fshorr's blog

Do people have the right to criticize the media if they haven’t done the job before? In a vacuum, it’s a tough question to answer. But with a guy like Ryan Hadfield, the answer is an obvious “no.” He shared his criticisms of several on-air hosts (Gary Tanguay, Tony Massarotti, etc.), but after listening to him ramble on for what seemed like four hours, I concluded that Ryan must know very little about what it takes to be a successful broadcaster. He could hardly put three or four sentences together without changing his train of thought.

I couldn’t write this down verbatim, but when Ryan was asked about how he criticizes someone like Scott Zolak, who he has a decent relationship with, he answered with something like: “I mean…with Scott…would I have a situation there where I could…you know…I mean would I be less inclined to criticize him? That’s where you get into something where…well I don’t know yeah maybe it would be a problem but…yeah don’t forget to build good relationships with the athletes, kids!”

I could hardly follow what he was saying, mostly because of that disgusting thing he kept doing with his tongue. I’m shuddering just thinking about it. Bottom line: Ryan seemed like a good guy, but he’d make a terrible on-air personality, which gives him no right to criticize those who do have jobs in the field.

On the other hand — give me a current or former journalist, and I’ll listen to their critiques without question. Media critics can be useful in my opinion, if only for the purpose of keeping columnists in check (not that Bob Ryan reads Boston Sports Media Watch). Some writers are often guilty of presenting outlandish opinions unopposed, and I think critics can help columnists improve their work in terms of honesty and consistency.

I also think people like to read and complain about articles and broadcasts for the same reasons they call in to talk radio shows and complain about their teams. Everybody is reading and watching together, and people like to feel involved in the grand community of fans.

The seminar last week taught me that certain media critics don’t totally understand journalism, which is a huge problem when they decide to rip the media for its actions or inactions. When Ryan Hadfield was talking about the Red Sox collapse and said he would have definitely broken the “beer story” during the regular season, I could only think of the ramifications of breaking that story. There would be too much on the line for the reporter, as he or she would lose access and sources in the clubhouse; the costs completely outweigh the benefits. The fact that Hadfield said he would write up that story shows me his misunderstanding of journalism and working a locker room. As Tyler already mentioned, journalists should be able to critique their counterparts (“give me a current or former journalist, and I’ll listen to their critiques without question”), but non-journalists have no idea what it takes to be a reporter.

Furthermore, this seminar was representative of today’s technological age when anybody in the world can throw out their opinions for the public to see. There are no longer strict barriers to getting a byline, which can present some problems for hard working and credible journalists. For example, what if Hadfield writes a column where he criticizes particular journalists for not reporting the “beer story” and some of the ill-informed public listens to Hadfield? Then, the public starts to believe that the credible writers are wrong to do that, and the public begins to question the writers’ integrity as a whole. This is all because of how Hadfield doesn’t understand a locker room, and the public doesn’t understand how important sources are in the clubhouse. Hadfield would be misleading the public. Media critics, like Hadfield, wouldn’t be improving the journalists’ work; the media critics would just be making it harder for journalists when the journalists are going about their job in the best way possible.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the editors and producers at these newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations. It is the editors’ and producers’ job to monitor their reporters, and if their reporters are not doing a good job, then the reporters will be gone. These media critics should become editors and producers, so they can actually control what the media is putting out there. The reporters’ tendencies will not be impacted if the media critics are spewing out opinions from afar. If the media critics want any impact on the reporters’ work, the media critics have to join a publication or network.

Now, there was one legitimate argument from the media critics during the seminar. The critics said how they look at the media relationships with athletes and also team management, and I think this can be very important to point out. How much is the reporter being a puppet for the general manager? How independent is this journalist? I believe that these are reasonable questions to ask about reporters, but that is all these media critics should monitor; when they haven’t experienced the profession firsthand, they are unable to truly analyze the performance of the media members.

I’m leaning towards some of the opinions expressed by Tyler and Josh. Not only was this the least interesting seminar to date for me, I also don’t think that I got very much out of it. I guess I just don’t see the purpose of the role of media critics, to be honest. I guess, and I tried to get at this with my question about its relevance in other less sports oriented cities, that I don’t think it’s particularly useful. Perhaps in Boston and New York where some sports media members are quasi-celebrities, but overall this profession just seems irrelevant.

This may sound harsh, but I feel like people who end up as media critics are those who can’t hack it as actual journalists. These critics do no reporting of their own, they merely comment on the reporting of others.

I was shocked that Ryan was so adamant about how the beat reporters for the Red Sox should have reported the story about players drinking beer in the club house. If I had been in that position, there’s no way that I would have risked my relationship with my players and my reputation as a journalist. Ryan tried to backtrack by saying that he mostly critiques columnists and not beat writers, but he said it himself, he’s not in the locker rooms. As a result he has no idea what actually goes on in there, no sense of the delicate balance that goes into a relationship between an athlete and a member of the media.

I also don’t feel like they were able to successfully defend why they are in a position to be critiquing the media. It seems like we all feel similar: how can these people judge a profession they have no experience doing? I feel like they are about as qualified to do so as I am to critique art. I suppose I just don’t see what these people do as helpful or even contributory. If I was a writer covering a sports team, I don’t think I would be particularly concerned with what some other “writer” was saying about my work, because where would it end? Does there need to be somebody to critique the critique of the media? It just seems like it becomes less informative and more of a way for readers to have their opinion either validated and contradicted, which just creates more noise.

I assume that when people are attending a seminar to speak, they will have something worthwhile and cohesive to say. In this instance, I was wrong. Sitting through this seminar with “critics” George Cain and Ryan Hadfield, I realized the simple notion that anyone can be an assertive, opinionated “critic.” You do not have to be an expert in the area you are examining, you do not need to be a professional in the same field that you are critiquing and evidently, you do not even need to understand the basic principles of what (in this case) the reporters, columnists and commentators are discussing. Just throw something on the blogosphere wall, watch it stick and know some sap is going to be inane enough to plop down and read what is being written. As the saying goes, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” and it appears that Hadfield and Cain are aiming to incite and entice those sorts of people for emotional responses.

When the seminar did begin, I found the biggest issue to be that neither one of the men could answer a question without fading off, laughing the question off, talking about something completely irrelevant and then at times, just ignoring the question. It was like watching children on “Kids Say the Darndest Things.” But at least those kids were funny and attempted to answer honestly…Hadfield really struggled with both of those concepts. I feel at this point in the post that I ought to separate George and Ryan. First off, Cain knew when to stop talking and let Ryan, Mr. Overeager-to-hear-himself-talk, take control and quickly drive himself into a barrage of walls. You would think that all the graves the kid kept digging himself, he could have successfully stuffed his inflated ego into one of them and shut up. But no, he just kept on yabbering away. The never ending blah blah blahs that streamed from his mouth made me realize this again: Anyone can be a critic. And in our own rights, the majority of our class could be much better and more knowledgeable than either of these two men, especially Hadfield, in critiquing sports journalism.

If I did come away with something from this seminar (besides ‘Anyone can be a critic’) it is that when people title themselves something, i.e., Ryan Hadfield “the Critic,” it is only to be taken at face value. I mean honestly, I think all of Hadfield’s credibility flopped immediately when he said that a. he was starting to take journalism courses “just like us,” making each student in that class room qualified to take his position as a “sports critic,” and b. would have published a silly story about the Red Sox locker room antics that served no purpose except to potential ruin a reporter’s career and to get readers to follow him through a flashy, unsubstantial article. That’s not journalism, that’s not criticism, it’s self-promotion. When you start throwing controversial statements around just for comments on a website (both talked about how many comments they got on various stories with the same swelling pride as if they had been awarded the Pulitzer), you’ve lost all respectability as a viable reporter, critic, whatever the hell he is calling himself…just awful form really.

As for George Cain, he admitted that being a “critic” was fun and that he had a real, full-time job unrelated to the sports journalism field. I’m not sure if I should be put off by this or pleased that he was so open and loose about being a “critic.” My gut instinct tells me to be appalled. And my rationale for that is there are people entitling themselves as critics who are basically saying, wait for it, “anyone can be a critic.” That’s disturbing. I mean, how many times have you heard a neurosurgeon say that anyone can perform a Craniotomy or a Lumbar discectomy? Probably no one besides a trained professional or a brain surgeon as they are commonly referred to. So in elementary theory, people need to have the expertise or training in a specific field in order to successfully perform a job. From doctors to critics, you need to support your abilities through credibility.

What it boils down to is that these two men do not have real jobs as critic, they are if anything, writing enthusiasts. They have no background in the subject matter and both men have different occupations that occupy their time. At best, George and Ryan are two guys with computers, free time and a source for posting their work. Wow.

So if anything, right now I’m being a “critic” too by judging their work and performance at the seminar. But I have actual journalism experience and have worked in the field before…thus making me a better critic? It’s absurd really the directions one can go in to say they can critique people, teams, events etc. The one final thought I have on this confusing subject is this: Where does the line between professional critic and playtime critic get drawn? If I’m a self-labeled “critic” and these guys are just the same, then who isn’t? You’d be just as informed reading what these men write on Boston Sports Media Watch than if you headed down to a barber shop ala Coming to America style and listen to people having a regular conversation about sports. That parallel between joking around with friends in a social setting and being a “professional” critic commenting online is comical. If anything, it does not bode well for the job title.

I think that Tyler hit the nail on the head with his comment. It was difficult to sit through the seminar, mainly because the discussion turned into a mixture of the previous four seminars, centering on the ideas of relationships and the media’s role when it comes to sports reporting.

The reaction I had to last week’s seminar regarding sports critics after listening to Ryan’s responses, was similar to the reaction the principal had to Billy Madison’s rant on the Puppy who lost its way.

“Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.” The principal said. “At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

The above quote may be a little harsh. But as Tyler pointed out in his comment, the two critics were unable to give a clear, consistent answer to professor Shorr’s questions, which is why the discussion spiraled into repetition.

Ryan distinguished between the types of stories he would and would not criticize saying that he would not criticize A. Sherrod Blakely’s game stories but would criticize columnists. It is about controlling the narrative.

They also made a nice points about recognizing the “tie-ins,” sighting the relationship between Peter Gammons and Theo Epstein as an example and about how in Boston, “when you rip the team you receive a negative response and when you rip the media you receive a positive response.”

Nothing about the seminar convinced me that critics are in a position to knowledgeably criticize those who put in the proper amount of time and effort. When I look back on the seminar, I wont remember it as a lesson about sports media critics, but more a lesson on sports media in general.

As far as what this means for the future of Sports Media: Critics will continue to exist and give their opinions, whether they are warranted or not.

Well, I caught a bad case of the flu so I wasn’t able to attend this particular seminar, so I wanted to wait for what others in the class had to say about it. Pardon me for any inaccuracies since I wasn’t there, but I have a couple of opinions regarding Professor Shorr’s blog and what others have commented before me.

First of all, it’s hard for me to respect someone who makes their living criticizing others for an activity that they have never partaken in. I see exceptions to this in sports talk radio and columns – those are two media in which listeners and readers are being courted to create an entertainment-oriented, “discussion”-type atmosphere and not an academically critical one. Stirring the pot is necessary in those fields.

In other lines of work, though, I don’t being so disconnected flies. In my desired field, play-by-play, most criticism of athletes is reserved for the color announcer, someone who has actually played the sport before. Certain MLB play-by-play announcers who have never played baseball, such as Jon Miller, have developed the ethos to be able to blatantly criticize players because they have called games for so long, but the general rule of thumb is that the play-by-play voice sticks to description of the game while the criticism is handled by someone with actual experience.

I think the same rules should apply to critics of the media. Someone who is not fit to call a game and doesn’t know how difficult it can be is not the one best suited to be a “watchdog” of announcers. A sports media watch is a noble idea, but the job must be performed by someone with sufficient ethos. It’s a job for someone who has performed in the position(s) that he is critiquing.

The Stephen Wiltshire video, by the way, is absolutely awesome.

Yep, same thing – not sure I got much out of it, but it was interesting hearing the critics defend how their profession is important. What really bothered me was how they said they monitored locker room relationships to make sure reporters weren’t writing what athletes and management wants us to hear. And then it was like they bashed locker room relationships with the whole Red Sox beer and clubhouse situation. But what they never did was offer a solution. I asked them at the end if they thought journalists could do their job without locker room relationships and they both said no, those relationships are instrumental. But they never defined what was an appropriate relationship or if journalists should report anything they see regardless of their relationships. They almost contradicted themselves and that’s because they’ve never done the job of a reporter.
In a way I can almost defend the purpose of having media critics and how what they do relates to the profession of journalism. It goes back to journalism basics and the idea of being a watchdog. They consider themselves watchdogs. But then again, they are so concerned about reporters upholding their duty of being fair and accurate journalists when they themselves aren’t even qualified to be journalists. I also agree with Heidi, about journalists doing an okay job of policing themselves. If it’s not them monitoring themselves, then it’s the editors watching over them.
Finally, I don’t understand the work flow of these guys. They write an article once a week. So, then what do they do the other four days of the week? Read up on what other reporters are writing and pick that apart? Reporters do that to themselves already, read up on the competition, and go out to actually report the story. I guess I don’t give as much merit to their line of work as the other industry experts we’ve heard from in earlier seminars, but in a way I’m open to them proving me wrong. I just hope next time they come prepared with a better argument.
And P.S. the Stephen Wiltshire video was incredible. I can only hope my undiscovered talent is as impressive as his.

A very good point: “why, as sports fans, do we need to listen to, or read, what someone has to say about what we just saw?”

I lean towards how Heidi feels about this matter of media critics. I understand what they do and why their job is important, but are they completely necessary? To be honest, in my opinion, they are unnecessary. But, they do fill a void that is sometimes needed.

Now, my biggest contest to media critics is that the majority (or a significant amount) of them have NEVER played the game. Some have played the game, but none have ever come close to a division 1 college or professional level (NBA NFL MLB). So how can a guy like Skip Bayless truly tell us that Lebron James is wrong when he does this, or soft when he does that? It is extremely upsetting to me when I see these media people come after athletes when they couldn’t even dream of stepping into the shoes of a guy like Lebron James.

I also agree with David, as it is hard to really respect someone who’s job it is to criticize an athlete, or anyone for that matter. But despite how my emotions make me feel about a media critic, they do a great job at what they do. The critics do a lot of homework to get their jobs done, and it takes a lot of dedication and time to carefully critique someone or something. Whether it is a game, an individual athlete, or an issue in a teams locker room, the people who criticize sports are educated individuals (not all of them) who take a lot of their time researching topics and teams in order to give quality stories.

I also like the sports radio broadcasters who host shows that allow the fans to call in and have discussions about certain topics. Even though a fans opinion is as meaningless as anything else, it does allow fans to give their own input on criticizing the sports they love.