If you only read one article about the whole A-Rod/Selena Roberts/book/Duke LAX kerfuffle, make it this one.

How was this not mentioned before re: the Duke LAX thing?

At no point did ESPN’s TV anchors or radio broadcasters mention that Roberts was the same person who led the media charge against the Duke lacrosse players. I listened to Roberts’ interview on Dan Patrick’s radio show. Patrick never asked her about Duke lacrosse or why we should trust her reporting.

Roberts should be asked about the Duke case in every future interview she gives until she acknowledges her mistakes - and maybe even after then.

She is despicable for the way she handled the Duke case, and her actions in writing this ARod book are scummy.

It is not a coincidence that Bonds and Rodriguez have been portrayed as the worst teammates in the history of professional sports while Rogers Clemens’ and Mark McGwire’s teammate shortcomings were largely overlooked. When Clemens skipped games and road trips it was because he was a dedicated family man rather than a bad teammate.

I am not asserting a nationwide racial conspiracy against minority baseball players. I’m in no way stating that Roberts’ pursuit of Rodriguez is motivated by race. I’m asserting that the media’s unwillingness to publicly and aggressively challenge itself breeds unequal and unfair coverage.

We all have biases that must be contested. We’re all capable of getting swept up in the biases of our peers and friends

Interesting he lays down the race card against his brothers. I've saying that for years, and its just nice to see one of them admit the racial bias is there.

Great stuff by Whitlock, and the terrible thing is my first thought is "who the heck is this bird sleeping with to maintain this level of exposure."

It's kind of an awful thing to consider regarding a female journalist but surely the whole Duke incident cannot just be totally disregarded as an honest mistake or something. Her article basically instigated a pulic lynching of those Duke guys and she has pretty much escaped without scrutiny from the wider community. Surely she's got some connections somewhere?

I haven't read anything else that she has written, is she actually a decent writer?

Here is Jeff Pearlman admitting the good 'ol boys network exists.

I never used to criticize the media. Never. I felt as if I should be loyal to my profession, so I assumed those attacking the press were idiots looking for an easy hit.

No more.

I haven't read anything else that she has written, is she actually a decent writer?

She is, in fact, a terrible writer. Purple prose combined with a complete lack of real insight.

On the other hand, I know a lot of people around here dislike Jason Whitlock, but every time I read his stuff I'm impressed by the way he treats all sorts of hot-button subjects, particularly the intersection of race and sports. He doesn't bother with arty prose, but he actually has interesting things to say.

She is, in fact, a terrible writer

Well this, then coupled with the false Duke players allegations, how is she doing it? How did she get to where she is?

Guys like Poz are lamenting the loss of newspaper jobs and such, but good writing will always find a home. Yet a poor writer like this continues to be supported. Which brings me back to my original thought, who's the girl bonking to stay where she is?

About a week ago I, like many people, thought Selena Roberts was possibly America's worst journalist, because she is the one who was credited with spreading most of the since-debunked conventional wisdom that made up the Duke lacrosse frenzy.

Now after 18 threads in which 1,500 people have gone on and on about how unbelievably awful and uniquely evil and prejudiced Selena Roberts is, I now realize there were dozens of other journalists participating in the frenzy as well, and that none of it, I mean none of it, would have happened without the incredibly corrupt and improper actions of D.A. Nifong. So thanks, BTF, I now like Selena Roberts a lot more. I merely think she's an unbearably bad writer.

All things aside, let's not forget that she broke the initial A-Rod did steroids story, which is a scoop that was verified on all levels by the man himself. And originally, A-Rod criticized her reporting techniques, but then later completely backed off accusations of Roberts trespassing and lying.

Granted, that doesn't automatically mean the book stands. If there really is as little on-the-record reporting in this book as Whitlock says, then I'd have serious questions, too.

All things aside, let's not forget that she broke the initial A-Rod did steroids story, which is a scoop that was verified on all levels by the man himself.

She also had six sources for that story. It was the one thing in the book that we could be reasonably sure was true.

I've said before, I wouldn't be surprised if that part of the book was leaked because it was the only credible reporting in the book, and establishing that months before publishing would make the entire book seem more credible.

On the other hand, I know a lot of people around here dislike Jason Whitlock, but every time I read his stuff I'm impressed by the way he treats all sorts of hot-button subjects, particularly the intersection of race and sports. He doesn't bother with arty prose, but he actually has interesting things to say.

I've always found him to be hit or miss. Some of what he writes is pretty out there and worthless but at times, like in this case, he comes up with really good stuff.

I'm with Esoteric in #1. I don't blame Roberts for the loose standards that are applied to sports journalists, and I'll be angry if my fellow citizens make this People Magazine piece into a bestseller. But I think we need to take a stand here and not allow this kind of "reporting" to be financially rewarding for the writer.

To argue with a theme that I've seen on this thread and elsewhere, anonymous sourcing standards are way different in books than in newspapers or magazines. I'm reading a book about Dick Cheney right now, and in exchange for really good access, the writer keeps most names out of it.

So I don't think that she's out of the mainstream in writing this thing down for book publication.

who's the girl bonking to stay where she is?

Whilst i would be naive to suggest that there aren't female journalists who use their various "talents" to secure their jobs, i feel that it's more to do with how the journalist world works.

(disclaimer i have no experience in the news reporting business, or any friends or any first hand knowledge of the business this is just what i've gleaned from another forum)

Basically this message board had a topic where people talked about the fact that on journalism university/college courses a lot of it is actually about networking and acquiring contacts and getting on the school newspaper (the general opinion was that you HAD to work on the school newspaper if you wanted a decent chance of employment).

Now that sort of need to get into a closed circle group would obviously require a lot of back-scratching and friend-making so whilst i have no way of proving this, i can't believe that a careerist journalist such as Roberts doesn't have friends and influence with other journalists which in turns leads to her being hired and kept on at certain positions.

If anyone can add to this with any first-hand knowledge i would very grateful.

Well this, then coupled with the false Duke players allegations, how is she doing it? How did she get to where she is?

Okay, so who is Mariotti #######? Of all the hack journalists out there, why is Roberts the one facing this accusation?

Well this, then coupled with the false Duke players allegations, how is she doing it? How did she get to where she is?

Okay, so who is Mariotti #######? Of all the hack journalists out there, why is Roberts the one facing this accusation?

Because she's in the current news cycle. If you stick around here enough, you'll get questions like this directed against most of the other hacks as well. BTF is pretty much an equal opportunity snarkfest when it comes to the likes of Roberts and Mariotti.

How do sportswriters with national exposure get their jobs to begin with? Usually by starting low and then working their way up with a combination of writing talent, reporting skills and energy, sports background, sports knowledge, geography, personality, connections, good looks, and luck, i.e. being in the right place at the right time and under the right editor.

As to which of these factors is the most important, it varies case by case. About the only thing you can say about Roberts at first glance is that it sure wasn't the looks.

Basically this message board had a topic where people talked about the fact that on journalism university/college courses a lot of it is actually about networking and acquiring contacts and getting on the school newspaper (the general opinion was that you HAD to work on the school newspaper if you wanted a decent chance of employment).

It's kinda funny, my universities newspaper was so terrible that the Journalism School actively discouraged its students from writing for it.

1. Selena used to work in Minneapolis and Orlando before coming to the NY Times in the mid-1990s to cover the Nets and then Knicks. She then became an NBA columnist, general columnist, and Olympics writer, among other things. From there she went to Sports Illustrated, to some extent replacing Rick Reilly iirc.

2. It is undeniably true that it is unusual for one prominent sports journalist (or maybe any sector of journalism) to criticize another.

3. Has it ever happened that the well-known writers who write the blurbs on book jackets and back covers trying to convince you to read the book are also close friends of the authors? Uh, yeah (to be clear, this point has nothing to do with this book, which I haven't even seen. Just making a general point).

I've always found him to be hit or miss. Some of what he writes is pretty out there and worthless but at times, like in this case, he comes up with really good stuff.
I agree with Jim here. When I lived in KC from '96-'01, more than not, his column would infuriate me. He often played the race card, IMO. But every now and again he'd hit on something important and extract the truth out of it. Now that I'm back in Philly, I only see the best stuff linked here. He reminds me of the smart but disinterested kid in school.

It is not a coincidence that Bonds and Rodriguez have been portrayed as the worst teammates in the history of professional sports while Rogers Clemens’ and Mark McGwire’s teammate shortcomings were largely overlooked. When Clemens skipped games and road trips it was because he was a dedicated family man rather than a bad teammate.

Not sure I buy into these "black/white" contrasts, though I'm not trying to downplay the presence of "racial" bias. (Quotes are because I believe there's only one race, but with many culturally and/or physically different groups.)
Bonds: Here I fully agree with Whitlock's description. I also think Barry went out of his way to earn it.
ARod: Maybe I just wasn't listening, but I can't recall much "bad teammate" commentary prior to the Yankees' meltdown in the 2004 LCS. Didn't ARod earn kudos for being willing to move to 3B when he came to NY?
Clemens: My recollection is that he has always been kind of a jerk, and portrayed as such, except perhaps for the first few years in Boston.
McGwire: He was a bad teammate? Another case of my not listening?

ARod: Maybe I just wasn't listening, but I can't recall much "bad teammate" commentary prior to the Yankees' meltdown in the 2004 LCS. Didn't ARod earn kudos for being willing to move to 3B when he came to NY?

My recollection is that particularly with the Rangers, the 24+1 thing came up a lot. As a matter of fact, I remember assertions that if they could just lose this clubhouse presence, the team would immediately start winning again.

My recollection is that particularly with the Rangers, the 24+1 thing came up a lot. As a matter of fact, I remember assertions that if they could just lose this clubhouse presence, the team would immediately start winning again.

That's not my recollection; my recollection is that A-Rod's salary came up a lot, with idiots who couldn't add asserting that if only they weren't paying A-Rod so much money, they could afford to get the pitching they so desperately needed.

The 24+1 thing was what the Mets said when they decided not to bid on him, and that was roundly mocked.

On the other hand, I know a lot of people around here dislike Jason Whitlock, but every time I read his stuff I'm impressed by the way he treats all sorts of hot-button subjects, particularly the intersection of race and sports. He doesn't bother with arty prose, but he actually has interesting things to say.

When it comes to the stuff around sports - race, culture, team chemistry, etc., he is pretty good. When it comes to actually talking about sports, he is awful. Remember, he wrote the column JUST LAST WEEK that the Royals should sign Barry Bonds, who has been out of baseball for two years. And every year he would write a column about how the Chiefs should sign his former high school teammate Jeff George, even after George had been out of the game for awhile.

I think Jason Whitlock is a very bright guy who is unfortunately very lazy. I think he phones it in most of the time, but when he tries really hard, he can produce a very good column. Him and Posnanski are keeping that newspaper in business though.

Remember, he wrote the column JUST LAST WEEK that the Royals should sign Barry Bonds, who has been out of baseball for two years.

And there are several people at this site who strongly agree with this notion despite, as you note, Barry being out of the league for two years.

I have no idea whether they're right or wrong (although I suspect they'd be wrong), but it's hardly an insane position.

I think I'll always have a rosy view of Whitlock both for his early-adopter stance on the Duke LAX case as well as his awesome takedown of Scoop Jackson, which he undertook knowing full well it would cost him his cushy job at ESPN.

Remember, he wrote the column JUST LAST WEEK that the Royals should sign Barry Bonds, who has been out of baseball for two years.

For a team that had a Matt LaPorta or Nolan Reimold in AAA, then signing Bonds doesn't make sense, but if a team is playing Willie Bloomquist in the OF, then there's no harm in signing Bonds, even after he turns 70.

Edit: Didn't realize Willie F. was hitting .372. Still, that can't last.

Remember, he wrote the column JUST LAST WEEK that the Royals should sign Barry Bonds, who has been out of baseball for two years.

I fully support the Atlanta Braves signing Barry Bonds today, and letting him start in LF tonight. Especially if he's willing to sign for the minimum, which is what his agent has claimed for the past two years.

I fully believe that Barry Bonds > Garret Anderson/Matt Diaz/Brandon Jones, even if he hasn't played for two years. (And actually, isn't it really more like one year? Didn't he play in 2007?)

3. Has it ever happened that the well-known writers who write the blurbs on book jackets and back covers trying to convince you to read the book are also close friends of the authors?

In the book business this is (or was) known as "the Studs Terkel," named after the late author who must have given his many friends close to 500 dust jacket blurbs in his long lifetime. I once bought a couple of hundred review copies from the Post, representing about six weeks' worth of releases, that had a full half dozen Terkel blurbs among them.

Bonds last played on Sept 26, 2007. So roughly 1.625 years ago.

Seriously, who is Mariotti f***ing to stay in the limelight?

Seriously, who is Mariotti f***ing to stay in the limelight?

Do you really want to know the answet to that question?

Seriously, who is Mariotti f***ing to stay in the limelight?

I don't know but the recently bought out Terence Moore re-surfaced at the FanHouse also so he may be in on that, too.

When it comes to the stuff around sports - race, culture, team chemistry, etc., he is pretty good. When it comes to actually talking about sports, he is awful.

I think this is almost exactly right. I say "almost" because he's occasionally capable of legitimate technical insight; he wrote an interesting column last year excoriating the Chiefs for the way they used Glenn Dorsey that was pretty solid. But generally, what you wrote is right on. The saving grace is that he's smart enough to know he doesn't know anything about baseball, so he usually refrains from writing about on-field matters. The Bonds column was an exception to that.

I've thought for a while that he'd be better off if he wasn't on the sports page. That's partly a function of the dynamic you described above: he's better when he's not really talking about sports. But the most annoying aspect of The Jason Whitlock Experience is his insufferable self-importance. Jason Whitlock's favorite topic has always been Jason Whitlock. That would be more understandable if he was writing about important things instead of Jeff George.

I don't know but the recently bought out Terence Moore re-surfaced at the FanHouse also so he may be in on that, too.

The AJC finally got rid of him? Wow, this downsizing thing isn't all bad, I guess.

Whitlock can write a very good column about football and used to do so quite frequently. Unfortunately he can also be lazy as mentioned above and the last several years the vast majority of his Chiefs columns were about feuding with Carl Peterson rather than football. If he knows much of anything about any other sport he does a good job of disguising it.

"...to some extent replacing Rick Reilly..."

This explains so much.

"I don't know but the recently bought out Terence Moore re-surfaced at the FanHouse also so he may be in on that, too."

FanHouse: Making Pets.com look like sane and sensible stewards of venture capital.

I'd sign Barry.

I don't want to be kneejerk but anybody who pays attention knows that the accusation of "boinking" your way to the top is used as a way to belittle & minimize women's accomplishments. If for no other reason than the fact that the vast majority of the people in power are heterosexual males. So maybe you could find other ways to criticize a female journalist? (or politician, or academic leader, or....)

I would guess that female sports journalists, once they reach a certain level of prominence, are in fact harder to get rid of than your average white male sports journalist. I find it very frustrating when they abuse their position because it does reinforce the idea that there are problems with women doing the job. No, nobody here would say that, but our feelings get affected.

I don't think Selena Roberts is boinking anyone. I am somewhat skeptical she would be where she is if she wasn't a woman however. There are plenty of women who know their stuff working in sports, but I don't think it's amiss to say the Times liked having a female sports columnist and they made a crappy pick. Forget this and even the Duke thing, she is absolutely what one poster said above: a purple prosed know-nothing.

I think it's fair to assume that Jason Whitlock is tipping pitches.

I don't think Selena Roberts is boinking anyone. I am somewhat skeptical she would be where she is if she wasn't a woman however.

I don't really buy this. The print sports columnist sinecure isn't really a merit-based operation, and--as much as I'm on her case lately--she's no worse than any number of high-profile male columnists in the business. I'd say she's actually more competent than Reilly or Plaschke, although I don't think those two have done anything as unethical as what she did wrt Duke LAX. In other words, I think she's a fairly representative mainstream sports voice.

Has it ever happened that the well-known writers who write the blurbs on book jackets and back covers trying to convince you to read the book are also close friends of the authors? Uh, yeah (to be clear, this point has nothing to do with this book, which I haven't even seen. Just making a general point).

It's happened many, many, many times. Spy Magazine used to have a recurring feature called "Logrolling in Our Time" which compiled examples of Alfonse favorably reviewing Gaston's book, and vice versa.

As far as blurbing books goes, it's almost always another writer you know personally or someone who's worked with that particular publishing house before. In the case of "celebrity" blurbers who aren't writers, it's often a case of writing the blurb yourself and sending it to them for approval. Same goes for forewords on occasion. In other words, don't ever let a hardback blurb influence your purchasing decision.

I flipped thruogh the book today at BN. Not a single thing is sourced. No footnotes, not parentheticals, not even any attributions when she lifts something directly from another book. It's insane, really...she lifts quotes wholesale from Yankee Years, Juiced, etc., and doesn't have a single citation.

In the back of the book she has a list of books and newspapers she stole from, but not indication of what specific claims came from where. It's sort of like a works cited page with no citations...wierd.

The book blurbs discussion sounded somewhat familiar and alas, it was:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/how-much-do-book-blurbs-matter/

I think Jason Whitlock is a very bright guy who is unfortunately very lazy.

So you are saying that he has tremendous natural talent, but lacks the grit of white, I mean scrappy journalists with less talent?

(Obviously 100% tongue-in-cheek)

Who's the David Eckstein of journalism?

I don't think Selena Roberts is boinking anyone. I am somewhat skeptical she would be where she is if she wasn't a woman however.

Really? I question that half of the current sports journalists would have jobs if their was equal social programming toward interest in sport and equal opportunities in the field...

In other words, don't ever let a hardback blurb influence your purchasing decision.

I let a blurb depress the hell out of me the other day. I found a book I had used in my thesis in the discount bin at Chapters the other day so I bought it, and one of the blurb's mentioned that the writer was the same age as me (25). That sucked. It's one thing for baseball players to be younger than me, but historians...no.

I read Cormac McCarthy's first two books in the Vintage paperback editions. Both were ruined by the back-cover synopses, which gave away highly important spoilers, detailing secrets that were only revealed in the climaxes of the two books, each a full 200 pages in. What the ####?

As far as blurbing books goes, it's almost always another writer you know personally or someone who's worked with that particular publishing house before.

One of the more amusing forewords I've read was from Dave Barry, discussing how he was asked based on his office being across the hall from the book's author.

Who's the David Eckstein of journalism?

Robothal

Who's the David Eckstein of journalism?

Lupica

Aren't Rosenthal, and Lupica supposed to be 'superstars' of sports writing? Wouldn't a guy like Joel Sherman make more sense?

So does that make Posnanski Chase Utley?

I read Cormac McCarthy's first two books in the Vintage paperback editions. Both were ruined by the back-cover synopses, which gave away highly important spoilers, detailing secrets that were only revealed in the climaxes of the two books, each a full 200 pages in.

On the back of the DVD for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, they actually tell you who shot Liberty Valance. (If you haven't seen the movie, this is revealed in something like the last five minutes.)

Whitlock is the Jeff Kent of sportswriting.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, they actually tell you who shot Liberty Valance.

Goodness.

What is the excuse for this sort of thing?

Who's the David Eckstein of journalism?

Lupica

I thought Lupica was Tom Goodwin. Crappy. Overrated.

On the back of the DVD for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, they actually tell you who shot Liberty Valance.

Gene Pitney?