On Raul Ibanez, and media accountability
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
On Raul Ibanez, and media accountability
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
I have a little brother. At this point in time in our lives, he isn't much littler than me. He did two tours of duty in Iraq. I did a tours of duty in Myrtle Beach, S.C. and Hernando County, Fla. He carried a gun. The closest I have come to risking my life is driving up Roosevelt Boulevard. So the metaphor I am about to relay does not hold true today.
But 15 years ago, he was the little brother, and I was the big brother. Little brothers are in an unenviable position. They come out of the womb with a chip on their shoulder. They want badly to be accepted in the same manner as the older brother. Yet thanks to the difference in years -- two, in our case, which in early childhood might as well be a decade -- they never really can. Not only the basketball court, not in the classroom, and not in social circles. Ours were the typical little brother/big brother squabbles -- a fight during a video game, or on the school bus, or in the backyard. And every now and then, when I would run to mom or dad with a complaint, or react to typical little brother antagonism, I would be met with this advice: You are older. Act older. By reacting, you only legitimize. Ignore it, and it will go away.
I have spent much of the previous couple of days in deep internal deliberation about what by now has become the well-known situation of Raul Ibanez, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and a blogger whom I will not identify. And I relay the previous life experience because I think it illustrates what I believe to be the latest in a serious mishandling of the blogosphere by the mainstream media.
As you all now know, Blogger X recently self-published a treatise on Ibanez's power surge to start this season. In it, the blogger stated that, thanks to the Steroid Era, performance-enhancing drugs must be considered as a potential cause of Ibanez's club record home run pace. Now, forget the fact that this deductive reasoning is flawed at a fundamental level. After all, the blogger is not raising the possibility that Ibanez has been on performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career. Only the possibility that performance-enhancing drugs are the new variable that has caused his home run total to jump this season. The suggestion, that a 37-year-old athlete with a wife and children and a better grasp on his own mortality than he had when he was a 24-year-old athlete struggling through the minor leagues, would choose to start using performance-enhancing drugs AFTER signing a three-year, $31.5 million contract that will very likely be the last big deal of his career, does not make sense when it comes to basic logic. All of that is besides the point.
The point is that most bloggers are not trained in such analysis, and thus can not be expected to produce rational examinations of professional sports. Most bloggers have not spent years in college studying the craft of writing, reporting and analyzing. Most bloggers have not spent years embedded in the world of athletic competition, interacting with athletes and trainers and coaches, learning the people and their sports, learning their motivations, and their insecurities, and their foibles, and their strengths. Most bloggers view the athletic arena through two-dimensional objects -- television, newspapers, the Internet, radio -- and thus have a two-dimensional perspective, much like a person viewing a museum exhibit about another culture and attempting to relay his observations in the manner of a person who has spent years living in that culture. This, in a nutshell, is the blogosphere.
Like the little brother, it would like to gain a foothold in the world of the older brother, to be accepted like the older brother, rather than being content within it's own world. I'm sure there is a sociologist who can apply some scientific term to what I am describing. But I am not a sociologist, only a sports writer.
On its own, the blogosphere is not a bad thing. But it can become a bad thing when the older brother reacts, when for a moment he forgets that he is older, and more mature, and bound by expectations of accountability that the little brother does not always face.
And this brings us to the firestorm.
When the Philadelphia Inquirer, who shares a little piece of cyber space with this humble sports writer, chose to publish a column about Blogger X's treatise, it forgot the basic distinction that sets professional media outlets apart from amateur bloggers. Even though the column attempted to excoriate the blogger, in doing so, it placed itself on the same level of that blogger. It told readers that the Blogger was worth reading, and reacting to, and that his thoughts deserved a legitimate place in public discourse. Yesterday, I watched an episode of Outside the Lines on ESPN that featured both the Blogger and the author of the Inquirer column. The professional writer lectured the Blogger on the need for accountability, given the blurring of the lines between professional and amateur opinion and analysis.
Therein lies the fallacy. Bloggers are not bound by standards of accountability. They are not professionals. They can not be expected to abide by the same rules that make professionals professional. Bloggers are not the ones blurring the lines. Professional media outlets who give credence to those bloggers are the ones who blur the lines.
Ignore it, and it will go away.
In this day and age, when opinions can be dispersed to the masses for the price of an Internet connection, publications such as ours need to be even more careful of what they put in print. Accountability is our bedrock. It is what makes the words that we publish worth reading. We need to be a refuge in a world of misinformation, a place where people can turn to separate the fact from the bullcrap. If it appears in our pages, we deem it significant enough for our readers to take notice, to consider, and ponder, and accept or reject.
The professionals are the only ones who have the power to blur the lines. We have spent generations building our brands, and to respond to every hair-brained blog post, and every Internet rumor, and every conspiracy theory that amateur pundits put forth, is to cheapen that brand, and erode the public trust behind it.
Forget the steroid witch hunt. Forget the question about whether Blogger X should have raised the questions that he did without any concrete basis.
We are the older brother. And we must act like it.
That was unreadable. I quit reading about halfway. There's no point in getting into the fact that Ibanez just signed a deal, etc. The main point is that the blogger has no evidence that Ibanez has taken steroids. You can't say someone is on steroids just because he's having a good year.— p-diddy- So, it is acceptable for "trained" journalists to accuse baseball players of using PEDs without any evidence, but not a topic that people typing in their basements should broach?— markdlv
- Very few people have read the blog post in question, because it's much more fun to fume in outrage. If you read it, however, it says the following: someone in the blogger's fantasy league said that Ibanez must be on steroids. The blogger then used the whole blog post to show statistical reasons why Ibanez is NOT on steroids, and then concludes by saying that in the climate we live in these accusations are inevitable, but that there is no reason to think Ibanez is juicing; and there is no sense in drawing any conclusion with less than a full season's worth of data. In other words, the blogger's post was entirely reasonable and entirely responsible, and all the hysteria and irresponsibility elongs wholly to the mainstream media -- Murphy included -- who are happy to bash some column they've never read based on what they heard someone else say.— JDM33
- anyone else find it ironic that Murphy put all this on a blog?— rlndbrnx
- Murph and Wally24, you guys hit the nail on the head for me. Well said gents, well said.— Timmy
- As a reporter-turned-blogger, I can say that they both serve a purpose. Believe it or not, reporters often have reasons NOT to talk about the elephant in the room. In the case of sports writers, they need to work with these players for at least a year, often more, so they don't want to alienate them. Friendly sources are good sources. Of course, some bloggers are gossip-inclined and not trained professionally, but lots are just reporters who have taken the next (inevitable) step to full-time web work. Are we forgetting that big brother's employer is in bankruptcy proceedings?— andwhysee
- OK, this is getting REALLY crazy now. A "professional" columnist writing a column about another "professional" columnist writing a column about an amateur columnist or blogger. Please spare us the BS, all of you. You're "three-dimensional" world has nothing to do with justice, injustice, integrity or culture. It's about generating a shred of public interest in an industry (the print media) that is dying a rapidly accelerating death. Meanwhile, the bloggers and TV people are using you and one-another for the same reason -- free publicity. As someone who sees the mass media from a "three-dimensional" perspective, you should know this. And as such, you're a lot less different from the bloggers than you want to believe or that you want us to believe.— BillSmith1313
- Guilty until proven innocent! It sucks that we are at that stage. Beleive it or not, I honestly think Rauuul is clean!— IAMDETOX
Comment removed.- Ibanez has to get a thicker skin. The same malarky was being said about Ryan Howard, as recently as last year, and the fact that it was said was reported in the "big brother" media. Howard just ignored it, refused to respond to it, and it went away. Maybe it's different in Seattle, but Ibanez has been around long enough to know that the media, including the sports media, love a controversy. It sells papers and air time. It gives the writers and commentators something to discuss besides scores and standings and balls and strikes, etc., which I guess even for the most dedicated professional can get a bit dull. But, I just hate it when sports coverage begins to look like a soap opera or a gossip column or the supermarket tabloids. I mean, what do I care if A-Rod is going out with Madonna, or if Manny has made the appropriate apology to the Dodgers for getting caught for taking the drugs that got them to the NCLS last season? That stuff sounds too much like checking out the latest adventures of Britney, Lindsay, and Paris. Which brings Perris to mind, which leads me to ask: Now that she's been fired from her job as Miss California, will Carrie have to pay Donald Trump back for the boob job he bought her?— PHANPHOREVER
- Dave, I write a blog but still agree, for the most part, with what you're saying here. Blogs provide a platform for anyone to write anything, which has a lot of pros and a lot of cons. That works out well because you get passionate fans, who care just as much as the readers, writing. On the flip side, anyone can post anything, and have no accountability for it... that’s a scary concept. The only thing I think you did wrong here is jumble all blogs together. There's so many different types. Sure, some try to be stay-at-home beat writers and rely on other people's accounts of what's happening, but most bloggers just do it because they care. And because they want to talk with other people that care. I am always willing to stand behind what I write, and while I wish I was a part of the mainstream media I realize that that's not realistic at the moment and accept my responsibility as a blogger. Terminating blogs all together or ignoring them won't do any good. They're here, probably to stay, and pretending they don't exist or treating them like red-headed step children is irresponsible. At least that's what I think.— shayrod
- I appreciate your comments that Gonzo certainly owes some form of accountability for bringing a non-issue to the spotlight and help villainize (at least in the short term) a seemingly innocent ballplayer. However, I find your comments about bloggers a bit myopic and pretentious. As a writer for entertainmentagentsblog.com, I take my blogging accounts seriously in order to present well researched, accurate, cogent thoughts involving the entertainment law industry. To eschew all bloggers as "little brothers" is miscast and missing the point. In fact, I did not find "JROD"'s comments nearly as outrageous as Gonzo mischaracterized them to appear. Shouldn't we let the reader decide what merits intelligent and reliable information? If there is no basis for an author's argument, then who cares how flammable it may seem. Frankly, I'm curious how many read "JROD"'s post. Although I disagree with his conclusion, it was well written and certainly not ill-intentioned. Last time I checked, this Big Brother (Philly.com) isn't exactly the beacon of journalistic perfection.— e4stringer
- And, yes, I realize I mis-spelled necessarily.
- Interesting discussion here, as always. Just want to clarify a couple things. First, I don't necesarrily have a problem with bloggers. The ability to publish information and opinion is not a sacred birthright held by professional media outlets. Just like it is not a television pundit's birthright to be able to talk about sports and politics. My point is, unless a the infromation and opinion comes from a source that has established a certain level of credibility, it should be regarded just like any conversation in a bar, not as a legitimate part of public discourse that should be highlighted and reacted to by an entity that, ostensibly, has established a certain level of credibility. Second, this isn't about whether Ibanez has used performance-enhancing drugs. It's about the handling of the inevitable speculation that, unfortunately, the Steroid Era has wrought.
- There are two things to consider about Ibanez before sleazy assertions of juicing are leveled. First, a small wrinkled head. Second, a pleasant disposition. Compare that with the muscled heads of Bonds and Clemens, the obese head of Lou Dobbs, and the angry "roid" rage of those super angry three.— hwatt
- Couldn't agree more, Murph...nice article. Bloggers are out of control. Blogging might as well be called BSing. These people usually have no qualifications to comment on their subject matter. They are just spouting off. Any idiot can be a "blogger".— JimG
- Excellent piece, Murph. Folks like the blogger believe every conspiracy theory, doubt Obama's birthright and enjoy the illusion that solid citizens like Ibanez are fakes, while convincing themselves of their own righteousness regardless of the factual situation, To me, its like watching Sean Hannity patting himself on the back while excoriating those who dare to disagree. I am sure your brother, your parents, your readers and Mr. Ibanez are impressed with your candor and your logic. Congratulations.— mick314
You hit a homer here, bro! I couldn't have said it better, that is why I don't try to.- I'm sorry David, but this is the typical response from an elitist member of a dying entity. Which media outlet "broke" the Mitchell report names that mistakenly named Pujols? That would be KTVI which is not a blog. Who hired Jayson Blair? That would be the New York Times, which is not a blog. I can't count how many times in recent years mainstream media articles/reports stating that a coach has been named at sports team, only to be erroneous. Even take the no sports news. How many outlets mistakenly called Florida for Mr. Gore well before the results were actually able to be called? Those were mainstream networks and websites run by newspapers. It isn't just blogs who have erred repeatedly. The fact is that mainstream journalism has lost the trust of the consumer more than a lot of people who are part of the business care to admit. The line of "professionalism" as you say is long gone. Mainstream people like to boast of their integrity because of editorial review. Well when the review puts out as many erroneous stories as they have lately what exactly does that buy you? Nothing. This blogger was completely wrong too. But the complete need for "professional" media people to always preach from the pulpit about blogs when something goes wrong is naive. A look in the mirror at your "mainstream" profession is the first place you should start.— Tech_Triumph
- part of the problem is that distribution of information is no longer tightly controlled. this has led to the near demise of the print media while publisers rail against free distribution. bloggers are also unemployed or laid off sportwriters or, as we see on this site, people who live in mom's basement yelling at howard eskin.— natedog
- Scholes -- it isn't about "Advanced Baseball Studies." Is about the study of a trade, and non-fiction writing is a trade. Just because you can unclog a drain doesn't make you a professional plummer. And just like Bill James spent years honing the skills that make him such an expert on statistical analysis, professional journalists and writers spend years learning the nuances of the craft. You might think that sounds self-righteous. Believe me, it isn't. There is a lot more that goes into a professional piece of reporting or analysis than meets the eye, just like there is a lot more that goes into what you do for a living than meets the eye.
- Gonzo should have never written the article. It was irresponsible reporting, and was clearly written to garner this exact type of media frenzy. It was sensationalist journalism at its worst.— Frank Lloyd Wrong
- Manny just signed a 2 year, $45 million contract and that did not stop him from cheating.— dagipe
- Comment removed.
- There's much to agree with here, but you oversell your "training" a bit. There's no "Advanced Baseball Studies" classes at newspapers. Frankly, the most studied baseball analyst ever, Bill James, was just a smart guy who like baseball and was good at math. Today he would write a blog instead of photocopying pamphlets, so I think you're a little too dismissive. One of the biggest issues in baseball is this: every time someone has a leap in power, this issue will be talked about. Broadcasters off the air will discuss it, fans in bars and players in locker rooms, but before the blogs it had no public airing. Now, Ibanez got to shoot it down ( and I 100% believe him) - is that so bad?— Scholes
- I laughed at the original story. Clueless. I reserve the right to continue to laugh at it until it goes away.— Grazman
- Dave - your the man. Couldn't agree more, this is Gonzo's fault.— main liner
- Excellent— MFPhils
- Good column and nice job not attacking blogs or Gonzalez.— Mh225
- Bravo. Totally agree.— desaiguy
- I disagree gas, I think there are blogs you can enjoy. For example try http://phuturephillies.com. There is very good information on Phillies prospects that otherwise we won’t get from the mainstream media. There are also some blogs from former players and/or coaches very helpful for those who are coaching or developing (parents) young players. There are also some for umpires.— EL Zorro
- YouAreAdonkey *** Enjoyed your comment. Maybe you could team up with that guy with the "Still puking in Philly handle".— Wally 24
- Sometimes little brothers need a smack 'upside their pointy little heads too. Best wishes and many thanks to a true professional, Mr. Raul Ibanez.— TBear
- Third, the fore going os just my personal unprofessional and uneducated opinion. Thanks for listening— Wally 24
- I did not see the piece on OTL but I did read John Gonzalez's column...he has no business lecturing anyone on media accountability. If he had a clue, he never would have written that column. It didn't take a journalism professor to foresee the consequences and irresponsibility of writing such a piece. It's funny that he lent credence to the blogger by writing an entire column about it for a major newspaper and then lecture the blogger about accountability. Also, and this is just my own personal speculation, I think Gonzalez was actually using this as an opportunity to passive/agressively raise the issue himself. I've read "Gonzo" before and feel he's a consistenly poor, susbstandard columnist. He's not worthy of a regular column in a high school newspaper, much less The Inquirer. Bill Lyon must be reading "Gonzo's" columns and shaking his head.— nitzohan
- Comment removed.
- Second , it seems to me that journalistic ethics is a line, crossed frequently by reporters with nary a complaint anywhere. The need to use the power of the press for ones own personal goals is not uncommon. I find it hillarious (maybe hipocritical too) that any reporter would be upset by the blurring of the boundaries between professionalism and the rank blogger.— Wally 24
- Mr. Murphy: my issue with your column is that many so-called "journalists" have absolutely no idea what the truth is or, knowing it, take pains to slant it. Let's just say I read many articles in the Inquirer that lead me to believe that there is a definite liberal bias in reporting. Bloggers themselves exist today - at least in the news world - precisely because the mainstream media cannot be trusted to furnish straight, unbiased reporting. Without bloggers, we would never had known that CBS fabricated forged, fraudulent documents to invent a news story 60 days before the election that President Bush got easy treatment regarding his military service. We would never know about a Democrat-controlled Congress trying to shove amnesty for illegal aliens down our throats. I agree that bloggers need to exercise a sense of fairness and responsibility, but lacking that same conduct from mainstream media "journalists," bloggers do not have a credible example to follow.— davesju93
- First let me say that from what I've seen the National Sports Media is doing more than its fair share to blur the lines around steroids abuse. This latest bizarre turn of events appears to be another attempt to make that pill easier to swallow (pardon the pun) when the next big star turns up positive.— Wally 24
- Comment removed.
- Apparently critical thinking isn't the only woefully underutilized skill...— njphillyfan
- Well said.— frankatlasalle
- Great article David, couldn't agree more.— mcginnir
- Comment removed.
- I actually don't think that "blogging" as a source of information (reliable or otherwise) and expression will be going away any time soon. In fact, I tend to believe that the boundaries between blogging and "serious journalism" will continue to be blurred and distorted as time goes by (Mr. Murphy is a serious journalist who has a blog, as an example). So I think that it is important to talk about it, and I think that this article is a really well thought out way to begin. For me, blogging has obvious advantages and disadvantages. It has never been easier to express opinions and establish connections with a larger and more diverse community. However, it has also never been easier to smear another person with hints, lies and allegations. David makes a great point that there is a great need for bloggers to display integrity in their work, though there is no way to enforce high standards. As a result, the responsibility falls on us to read and interpret critically (a woefully underutilized skill) and develop our own sense of what is believeable and what is garbage. Again, thanks for the interesting article.— njphillyfan
- I'm just curious about how you feel about having your name called every time Daniel Murphy steps to the plate (and on the post-game show on CSN).— HandNik
I agree with everything you said. You must also share your parents advice with Raul.— Earl J- I agree that most bloggers are not very professional and are not trained to be writers, Murph. But you don’t have to go to a journalist school to become a good writer or sportscaster for that matter. The same way you don’t need to go to a vocational school to learn plumbing or to fix a car. I know a few. Plenty of ex ball players and politicians have made a smooth transition to the media - be television or newspapers - with little or not training at all. But I agree, we have to be very careful of where we get our information. There is a lot of people creating blogs like crazy and spreading misinformation in the process. But there are others that do a good job as well.— EL Zorro
- Dear Mr. Murphy. The issue of accountablity functions in a meaningful way that your article over looks. We can all agree PED use in MLB is a problem. The scope of that problem may never be realized. Now, as a professional writer, you are limited in your ability to write a story that might be perceived as inflamatory (you as sports writers, not you personally). If you were to go around hinting that a certain player was using steriods, it would make this player, and players in general less willing to talk to you next time you need a comment. Accountablity? Since professional sports journals like yourself has "spent years embedded in the world of athletic competition, interacting with athletes and trainers and coaches", why did it take so long for the steroid story to break? Professionals by definition have to be "accountable" to make sure that their outlets remain profitable. This may be the answer to the previous question, or may be not. But this is a problem avoided by blogging as a medium. That being said, much like professional sports media, the blogosphere has just as much shallow un-founded non-sense, as it has high caliber journalism.— SethGordon
- Ibanez is bringing sexy back.— Philth
- You have highlighted an important difference here and I laud you for it. The internet has given license to many to libel, accuse, and verbally assault with almost complete anonymity. The amount of negativity and vitriol that is written on blogs and found within comment sections would never pass the ombudsman or the proverbial "breakfast test." It's a shame that the internet has pulled back the curtain and shown how unfiltered - and frequently uneducated - anger translates into claims that can spread wildly without ever being substantiated. The truly scary thought is that some of these negative and hateful comments could still be coming from, organized, creative, and thoughtful minds.— Preserve Jon
- I appreciate and agree with everything you said David...however we now have yet another story that rehashes the bloggers baseless accusations in a forum and outlet they don't deserve.Th catch 22 is it's going to take a long time for it to go away if we keep discussing it. Reminds me of that C/W song "How Can I Miss You if You Won't Go Away"— saabguy
- I agree, Murph, but I saw Gonzo's story as a sort of case-study to make the same point you did. We have to realize that (whatever the idiot's name was) was not just some blogger, he is a professional writer (managing editor, I think?) for a relatively well-read online publication. Gonzo was raising the flag on a brand of blogging which is not only harmful and ignorant but also popular. Professionalism cannot be restricted to the older brother when the little brother is getting just as much face-time with the parents, to follow your analogy. I'm glad this hit the national media (particularly Ken Rosenthal's comments on ESPN) and think it was a good move by Gonzo.— SeanBreslin
