If you’re in the opinion business, be prepared to defend your opinions

44 Comments

I will preface this by saying that I am certain — 100% certain — that a lot of people out there in Internet land said rude, personal and otherwise awful things to baseball writers who argued in favor of Miguel Cabrera for the MVP.  There were also people who likely said rude, personal and otherwise awful things to people who supported Mike Trout. Indeed, people say rude, personal and otherwise awful things to anyone who says anything about anything, because that’s how the Internet works, unfortunately.

But setting aside those rude, personal and otherwise awful sentiments from rude and awful people, I am not going to have much sympathy for baseball writers who are upset that people take issue with their opinions and analysis.

I am not going to link to any specific examples of upset baseball writers because the point is not to go after any specific person today.  But I have seen some pretty unfortunate reactions from professional writers in the past 24 hours. Writers who are shocked, angered or more than mildly annoyed that folks dare criticize them for their opinions about the MVP (and other things). The sentiments range from ruffled feathers and hurt feelings to full-on shock that their views are being questioned. And it’s not just in response to people saying “you’re a jackwagon and I hate you!”  It has also come in response to people saying “that doesn’t make sense, and here’s why …”

Look, folks:  If you put your opinions out into the world, don’t act surprised or offended when people take issue. That’s how discourse works. Saying “I believe what you said is wrong, and here is why I think that” is healthy, despite what a lot of people think. It’s how most institutions get to the bottom of things. Peer review. Political discourse. That kind of thing. I know that sports writers have not traditionally had to deal with that, but in this day and age you cannot pretend that the opinions you put out in the world aren’t subject to criticism.  Especially when it comes to awards and Hall of Fame voting, because in those instances writers are not merely writers. They are news makers too.

By the way: that goes for the bloggy/Internet writers just as much as it goes for the old school people too. One thing I’ve seen a lot more of lately than I used to are blogger types who assert something, catch flak, and then act horrified that people aren’t agreeing with them. That’s pathetic, folks. Bloggy people should, more than anyone, be cool with things getting chippy.

But either way:  If you are going to dish it out, be prepared to take it. And we should — in the interest of furthering knowledge and enlightenment — be dishing it out, as long as we’re not doing so in way that is rude, personal and otherwise awful.

Sports teams do not “heal” cities or nations

Associated Press
4 Comments

Bob Nightengale of USA Today has a story today in which he talks to Cleon Jones, Ken Harrelson, Art Shamsky and others from the 1969 Mets about their Amazin’ World Series title run. The story is tied to the upcoming commemorations of the 50th anniversary of that phenomenally unexpected and improbable season.

And that’s fine as far as it goes, but as so often is the case with nostalgic remembrances, it goes too far:

They will gather together in New York later in June, rehashing stories from 50 years ago, reminiscing about the year they turned the baseball world upside down, becoming perhaps the most beloved team in history.

The 1969 Mets.

The team that helped revitalize a city in ruins and heal a nation in turmoil, showing the world you can turn the inconceivable to the improbable to the possible to the incredible, in a way only sports can possibly do.

Now would be a good time to remember that the city the Mets allegedly revitalized found itself on the brink of bankruptcy in the early-to-mid-70s and experienced urban decay and spiking crime rates for the next 20+ years. It would also be a good time to remember that the nation the Mets allegedly healed witnessed the Kent State shootings a few months later, among other bits of strife for the next, oh, 50 years and counting.

Yes, I am being flip and superficial here, but I do so simply to illustrate how flip and superficial “[Sports Team] healed [City/Nation]” narratives invariably are.

We see these sorts of things whenever a team from a down-on-its-luck place has a title run. Detroit. Cleveland. New Orleans. The idea is generally a broad-brush paint job in which the source of strife — poverty, crime, economic strife, natural disaster, terrorism, etc. —  is detailed with the local sports team’s subsequent title run cast as a spiritual balm. The words “heal” and “uplift” are pretty common in these stories. Back in 2002 I wrote about a classic of the genre, a documentary about the 1968 Detroit Tigers, who allegedly healed Detroit following he 1967 riots. Anyone familiar with Detroit from 1968-on may understand that the claims of healing asserted therein were . . . somewhat overstated.

Whatever the details, most of these narratives have the same sorts of flaws. At best they overstate the significance of sports in society, presuming that happiness among ticket-buying sports fans — who are usually better off than your average city resident who may be the one in need of healing — means broad-based happiness among the populace. More commonly they simply ignore the actual city or society beyond anything but its most superficial markers. The pattern:

  • Montage of the strife in whatever its form (bonus if it’s from the 1960s and you can re-use some existing “turbulent 60s” b-roll;
  • A chronicling of the sports team’s run; and
  • A declaration that everything was better after that.

It’s not even a matter of correlation and causation being confused. There’s very rarely ever any evidence presented that the sports made the underlying problems any better. All one usually gets from these things is a sense that, at least to the sports commentator/documentarian telling the story and to the people who closely followed the sports team, things were good. Unless, of course, I missed the part about how LeBron James solved Cleveland’s declining population problems and how the 2010 New Orleans Saints solved the ongoing mental, economic and medical trauma of those displaced by Katrina.

Which is not to say that sports mean nothing in this context. Sports success can certainly make a lot of people happy, even people hit hard by adversity, temporarily speaking. People only tangentially-connected to the strife in question may, also, decide that a sporting event “healed” a city. For example, if something bad happened in your city but didn’t affect you directly, you may believe that the trophy-hoisting put a nice bookend on the trauma that was more directly felt by others. And, of course, individuals directly connected with the sporting events in question, like Cleon Jones in the Mets piece, can experience a more lasting change in their lives as a result of this sort of success that they might see as general uplift.

That’s not the same thing as healing, though. Because while you or I can close that chapter on it all when the game is over, survivors of traumatic events and victims of systematic oppression or chronic strife cannot and do not do so that easily. There were people still hurting in Detroit after 1968, in New York (and the nation) after 1969, in New Orleans after the Saints won the Super Bowl, and in Cleveland after the Cavs won their title. The very best that can be said of sports triumph amid civic adversity is that it’s a pleasant, albeit temporary distraction. But not everyone had the luxury of enjoying that temporary distraction and a distraction is not the same thing as a cure.

Why do sports writers and commentators do this? I suppose it’s a function of people believing that the world in which they operate is, well, the world. The entertainment writer sees everything as a Hollywood story, the political writer sees everything as a Washington story and the sports writer sees everything as a sports story. It’s an understandable loss of perspective and we all fall prey to it sometimes.

It’d be better, though, if we spent more time appreciating that our perspective on the world is not the only one. I won’t speak for the entertainment or political people, and I won’t speak for the way in which any other person may prioritize the world as they observe it. But in my world — sports — I think it’d be better if we did not ascribe outsized significance to the beat we cover. Doing so asks far more of sports than sports is capable of delivering and erases the ongoing pain and suffering of people for whom sports is no sort of cure.