalier of the league to not have the best (maybe) player in baseball. They have to feel very secure that they have the best baseball league available in the country. If congress broke apart MLB's monopoly, to force some competition in the industry, there would be little chance the best player remains unemployed.
That may be true, I do not know the data. Profits are certainly up for baseball teams, but this is influenced by the fact that there is no competing major league to which we can choose to spend our baseball money. When I am fed up with the baseball owners, I want to go elsewhere - but I love baseball, so I come back to the only major league. That doesn't mean the league cannot be destroyed by poor public perception.
That would be true, but I don't think there's a single owner that thinks Bonds is the best player in baseball, or anything like it, and I strongly agree with them. You really think he's better than Pujols and ARod and everybody else?
I view Bonds as a guy whose likely to miss a chunk of the season (as he has the last few years), who's slow with virtually no defensive value. He has two positive attributes - very good power (but not better than a handful of others), and a ton of walks. And that's assuming he doesn't decline any further.
Obviously Bonds can still hit, and because of that, he's likely to be damn good for someone if they sign him, but its a huge leap to call him the best player in baseball.
I really did not mean to argue that Bonds was the best player in baseball, that wasn't my point - I should have made that clearer. He did have the highest RC/27 in baseball last year, so he is among the best, as opposed to near replacement level.
Baseball owners can boycott him, if they want, because there is no competing league.
To an extent Bonds only has himself to blame for not being Crash Davis like everybody else. It's not like he missed the Albert Belle saga and saw how far an antagonistic media could go in their dislike of a player who made their lives difficult.
That doesn't excuse this kind of stuff, really. As my Dad once argued, "Bonds may be on steroids, but he's way better than everyone else on steroids." That counts for something, and if you couldn't enjoy the postseason Barry Bonds had in 2002, I question whether you like the sport.
Rosenthal's main mistake is that he thinks because he intensely dislikes Bonds, and knows other people like him who do, it's a far more common sentiment in the general public than it commonly is. Happens all the time. The majority of fans probably think Bonds is a jerk and a roider, but likely care about it as much as they care whether their bank teller is a jerk and a roider: they'd rather he wasn't, but as long as he does his job, they have a lot of trouble caring very much.
Whe
Point still stands. Keeping someone out for political reasons violates the principle of "major league".
On the one hand people make news by their actions, and how others react to them.
On the other hand, reporters and editors are a filter by which certain things are judged worthy of attention and how others are not. Those are deemed worthy are news.
Rosenthal wrote an opinion where he suggested what might be newsworthy, and suggested that there might be a reaction to the news.
Dial says that Rosenthal should think more about whether what Rosenthal opines is news, and whether the depth of fervor is what Rosenthal thinks it is prior to Rosenthal's comments.
So it's dynamic, not static environment and the two opinions are in no way operating in a vacuum.
My own opinion is possibly closer to Dial's than Backlasher's. Editors and reporters are more significant gatekeepers regarding what the public focuses on than BL is giving them credit is my main point.
Remember the Maine! (not John, the damn boat!)
The Maine didn't happen in the age of the Internets.
Gatekeepers...BL
That ain't the issue hoss. The issue is whether Rosenthal is threatening owners that he will use his power as a reporter to make them rue the day they signed Bonds, as opposed to pointing out that signing Bonds will lead to negative public reaction.
Um, he didn't say "nwegative public reaction". He said "negative publicity." Publicity is usually defined as "excessive attention in the news media".
They aren't the same.
I'm still far more shocked that he could be so utterly stupid as to refer to allegations of rape as "personal indiscretion", and then have it sit up there until somebody acted to change it. That is one hell of a "slip of the pen".
Absolutely. Aside from the butt-kissing steroid lovers on this site, the entirety of baseball fandom is shocked and agog at the prospect that this horror of a human being, this degenerate piece of filth, this lowlife, could ever be permitted to even walk past a ball park, much less be allowed to wear the sainted uniform of one of the teams. They cry out with one voice: Lord God in Heaven -- or Agent Novitsky, if the Lord is otherwise engaged -- please do not let this come to pass.
I know this, because kevin told me so.
You think Rosenthal wrote this piece for "a few thousand" or this site?
Nice work, Ken. Without your fantastic ability to uncover the true evil that is PED's in baseball, none of us would have a clue as to whom we should focus our dismay and disgust at, as if it could possibly be as simple as focusing all of our frustration on a single player. It's funny to me that Ken Rosenthal referenced prostitution in his article given his implied promise to stop at nothing to solicit "negative publicity" should an owner have the audacity to sign Barry Bonds.
Chris Dial called this right. Props...
I think the possibility of misinformation gaining currency and credence is enhanced in the Information Age. Obama being a Muslim Manchurian Candidate is but one example of this.
Well said.
spot on!
Rosenthal basically warns the owners that most fans will see the signing of Bonds in a bad light, and asserts Bonds epitomizes PED abuse to most fans, and therefore there will be backlash if somebody holds their nose and signs the guy, some of it from Rosenthal himself. Big deal. All of it's true enough. None of the article is shocking to me in the least.
I think that most fans would not want their own ballclub to sign Bonds. You have to draw the line somewhere.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/if-you-wish-to-bury-bonds
I missed that one ..thanks for sharing ... Solid read!
That's a stretch. I don't see that at all. Raising a stink is not anywhere near enforcing a blacklist.
But I'm not seeing Steve Carrell as Maxwell Smart.
Guess I'll never give up on my favorite player. Real fans I don't believe do that. Dispite what some people want you to believe about Barry Bonds, deep down inside we all wish he wouldn't have pissed off the press so many years ago. But he did. Then of course he held his position. I think he couldn't find a way to turn it around with them, don't think they wanted that. And that other stuff, it's all about nonsense anyway. I believe Barry probablly didn't, he didn't need to. Get the chance to hit 30 or more this year and why would that upset anybody? Not real baseball fans I'd say. I'm pleased to see fans voting the team they'd like to see him play in perhaps his final season. If you have voted yet here is the link. Even Yankee fans want him!
Fans Can Vote A Team for Barry Bonds http://www.insightsforworkability.com
Speak for yourself on that one, mister. Let the Mets sign him.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main