Comments on: What to make of beat reporters stumping for players they cover come award season

By: Bryz

Bryz — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:56:20 +0000

Where’s Jon Heyman to tell us that the Orioles having a winning season isn’t getting enough press?

By: rooney24

rooney24 — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:21:03 +0000

Checked the standings lately?

By: thefalcon123

thefalcon123 — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:58:12 +0000

I think the is a question as to whether reporting was ever objective. Two of our most famous reporters, Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, took a clear stance on the issues of McCarthyism and Vietnam respectively. Another huge problem comes with attempting to be objective on an issue and give each side equal air time when one side is clearly bonkers. Does the anti-vaccine crowd really deserve to air time to question every vaccine because on a scientifically debunked study? Ditto global warming deniers. If 95% of scientists say it’s do to man-made greenhouse gases, why should the other 5% get half the air time?

My problem is less with objectivity and more with propagandizing, and *this* is what I feel people get confused when discussing objectivity in the media. I have no problems taking a stand on an issue, I do have a problem with an Ed Shultz or Sean Hannity pushing forth an agenda while clearly ignoring and distorting facts that may hurt their point of view.

And since this is a baseball blog, just change the name of each issue to a player and each reporter into a baseball writer.

By: jayscarpa

jayscarpa — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:42:10 +0000

You see it in elections and on the cable shows. Viewers will tend to watch what they already believe and networks are happy to oblige. Straight news is more impartial

It’s hard to fault a writer who watches a player everyday for being more impressed by that player. If some of the Cabrera supporters saw rout every day they might change their minds and vice versa.

By: philliesblow

philliesblow — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:23:16 +0000

Right or wrong, it’s self-preservation. Newspapers are dying so writing about the local player possibly getting snubbed will drive sales (or page views).

By: Lukehart80

Lukehart80 — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:16:17 +0000

For me the issue isn’t that they might stump for the local guy, it’s that they might have a vote on the award itself.

By: baseballisboring

baseballisboring — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:48:06 +0000

I’m fine with it as long as they’re being objective. If they’re trying to create a narrative for a certain player because they want to see their favorite story win then that’s just incredibly annoying. But if you really believe a guy that you cover should win, and you feel that way for the right reasons then I don’t see anything wrong with lobbying for him. Most people want to see the most deserving guy win.

By: atworkident

atworkident — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:10:03 +0000

Jim Johnson has 50 saves, but shouldn’t the Cy Young go to someone on a winning team?

By: blabidibla

blabidibla — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:55:04 +0000

Beat reporters write from the perspective that their team is the most important story. That’s their job. They get eyeballs from the fans of their team, and eyeballs keep them employed.

I don’t see a problem.

By: sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo

sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:45:36 +0000

1. Objectivity in reporting is so rare these days it would probably make more sense to report when it does happen

2. I do see this in many non-sports reports. A neighborhood paper might advocate for additional police patrols in its own neighborhood. Or brag about local schools accomplishments. National papers frequently report US statistics relative to those of other countries. Perhaps not with the same force as an advocate, but certainly to make a statement about relative merits

By: pmcenroe

pmcenroe — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:39:07 +0000

I guess one difference would be two of those beat writters from each market actually get a vote

By: amandamartino

amandamartino — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:37:05 +0000

Because the nature of a blogger’s job is different. Bloggers aren’t with the team day in and day out reporting facts from the clubhouse; they’re offering opinions and commentary (by and large; it’s possible there are bloggers out there that are beat reporters; I can’t think of any offhand, though). Beat reporters are covering the facts only and are largely expected to be impartial while doing so.

By: nygiantstones

nygiantstones — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:36:13 +0000

Aren’t journalists supposed to be objective and bloggers are subjective? I guess journalist is a loose term for people that write about sports, but I think a lot of local sports writers do a decent job of being objective, in spite of the chance of being frozen out by the local sports teams if they are criticizing the local team.

By: blacksables

blacksables — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:23:37 +0000

How is this any different than bloggers touting their favorite to what is in some cases a bigger audience?