Oct 25, 2010, 3:36 PM EDT
Marc Topkin of the St. Petereburg Times has a column up about Pat Burrell today. The headline:
Pat Burrell, revived with San Francisco Giants, doesn’t want to address time spent with Tampa Bay Rays.
An paragraph appearing early in the piece:
Approached several times during the NLCS to talk more about what went wrong during his time with the Rays, Burrell, 34, either ignored the request or declined cordially. Even after Saturday’s pennant-clinching win over the Phillies, he refused comment — again politely — to the Times.
Pat Burrell, quoted by Topkin in the same column:
“I wish I knew the answer, because it probably would have worked out differently down there,” Burrell said at the news conference, when he had to answer. “For me it has to have something to do with being in the flow of the game, playing in the field, being active in the game. I think that’s a huge part of it for me. I’m not saying that that’s right or wrong. I think just for me that was an important part of it.”
Query: if the guy actually answered your question before you went to press with your column, how can your headline and overall editorial thrust of the piece be about how he doesn’t want to talk to you? Sure, he wouldn’t answer the question about his failures during the Championship Series, but he did eventually answer the question. And for this he is portrayed as less than forthcoming, however politely?
- Hank Aaron is getting vile racist hate mail in retaliation for pointing out that racism still exists (244)
- The Red Sox are still steamed that a PED guy played against them in the playoffs last year (130)
- Doug Glanville’s story about being racially profiled at his own home (125)
- There is still a racial divide in baseball (112)
- Must-Click Link: Yasiel Puig’s harrowing journey to the United States (95)