Mike Lupica has been swimming in this ocean for so long, he doesn't see the water:
"I keep wondering why all the people who are such experts on baseball drugs now didn’t tell us a whole lot more about them back in the 1990s when they had the chance."
A so-called senior online sports editor at the Daily News recently posted an article about Alex Rodriguez looking at cheerleaders at a Lakers game. Woodward and Bernstein would be proud.
Mike Lupica himself wrote a book about McGwire and Sosa. That was in the 1990s. Why didn't you tell us a lot more back in the 1990s?
Or, more to the point, forget about the 1990s ... why don't you conduct some contemporary investigations? Spend 2 weeks and $50,000 hunting down the dealers for Pedro and Piazza?
You surely won't find something unless you look for it. So why aren't you looking for it? Why do you condemn some players and protect others?
Yeah ... the light bulb goes on ... why do you protect some players and condemn others? Why isn't the Daily News obsessed about Mejia? He plays baseball right here in New York! He was suspended two times in one baseball season! I mean, listen, fellas ... he has friends, he has cousins, he has dealers, he was in New York this whole time. Look under a rock and see what you find, huh?
What about Tim Peterson? If I mentioned the name "Tim Peterson" to the Daily News sports writing staff, their reaction would be just like yours: "Who?"
This guy. Mets minor leaguer suspended for 80 games. Just happened.
So why doesn't anybody in the sports journalism business in New York find out where this guy got his PEDs? Was his supplier the only supplier in supplier history who had exactly one client? Where are the other customers and how deep does this go in the Mets organization? And what is your justification for ignoring all other PED users with all the ink you've spent on ARod?
How does this easily identifiable bias fit into your understanding of the ethics you learned in journalism school?
What do you think will happen when Lupica takes on MLB HOF voting?
It isn't pretty.
He's a never-was mystified by the death of an institution:
"Who passed the law that everybody who does have a Hall of Fame vote in baseball has to explain his/her ballot to us?"
The first principle of journalism is the search for information. Why would any journalist or columnist take an anti-explanation stance? Lupica's job is to cook omelets, but he's anti-egg.
As the baseball HOF strains itself to retain any relevancy to new baseball fans, the only hope is to meet the fans halfway. You can't fool us anymore. The information is widely available and you're no longer the gatekeepers.
Lupica also doesn't know the meaning of the words "irony" and "moralizing":
"You think any of the people accusing Hall of Fame voters of being judgmental and self-righteous about steroid users ever process how judgmental and self-righteous they’re being?
Of course that would involve a level of self-awareness — or at least irony — that is almost impossible to find in the media sometimes.
But it really is my favorite part of the whole process, the moralizers accusing anybody who disagrees with them … of moralizing!"
Lupica is accusing others in his field of lacking self-awareness ... and I just spit coffee all over my laptop.
I will briefly take the bait here and explain what Lupica chooses not to see.
It's difficult to address Lupica's non-specific grievances, because they are non-specific. All HOF voters are individuals and so are their critics. But I'll try to explain the other side in general terms.
1. HOF voters are often inconsistent and perplexing.
2. HOF voters use steroids as an excuse to exclude players they don't like. That's not a valid anti-cheater ethical position.
3. HOF voters invoke the morals clause when it comes to surly interviewees who used steroids. Meanwhile, the HOF is full of racists, wife beaters, drug users, and cheaters.
It's OK if HOF voters are judgmental and moralizing. The problem is, their judgment is off and their moralizing is insincere.
No comments:
Post a Comment