Dodgers P.R. Director: we want to give news out to because they’ll spin it the way we want


This is likely to anger a lot of folks. Dodgers Public Relations Director Joe Jareck is down in Sydney and had this to say about how teams release news:

Jareck said this about how the team prefers to get its news out: best to publish on its own website,, because then “we can spin it any way we want. You can tell the (in-house) writer, ‘Here do this’ and they’ll do it”

He has since backtracked and claimed he was talking about minor news and P.R. initiatives, but it wasn’t too strong a backtrack. He admitted he was talking about spinning trades and things too.

Can the people be spun? Well, sometimes. As Deadspin’s handling of this notes, reporters do work for the league, and they’re likely under the same sorts of pressures anyone is when it comes to reporting on their own company. If you want to hear about the day-to-day, the on-the-field product and feature stories about players, is going to be good for you (assuming your team’s person is a good one). You don’t go for them if you’re looking for some hearty “this owner is a cheapskate” rhetoric, a takedown of a player or a dismantling of the recent stadium deal.

But this is not some unique feature of reporters. Whether it’s an access issue or business dealings or sponsorships or any number of other things, newspapers and television outlets are often just as compromised in reporting on baseball teams. They’re just compromised in other ways than I won’t name names here, but there are some papers where coverage of the local nine puts Pravda to shame, and you know it’s about keeping the reporter in the team’s good graces. There are newspaper editorial boards and networks who, when it comes to large team issues like ownership and stadiums and broadcasting and things, will always be in the team’s camp. And while I’m throwing stones here, allow me to throw one at myself and admit that if there was a big scandal involving NBC or one of its personalities, even if it touched on baseball, you’d not likely get the hottest, sharpest take from me, even if I did try to find a way to deliver the basic facts. That’s business. It applies to baseball writers and commentators no matter who employs them.

As for I have read all of its reporters and writers and have met a great many of them, and I can say that there is a pretty large disparity between the best of the reporters and the not-so-good ones. If you’re a not so good one, you’re probably likely to be a bit lazy and just regurgitate press releases and if you do that long enough you’re going to look like a house organ. In many cases, however, — maybe most cases; it just varies by city and team — the reporter is just as good if not better than their newspaper counterparts. If I want Tigers skinny, I prefer Jason Beck. Indians: Jordan Bastian. Todd Zolecki with the Phillies is fantastic. Mark Sheldon and the Reds. For commentary Matt Leach and Richard Justice are excellent. This is not an exhaustive list, but just some of them who spring to mind.

All in all, yes, there is probably some truth there. I don’t think it applies as strongly as he thinks it does to reporter Ken Gurnick who seems to be pretty straightforward when it comes to his reporting, but generally speaking, yes, teams probably do feel safer talking to folks because they feel — erroneously or otherwise — that they have some recourse if they don’t like how the story plays. I don’t think that means they’re unreliable or malleable like Jareck says here — my observation is that the people do their job pretty damn well and on generally the same footing as their newspaper counterparts — but no, the team isn’t going to be ripped a new one by the guy.

I find Jareck’s second comment more interesting:

. . . “I’m of the belief we should give everything to — there are more eyeballs there. Gone are the days when The Los Angeles Times ruled the city.” He continued, “Very few [media] have that kind of influence anymore. So I’m of the view of giving it to our own website which is double or triple what the readership of the Los Angeles Times is in print and online.”

I like this because (a) he has something of a point here, even if he overstates it; and (b) it’s right in line with something I’ve been saying about news coverage for a long time. Specifically, that “commodity news” — the basic facts of injuries, lineups, trades or anything that the team knows first — is becoming less important for media companies. Teams (and governments and businesses) are increasingly in-housing this stuff and, as such, those who aren’t in-house should focus on non-commodity news and reporting. Don’t tell us what the news nugget is, tell us what it means, why it’s significant or why it’s misleading. Don’t tell us what the player said after the game, tell us what makes the player tick and what he says when he’s not in some guarded environment like a press conference. Let the P.R. savvy teams control what they can control and stake your voice and reputation on the things they cannot.

I hate that Jareck said this the way he did, because it’s likely to lead to a lot of people to become skeptical or disparging with respect to some excellent reporters and most of them don’t deserve that. No small amount of this will come from people who work for newspapers who have always, to some degree or another, resented the people, have barred them from their professional organizations and who grouse behind reporters’ backs about them and their enterprise (yes, I’ve heard this).

But he did say it. And that little downside notwithstanding, there are some pretty important takeaways here about how the media operates in the 21st century and, to some extent, how maybe it should operate.

Champagne after a loss? Why not?

Astros Wild Card
Leave a comment

There was some hockey person last week arguing about how it was silly or untoward for baseball teams to celebrate clinching wild cards or other, less-than-championship-level accomplishments. Calling it bush league or lacking in act-like-you’ve-been-thereness or what have you. I can only imagine what he’d say about the Astros celebrating with champagne following (a) winning a wild card; and (b) losing the game which immediately preceded the celebration.

But screw him. Seriously.

I used to think that way. Indeed, if you search the HBT archives I’m sure there’s a post or two in which I disapprove of teams engaging in multiple champagne celebrations. But I was wrong about that and I’ve changed my mind on the matter over the past year or too. And on some other matters as well, all for the same reason: athletes are people just like us, not some avatars for our machismo and our fantasies. They’re people who have spent their entire lives devoted to their calling and do it under a lot of pressure and in the face of a lot of criticism and expectations from others. Why on Earth would anyone deny them their happiness upon the realization of an accomplishment?

This is even more true if you’re one of those misguided souls who erroneously believe that sports actually is separate from real life and believe them to be supremely and impossibly important. Even if you’re right — and you’re not — wouldn’t that give the athletes an even greater incentive to celebrate accomplishments? Funny how those people who who act as if sports is life and death would deny athletes their joy for defying death, as it were.

My view on the matter now is that if a guy hits a homer he should be able to celebrate it. If a pitcher strikes a guy out, he should be able to celebrate it. If a team makes the playoffs, no matter how low their seed and no matter the manner in which the accomplishment is achieved short of their competitors going down in a plane crash, they should be able to celebrate if they so choose.

So enjoy your hangovers this morning, Houston Astros.

And That Happened: Sunday’s scores and highlights


Diamondbacks 5, Astros 3: The Astros lost but, in the course of the loss, they learned the Rangers won and that was all Houston needed to clinch the wild card. No better way to evade beat writers’ questions about what went wrong out there than to be in the process of getting roaring drunk and thinking about playoff baseball, right? And come back in a bit, as I’m going to have a post up later in which I explain why it’s totally cool for a team to have a champagne celebration after clinching a mere wild card. Which some people think is lame.

Rangers 9, Angels 2: Cole Hamels was supposed to be a pickup for 2016 but, in his final start of 2015, he pitched the Rangers to the division title with a complete game. Adrian Beltre‘s homer and three RBI and the Angels’ craptastic bullpen, which uncorked a six-run seventh inning, didn’t help.

Orioles 9, Yankees 4: Joe Girardi whined a bit about having to start this game at 3pm, saying that an all-important game 162 shouldn’t be decided in long shadows. Hey Joe: if you had won either Game 160 or 161 on Saturday this game wouldn’t have mattered to you. Or if you had used your roster in a manner that suggested some manner of urgency, which you didn’t do in any of the games in this series against Baltimore, it wouldn’t have mattered either. And, of course, it ultimately didn’t matter thanks to the Astros’ loss. Wild Card game in the Bronx tomorrow. Viva long shadows.

Dodgers 6, Padres 3: Clayton Kershaw faced 13 batters in his final tuneup before the playoffs. He struck out seven of them. Yeah, gonna say he’s tuned up nicely. That gave him 301 strikeouts for the year. Before yesterday baseball had not had a 300-strikeout pitcher since 2002, when both Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling did it.

Braves 6, Cardinals 0; Braves 2, Cardinals 0: After a span of 24 winless starts stretching back to May 17, Shelby Miller finally gets a win. This is exactly the sort of thing which should set him on the right track and really help him in his next few starts.

Oh. Wait. Damn.

Phillies 7, Marlins 2: The game didn’t matter a bit in the standings but it mattered for Dee Gordon, who went 3-for-4 with a homer and a double and ended the season with a .333 average and the batting title thanks to Bryce Harper‘s 1-for-4 in the Mets-Nats game. Gordon bomes the first NL player to lead the league in batting average and stolen bases (.333/58) in the same season since Jackie Robinson did it in 1949. Which, wow.

Pirates 4, Reds 0: 98 wins and the Pirates are still playing a one-and-done game on Wednesday and needed this win just to clinch home field for that game. Man, the NL Central was rough this year.

Rockies 7, Giants 3: Down 3-0 in the ninth, the Rockies rallied for seven. Pretty sure the entire 2015 Rockies highlight reel will just be a quickly-burned DVD of that inning.

Tigers 6, White Sox 0: It was a year to forget for Detroit, but at least it ended with a young pitcher acquired in a mid-season white flag trade pitching a nice game. The pitcher was Daniel Norris who allowed one-hit over five innings. The outing allowed the Tigers to think a bit about the future.

Indians 3, Red Sox 1: And on the last day of the season the Indians move above .500. What a weird year for them. Such a talented team which had so many issues putting it together in the first half and, later, when it mattered most.

Cubs 3, Brewers 1: Chicago ended the regular season with a three-game sweep in Milwaukee and forced the Pirates to win one for home field advantage in the wild card. Regular season momentum doesn’t really mean much in the playoffs, but if it makes the Cubs feel better between now and Wednesday to say they have it, all the better for them.

Royals 6, Twins 1: Like I said: momentum doesn’t much matter, but on the off chance it actually does, Johnny Cueto has to feel OK, having allowed one run over five innings. We’ll forget for a second that it came against a deflated, recently-eliminated, spit squad Twins lineup.

Mariners 3, Athletics 2: After the game Mariners manager Lloyd McClendon tossed his cap into the crowd. Which is fine as it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be needed it next year. Not that I can act all smug given that I was one of those loonies who though the Mariners would make the World Series.

Mets 1, Nationals 0: Like Clayton Kershaw, Jacob deGrom was merely tuning up for the NLDS. He’s running just fine too, having tossed four shutout innings with seven strikeouts. They were no-hit innings too, actually, but it’s not like Terry Collins was going to leave him out there for that sort of thing with the playoffs looming. Curtis Granderson‘s eighth inning solo shot was the only scoring. The Nationals, finally, have been put out of their misery and can go home and wonder about what in the hell happened to them this season.

Rays 12, Blue Jays 3: Mark Buehrle was supposed to come in and pitch two innings to get his 200 for the year and then retire. Which would’ve been a neat thing for him given that he’d tossed 200+ innings for 14 straight years before that. He couldn’t escape the first inning, though, as first the Jays’ defense and then his ability to get dudes out disappeared. Oh well. One crap inning doesn’t negate a first-ballot Hall of Very Good career.

And with that another regular season is in the books. Another season of 8, 12, or (usually) 15-game days. Of flipping TV channels or radio stations or clicking between websites and between games. Games which, compared to the other 2,400 or so that happen during a season, mean nothing. But mean everything. Games which can be enjoyed and savored for a bit if your team won and enjoyed and easily forgotten if your team lost. The easy listening soundtrack of the past six months now fades away and in its place comes a 30-day burst of hardcore intensity.

And it’ll be a lot of fun. The playoffs are the point of it all, right? Assuming, that is, baseball has to have a point. Maybe it does, but it’s an assumption that, the older I get, is less and less necessary for me to hold in order for me to enjoy it.

Thanks for another good season, everyone.