Max Scherzer is on the cover of Sports Illustrated. And he’s not happy about how the story — with the cover headline “Mad Max’s $144 million bet” — turned out:
“To be on the cover is a very special moment, but I’m also frustrated that they chose to put the contract stuff on the cover,” he said Sunday.
“When they approached us, (Tigers media relations) and I, we specifically asked not to make the story around the contract. … They assured us it wasn’t going to be like that. They chose a different route, and we felt like we were lied to and misled.”
Sports Illustrated said they made no such assurances and, given that Sports Illustrated is a respectable media operation, I’d be shocked if they did. It just doesn’t work that way when you’re dealing with a legitimate journalistic operation. My guess is a game of telephone or some misunderstanding led Scherzer or the Tigers folks to believe the story would not mention his contract status.
But this does seem to be an increasingly common refrain from the celebrity class lately. That they were someone treated poorly by the media or that they had some sort of understanding that a story would be about X and not Y or that Z topic would not be broached. Lorde of all people got into this sort of dispute with a magazine criticizing her music recently, claiming that criticism is somehow unfair, hateful and illegitimate.
It’s all nuts to me. A low blow is one thing, but suggesting that criticizing one’s work — or, in Scherzer’s case, pointing out a totally legitimate and relevant thing about his contract status — is off base is to confuse journalists with publicists. If you want to get your message and your message only out, go through the latter. If you can’t handle mention of things you don’t want mentioned, avoid the former.