The Washington Post suspends Mike Wise for a month

4 Comments

Yesterday I beefed about Mike Wise of the Washington Post making up news and then mocking bloggers for trusting it.  Turns out his employer wasn’t a fan of that behavior either, as the Post has suspended Wise for a month. Yikes!

More background here, as Wise tries to explain what he was doing with all of this.  My takeaway after reading that and other things and thinking about it a bit since yesterday: Wise is not a jackass or anything, but he’s someone who truly doesn’t understand social media or its uses in a breaking news context, and understanding such things has to be a prerequisite for the job in this day and age.

And while Wise has certainly stepped on it here, I don’t think he’s alone in his misunderstanding on this score. There are tons of writers out there who dismiss Twitter and its significance, but the fact is that while you can’t get the whole story of anything out on Twitter, relaying news there is functionally no different than relaying news in a paper or on the radio or on a website. When you’re reporting news there, you should be accurate (and when you get it wrong, you should cop to it and correct things as necessary). When news is
reported there by someone with at least something of a reputation for
getting things right, it should be trusted.

I get why this is hard to fathom for so many because it’s so easy to go back and forth between conversation, jokes and news on Twitter. Hell, I spend a big portion of my day there just being a wise ass. But just because it’s a multi-faceted medium doesn’t mean it’s one that should not be taken seriously. Yes, by all means you should expand on anything you write there with a
larger post on your blog, but what is there is not meaningless just
because it’s only 140 characters. In this way Twitter serves the same
function of a news boy yelling “Extra! Extra! Read all about it!”

Wise decided that, rather than try to understand this, he’d mock it based on his ignorance, and that is why he’s suspended today.

Oh good, it’s “Yasiel Puig is a showboat” season

Getty Images
6 Comments

With the Los Angeles Dodgers punching their ticket to the World Series, Yasiel Puig is now going to be the subject of commentary by people who tend not to care about Yasiel Puig until it’s useful for them to write outraged columns or go on talk radio rants about baseball deportment.

We got a brief teaser of this last night when, after scoring the Dodgers’ ninth run on a Logan Forsythe double, TBS analyst Ron Darling criticized Puig for his “shenanigans” and “rubbing it in.” Never mind that his third base coach was waving him home and that, if he didn’t run hard, he was just as likely to be criticized for dogging it. In other news, baseball teams don’t stop trying in the fourth inning of baseball games, nor should they.

That was just an appetizer, though. The first real course of the “Puig is a problem” feast we’re likely to be served over the next week and a half comes from Phil Mushnick of the New York Post, who wrote it even before the Dodgers won Game 5 last night:

If you were raised to love baseball and to recognize the smart, winning kind from everything less, the Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig is insufferable. As the sport is diminished by professionals who disregard the basic act of running to first base as a matter of style, Puig, an incurable home-plate poser, often makes turning doubles and triples into singles appear effortless . . . In the postseason, Puig continues to behave as if he’s in the Home Run Derby. He even seems to relish his high-risk flamboyant foolishness despite frequent backfires.

This may as well be a fill in the blanks column from 2013 or 2014, when “Puig is a flashy showboater who costs his team more than he gives it” columns were all the rage. It ignores the fact that Puig, commonly dinged for being lazy, worked his butt off in 2017, particularly on defense, to the point where he has a strong case for a Gold Glove this year. It also ignores his .455/.538/.727 line in the NLDS sweep of the Diamondbacks and his .389/.500/.611 line against the Cubs in the NLCS. In the regular season he set career highs for games, homers, RBI, stolen bases and almost set a career high for walks despite having seventy fewer plate appearances than he did back in 2013 when he walked 67 times. He’s not the MVP candidate some thought he might be, but he’s a fantastic player who has been a key part of the Dodgers winning their first pennant in 29 years.

But the dings on Puig from the likes of Mushnick have rarely been about production. They’ve simply been about style and the manner in which he’s carried himself. To the extent those issues were legitimate points of criticism — particularly his tardiness, his relationships with his teammates and his at times questionable dedication — they have primarily been in-house concerns for the Dodgers, not the casual fan like Mushnick. On that score the Dodgers have dealt with Puig and, by all accounts, Puig has responded pretty well. An occasional lapse to be sure, but nothing which makes him a greater burden than a benefit. I mean, if he was, would be be batting cleanup in a pennant-clinching game?

So if the beef with Puig is not really about baseball, what could Phil Mushnick’s issue with him possible be?

I, for one, have no idea whatsoever.