The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated

It is possible that in years to come, May 20, 2006 will be remembered for two sporting tragedies. In the obvious tragedy, Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro fractured his right hind leg no more than 100 yards into the Preakness Stakes. For a horse that had, prior to the race, borne so much promise, it was heartbreaking to watch Barbaro obediently pulling up when commanded by his capable jockey, Edgar Prado, attempting to support his weight on only 3 legs. His hind leg clearly in serious pain he cautiously lifted and dropped his leg while waiting on the track for the on-site vet. In the less obvious tragedy of the day, Barry Bonds hit a home run to tie Babe Ruth’s run record at 714.

Horse racing may be the one remaining sport where the competitors are concerned with nothing but the joy of the sport itself. The horse neither cares about nor understands, even implicitly, the amount of money involved in winning. The participants race purely for the joy of racing – not for the rewards or accolades that may follow. At the opposite end of the spectrum, we find Barry Bonds. The Giant has spent much of his recent pursuit of Babe Ruth’s (and soon, Hank Aaron’s) record being booed by fans, cheered only when he gets hit by a pitch. He finally tied Ruth’s record when he hit his 714th career home run. As a consequence of his admitted steroid use (and his equivocating before his admission), Bonds has become the anti-hero, the guy everyone loves to hate. Some may consider this a tragedy, or at the very least, a travesty, that someone who has admitted to using performance-enhancing steroids, could now hold so elusive a record and hold such illustrious company.

Some commentators have recently compared Bonds to Aaron – both men having suffered the ire of the sporting public in their pursuit of 715. But to do so is to obfuscate the facts of the issue. Bonds is being jeered for one reason only: he cheated. Aaron faced the much more horrible an unjust specter of racism. Aaron had to deal with others’ prejudices, Bonds is reaping what he sowed. To speak of the two in the same breath, and to claim that they are both battling the same prejudices, is to lessen the achievements of the accomplished Aaron.

When Barbaro pulled up short, there was not a dry eye in the stands or in living rooms across the country. Now, a nation fearfully holds its collective breath as an endearing and heroic young 3-year old fights for his life. The focus has shifted from the possibility of seeing a Triple Crown winner to merely hoping for a recovery. Bonds will almost certainly pass Ruth’s record, but should his career not extend to another 41 home runs, it is unlikely that anyone will view that as a tragedy.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 07:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Having recently read Moneyball, the excellent book by Liar’s Poker author Michael Lewis, it struck me that the biggest theme that came to the fore and was then underscored in the afterword, was that those self-appointed baseball geniuses who feel most qualified to comment on the game were probably those who were in fact the least well-informed and the least likely to embrace the true reasons behind why the outcome of the game was as it was.

A prime example of this was the portrayal of Joe Morgan, the longtime baseball commentarist, as a pundit who believed anything he said had to be true because he said it. Without concern or regard for the facts or reality, Mr. Morgan continuously comments on the game as if it were occurring in a parallel universe where reality corresponded to what he said rather than vice versa. At various points in the book he is either quoted as drawing a conclusion that is contradicted under his nose by the game being played on the field, or he is making statements that are contradicted by simple facts (his misconceived comments about Billy Beane having written Moneyball and basing his opinion on a New York Times book review was perhaps one of the more ignorant comments on the book).

Mr. Morgan’s comments are indicative of a wider problem in punditry – people who have no real knowledge of a subject commenting on it to a wide audience as if they were experts. At the very least, we should be able to assume that they’ve done at least a minimal amount of research into the subject on which they are commenting. Rather, much of what is presented as either news or expert opinion is merely a rant and represents the individual’s uninformed opinion. Lou Dobbs is a prime example of one such ill-informed television observer who tends to make remarks that clearly have no basis in fact or reality. That his show airs on CNN and contains the word “News” in its title seems to have no bearing on his ability to wax idiotic.

Some recent comments made by Mr. Dobbs during the height of the immigration and border control policy discussion in this country were particularly unnerving. Dobbs ranted about the presence of flags other than the Stars and Stripes being flown in American streets and the existence of St. Patrick’s Day. Mr. Dobbs’ comments are inane statements concocted by a lazy mind – the immigration debate is less about the celebration of St. Patrick’s Day and more about border security and the economic impact of illegal immigration on the US – and they deteriorate the level of discourse on the subject.

Worse still, CNN appears to remain unapologetic about its anchors’ opinion, with other anchors defending Mr. Dobbs’ comments. Wolf Blitzer, during a recent interview with NY Times Op-Ed columnist Thomas Friedman, reacted to Mr. Friedman’s remarks that Mr. Dobbs’ show was presenting more opinion than facts and “dumb[ing] down the whole debate”, by claiming this was above board since Mr. Dobbs states at the start of his program that he will be presenting opinion and facts. When Mr. Friedman observed that it was becoming difficult to “tell where one stops and the other starts” Mr. Blitzer lamely stated that Mr. Friedman was also an opinionated person – the rebuttal to that of course being that Mr. Friedman is a well-known Opinion writer.

Pundits are people who are commentarists in a field in which they possess superior knowledge to average person. They exist to provide the laymen, the public at large, with a greater insight into a field they may not be intimately acquainted with. If they present some opinion in the course of this, even with the disclaimer that some of their opinions will be imparted, the rest of us expect them to base their opinion on facts. Otherwise, why would we care what they think? Without facts, their opinion carries no weight, almost as though they were prosecutors with no evidence. People like Mr. Morgan and Mr. Dobbs are not only superfluous to their respective debates, their ignorance and irresponsible, uninformed bluster has detracted from them.

Posted by Sam Clemens at 05:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)