Joe Smith and the St. Pete Times ran a lazy story about Rays’ first-round pick Taylor Guerrieri today that basically concluded that Guerrieri [side note, this kid needs a nickname fast, I have only typed his last name twice and I am already worn out from all the Rs, Is, and Es] fell to the Rays at 24 despite top-10 talent because of a “makeup” problem.
As Dirk Hayhurst pointed out on Twitter yesterday “makeup” is a “loosely defined term” that is a “key factor in the future of aspiring people.” (I don’t know how to link to specific tweets but Hayhurst’s timeline is here and you should all be following him because he is an entertaining read.) I’ll go further, “make up” is Joe Smith saying ‘I think this is a bad kid but I didn’t bother to get any proof of that other than unattributed rumors so, rather than reporting, I am just going to write that he is a bad kid using ambiguous terms that baseball fans will understand but, that will never amount to anything in a lawsuit for libel.’
Don’t believe me? Here is Joe Smith’s evidence that Guerrieri has a “makeup” issue:
- He was not drafted in the top 10 even though Baseball America thinks he’s a top 10 player;
- He tranferred high schools;
- There are unconfirmed rumors about some unidentified incident; and
- He won’t talk to the press even though the other first-rounders will talk to the press.
I know, in our celebrity-obsessed culture, it must be truly bizarre for a newspaper reporter to get denied an interview from a suddenly (marginally) famous person. But you have to take yourself pretty damn seriously to think his refusal to grant you an interview proves he is hiding something. I mean, why else would a high-school senior not talk to a reporter? It couldn’t possibly be because that reporter works for a newspaper famous for taking minor stories and blowing them all out of proportion, could it? I don’t know who the shadowy “advisors” are referenced in the story but, I hope their his parents because, as a parent, I would never let my kid talk to some nosy writer about some minor thing on one of the best days of his life.
Hey. Joe. You are a baseball writer, not Woodward and Bernstein. Go write about baseball. But, if you insist on doing this investigative journalism and you are going to write a story that will follow a kid for his whole career, the least you can do is, you know, some reporting. The kid shoots down your interview and that’s it? I am not a reporter but, if this kid really did something as bad as you imply in your story, then someone else saw it. Right? Or at least heard the rumor and can tell that. Right? Because if no one else has any information, then I think you should have just called your editor and said “doesn’t look like there is anything here.”
Unless someone decides to do some reporting, I am just going to assume that this kid did something we all did when we were 18. Unfortunately, in the world of high-priced amateur athletics, if you can play ball, you are not permitted to be an a-hole when you’re 18 because it gets written up in Baseball America.
Blow-it.com.
I can appreciate your view since the headline and some of the early story focuses on the rumors. In fact, I too would have preferred less emphasis on the issue.
But I also think you are blowing up the negativity of the story. Joe Smith also reports on Harrison’s very positive statements and on the reasonable explanations for his transferring high schools. And I also think the story makes clear that Guerrieri did not do anything really bad, that whatever it was was merely youthful indiscretion that the team thinks is minimally important. Smith does not assert he is a bad kid.
Also, while for those who have followed the draft for a while the story of Guerrieri’s character issues is now old hat, it has certainly been a widely circulated one and is legitimately part of the reporting in a St. Petersburg newspaper after the Rays pick him in the first round.
Actually what does surprise me in your post is the assertion that the Times routinely blows minor stories out of proportion. Quite the contrary, the paper has excellent rapport with both Rays management and players, avoiding sensationalism in their stories about the team. In fact, some have accused Topkin, Romano and others, (unfairly in my mind) of being too accommodating to players and management and not being critical enough. Perhaps you were not referring to the Sports section, but as the post is specifically about baseball, I assume you are.
I read the comments he used from Harrison totally differently. They are all focused on the kid’s baseball ability (which, in my opinion, is the only thing that matters in a story printed in the Sports section) but seem to imply that RJ’s refusal to talk about the non-baseball stuff means there is something to hide. Perhaps, however, I should have read this after my coffee and not before it.
Also, you make a fair point about my comment on the Times. I was not talking about the Sports page. So, to be more exact, that should have read “…taking minor stories and blowing them all out of proportion in other parts of the paper…” I really like Topkin and, I don’t know Joe Smith, but the Times usually does a good job hiring. I just think this story is lazy.
My problem with the article is more the placement of information rather than the substance of it. For example, it is true the front page quotations from Harrison are about his talent, but later in the article comes this statement:
“Harrison isn’t concerned about Guerrieri. saying the rumored off-the-field issues were based on a lot of “misinformation” and “blown out of proportion”. And the entire following paragraph re-emphasizes that it was a media created issue more than a real one, calls it a “hiccup” and says “Sometimes (stuff) happens. We weren’t run off by it.”
That is followed by another paragraph saying the school switch was insignificant “…people start to make more out of it than what it is.” and another long paragraph explaining the legitimate reasons for the switch and concluding that the transfer was legit and closing with a quotation from the previous assistant coach that there were no hard feelings.
The last few paragraphs also approach the “problem” in a balanced manner and are generally optimistic.
On balance, there is a lot more diminishing of the character issue than there is hyping it. The problem is that most readers are more influenced by headlines and the first paragraph or so, especially if they are front page, than by the full substance of an article. I think it legitimate to criticize the Times for that aspect of the story.
But I also think that bloggers can avoid overstating points. Unlike talk radio which relies on sensationalism to keep its ratings up, there is room on a blog for balanced and rational discussion, and while criticizing we can also direct people’s attention to the full story rather than isolating one aspect of it to attack.
I just went and re-read the story and I have to disagree about it being balanced. While the explanation is presented, I think it is presented in a way that implies it is a cover-up. To wit, it is based on “fuzzy” details and no “specifics.”
In the end, I just don’t think it is a legitimate story about a kid. I generally object to all these stories but, if they are going to be written, then I think all the details need to be uncovered. That is my big problem. If he really did something newsworthy, then I think the details would be hard to hide in this day and age.
That said, I will admit that I have a tendency to overstate things, but I hope I remain rational.
Seems very rational for me, i would have to agree with you.
Mark,
I must say I agree with you. The tone of the article is overwhelmingly negative. He only throws in the occasional positive innuendo so it isn’t strictly a smear article. For example, he gives a quote about the talent then immediately follows it with “however” (insert generic statement about needing to grow up). Saying things like we will “eventually” hear from him, the whole piece gets under my skin to be honest. Maybe the writer needs to do some growing up and realize he isn’t writing for the school paper anymore.