Brett Myers...

[eman]

Checkout the audio...

http://www.bugsandcranks.com/philadelph ... -reporter/

[webdanzer]

When Myers was asked about the two home runs, he said they were really “just pop ups.”

A reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer questioned whether Myers really thought they were pop ups, and Myers got angry.

“You’re not even a beat reporter, you’re a fill-in, you don’t know anything about baseball,” said Myers, who then called the reporter “retarded.”

The Inquirer reporter asked if Myers could spell retarded, and Myers stood up. Burrell then restrained Myers, and Myers refused to speak any further.

Pretty good line by the journo, there, indicating that he was both quoting Myers for the record and challenging his acuity.

[grtwhtsk]

Wasn't this guy in trouble at some point for domestic abuse?

[webdanzer]

Wasn't this guy in trouble at some point for domestic abuse?

Yes. He's one of baseball's real winners.

[greggsand]

gee, just can't imagine how this dude smacked his wife around....

[kevinpars]

He's a good guy who just made a mistake.

[Sudz]

Rome was all over him yesterday.

[JOZ]

I say it again, why the f$ck are there interviews before, during, and after games. I will never understand it. They are usually the same ignorant questions, followed by the same bullsh&t answers. Then every now and then, you have stuff like this here. I'm amazed that television stations actually televise post game media sessions, because I can't believe there are people that actully watch them.

[pk500]

I say it again, why the f$ck are there interviews before, during, and after games. I will never understand it. They are usually the same ignorant questions, followed by the same bullsh&t answers. Then every now and then, you have stuff like this here. I'm amazed that television stations actually televise post game media sessions, because I can't believe there are people that actully watch them.

How is a reporter supposed to write a game story without talking with the participants after the game?

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

How is a reporter supposed to write a game story without talking with the participants after the game?

Take care,
PK

This is the fundamental problem with sports journalism. Reporters need quotes to fill their space, but 99% of athletes are unequipped, unwilling or unable to answer. The quotes just end up being of the Bull Durham variety. Even when they don't, there's a huge forest and trees problem with the perspective of the participants. Throw in the fact that beat reporters have this ridiculous symbiotic relationship with the teams and you have a recipe for worthless stories

Participants are among the least interesting people to discuss sports with. Analysts, former players, announcers and fans damn near always have better and more thoughtful material than those who play and coach.

[pk500]

How is a reporter supposed to write a game story without talking with the participants after the game?

Take care,
PK

This is the fundamental problem with sports journalism. Reporters need quotes to fill their space, but 99% of athletes are unequipped, unwilling or unable to answer. The quotes just end up being of the Bull Durham variety. Even when they don't, there's a huge forest and trees problem with the perspective of the participants. Throw in the fact that beat reporters have this ridiculous symbiotic relationship with the teams and you have a recipe for worthless stories

Participants are among the least interesting people to discuss sports with. Analysts, former players, announcers and fans damn near always have better and more thoughtful material than those who play and coach.

Not always. It's the reporter's job to cultivate relationships and sources with the team. Those relationships should be professional, not buddy-buddy, but they shouldn't be adversarial, either.

I'm a former beat reporter of an American Hockey League team. You can get guys to talk if you do it right. Yes, there are dicks like Myers, but good reporting is more than just good writing. It's a relationship business, too, one built on respect.

And it's easy as hell to pick the beat reporters who do it well, because their game stories have a depth and a sense of interpretation that you'll never see with the hacks or the local-yokel AP beat writers who are just hammering out their morning leads and taking whatever quotes are given them.

The biggest problem with quality reporting these days is the growth of sports TV and the crossover of print journalists reporting for those outlets.

TV reporting doesn't require or provide the time for depth or even sit-down interviews after games. Hell, sometimes TV reporters don't even stay for the entire game if their deadline is tight for the 10 p.m. news. And if they do stay, they just want their soundbite in the scrum, some game footage and to get the hell back to the station.

And nearly all TV interviews are inane beyond belief. "So, you just hit a game-winning homer. How do you feel? Was that the way you wanted to hit the ball?" "What was going through your mind when you tackled that guy? Were you trying to bring him down at that point?" "That was a nice putt (microphone jammed in golfer's face for response)."

And the sad thing is, many journalists who have crossed over from print to TV have let their interviewing skills either slide or morph into the typical moronic TV banter, because that's all the medium requires.

Sadly, much of the inane questioning by TV reporters has trickled into the print profession because everyone is just so inundated by TV interviews that they think that's standard operating procedure.

Take care,
PK

[greggsand]

I don't know, I'm a Stl Cards fan & a Lakers fans. I wanna know what those cats have to say, 'canned or not'.

[RobVarak]

PK,

You crystalized exactly why beat reporters are a vestige of pre-TV/pre-internet media. That stuff can be useful when you're reporting on a game that only you have seen. It gives a more complete picture than the text can, or even the radio broadcast. Readers counted on the reporter to be their eyes. Even now it makes perfect sense in a setting like the AHL or other small-time sports.

But for 21st century big league sports, the last person the viewer needs to hear from is the athlete. How many times have we seen some rag-arm pitcher go out and give up 5ER in 2 innings and weave some BS about how his stuff was good but he just wasn't locating, or how he felt good in the bullpen. Or some PG in the NBA go 2 for 19 from the field and spend the entirety of his interview undermining the head coach or blaming the system or denying that he had a bad night LOL

Athletes nowadays are specialists, bred from pre-adolesence in some cases, to peform their one task with freakish excellence. They perform in speedy, pressurized environments that demand all of their attention. The last thing these people are equipped to do is talk interestingly about what they did and what its significance is.

There are obvious exceptions to this, but they're so few and far between that letting the athletes get to the strip club earlier rather than waste time spewing platitudes after their showers seems to me a better option.

As Gregg's post shows, there are obviously some out there who want to hear these opinions, so I may be in the minority. But I honestly can't remember the last time someone on one of my favorite teams said anything useful in any interview, much less the post-game quicky. It's almost always self-serving, inaccurate, irrelevant or dumb.

It's the sports equivalent of the interview segment in a beauty pagent.

[greggsand]

Rob makes some good points. I'm probably spoiled after having Shaq in L.A. for so many years. Everything he said in the Laker locker room was gold. (pun sorta intended)

BTW, anyone hear Mussina's locker room chat with the press last night. It was one of the most real things I've heard all year. He was basically admitting/realizing his career is over... I felt for the dude.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu3sKFf_B6Y

[rubba19]

The biggest problem with quality reporting these days is the growth of sports TV and the crossover of print journalists reporting for those outlets.

Bloggers are another reason, IMO. Lots of hearsay that runs rampant and makes these guys say even less.

[wco81]

I'm sure teams want reporters to talk to players.

After all, they could revoke a press pass any time.

On Hardknocks, the Chiefs' first round pick missed a few days of camp before finally signing. He showed up late one night and the next day, before he could even work out, some PR guy was working with him on addressing the media, explaining how glad he was to be in camp and so on.

Teams obviously want coverage, even if sometimes, players don't feel like talking to the press.

[pk500]

I'm sure teams want reporters to talk to players.

After all, they could revoke a press pass any time.

And face a sh*tstorm of bad PR if there is no justified reason for pulling a pass. Asking a tough or inane question that causes a player to erupt is not a reason to pull a press pass.

On Hardknocks, the Chiefs' first round pick missed a few days of camp before finally signing. He showed up late one night and the next day, before he could even work out, some PR guy was working with him on addressing the media, explaining how glad he was to be in camp and so on.

Teams obviously want coverage, even if sometimes, players don't feel like talking to the press.

Absolutely, because coverage sells personalities, which sells tickets and licensed merchandise. No other reason. I work in sports PR, and that's a constant across the spectrum, regardless of the sport.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

PK,

You crystalized exactly why beat reporters are a vestige of pre-TV/pre-internet media. That stuff can be useful when you're reporting on a game that only you have seen. It gives a more complete picture than the text can, or even the radio broadcast. Readers counted on the reporter to be their eyes. Even now it makes perfect sense in a setting like the AHL or other small-time sports.

But for 21st century big league sports, the last person the viewer needs to hear from is the athlete. How many times have we seen some rag-arm pitcher go out and give up 5ER in 2 innings and weave some BS about how his stuff was good but he just wasn't locating, or how he felt good in the bullpen. Or some PG in the NBA go 2 for 19 from the field and spend the entirety of his interview undermining the head coach or blaming the system or denying that he had a bad night

SNIP

It's the sports equivalent of the interview segment in a beauty pagent.

Rob:

I'll respectfully disagree for one reason: You seem to state the premise that athletes have become canned and scripted in their responses only in the Internet age.

Some athletes have been bad, boring, self-serving quotes for more than 100 years. Was Cal Ripken a quote-a-second during his rookie season and then became a funny, spirited interview as his career wound down? Same with Montana, who was dull as dishwater? Bonds was a surly jerk even before the media started probing the "clear"-addled skeletons in his closet. Ty Cobb was a first-class prick, from what I have read. Jack Lambert grunted at the media and little else.

If anything, gregarious athletes are even more outspoken and common now than they were in the print era. Remember how shocked people were to hear Ali predict in press conferences that he was going to win and what round he was going to knock out his opponent?

Now fighters do that all the time.

Remember when Billy "White Shoes" Johnson was considered a showboater just because of his footwear? Now we have guys dancing like they have tarantulas in their underwear after making a routine tackle. We also have players running their mouths in locker rooms more often, as sports has become more "me" and less "team" in the last 20 years.

The desire to be a "SportsCenter" highlight or a YouTube phenomenon only has exacerbated that flamboyance.

So I must disagree with you that athletes are more dull than they were 20 years ago. They're a hell of a lot more arrogant, but that arrogance does compel and entertain a hell of a lot of people. And it's broadcast everywhere all the time, thanks to cable TV and the Net.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Rob:

I'll respectfully disagree for one reason: You seem to state the premise that athletes have become canned and scripted in their responses only in the Internet age.

I didn't mean to imply that. I'm sure that athletes were just as useless then when it came to saying anything useful or interesting. They just had gifted writers back then to operate as filters, so we didn't have to see them making idiots of themselves

[pk500]

Very true, man.

Take care,
PK

[johnvon314]

Wasn't there a time when the media was more protective of the stars if they liked him? We always hear how Mickey Mantle's drinking problems were overshadowed during his career, but they had no problem giving Ted Williams grief even denying him an MVP award one year.

John

[davet010]

Very much so - a flip through Harry Pearson's book about soccer in the North-East of England ('The Far Corner') has a whole list of examples whereby the media before the 70s would not report most of what they were aware of, because it was felt that their private lives were of no general interest to anyone but them (and their wives).

To give one example, every player going out for a midweek beer is now deemed to be fair game (a mate of mine used to go drinking with Duncan Ferguson when he was at Everton, and ended up in so many press shots that his bosses gave him a warning over it), yet in the 1920's and 30s Newcastle centre forward Hughie Gallagher was actually pulled out of boozers at 2pm.... because he was playing in a First Division game at 3pm.

As for sports stars mouthing off, few things are more risible, as they lurch from one idiocy to another. The latest craze in the UK is for top soccerplayers to have their weddings (to some usually-blonde bird who looks like she should go back to being on the checkout at Tesco) covered in Hello...which really gives more ammunition to prove that they are socially retarded hillbillies.

And don't get me started on players blubbing their eyeballs out when they retire from whatever overpaid and overstated child's ball game they have been playing - a development which thankfully has not yet been transmitted over the Atlantic. The only people who should really be crying at that point are their wives (who now have these tedious retards round the house for more of the time) and their accountants.

I love sports and always have - I just feel that I loved them more when I didn't have to hear from the people who play them, because with a few exceptions I have no interest in them whatsoever..they are merely disposable cogs inhabiting the shirt at any particular moment in time.

[pk500]

Good points about retirements, Dave. Few things in sports cause me to roll my eyes more than seeing some guy bawling his eyes at a podium when he announces his career is over.

For example, contrast John Elway's retirement announcement with that of Alan Shearer. Pretty easy for me to pick the more preferred route.

Take care,
PK

[JOZ]

Jeez, Thanks Rob for saying pretty much exactly how I feel

I just can't remember a good halftime or post-game interview. All I can remember is thinking how worthless it was afterwards.

[Feanor]

I heard this a lot on Philly radio this week. If the reporter had asked Myers whether he was going to beat him like he beat his wife, then it would have been perfect.