Michael Schumacher from F1 has retired and Don Matthews was fired as head coach of the CFL Montreal Alouettes. While we're at it, Bobby Clarke is no longer GM of the Philadelphia Flyers. What's the connection between the three and why am I mentioning them together in the same paragraph?
Cold, callous, difficult, calculating, bitter. These are just some of the words that have been used by journalists to describe the personality traits of Schumacher and Matthews specifically. It doesn't help Clarke's cause that he played for one of the most delinquent clubs in hockey history. As for journalists who make these claims, while true, they border on childish. Here in Montreal, several writers are notoriously arrogant, thin-skinned or just plump mean spirited. Through them, we can understand how Hopper and Parsons functioned.
It's become acceptable for journalists to disclose their personal negative experiences with athletes or coaches now. This 'personalized' approach is apparently supposed to mean something to the sports fan. Journalists often tell the story of how much of a jerk this guy is and how stupid that person is; especially when they feel they were treated poorly.
They are, these scribers, very skillful at rallying public opinion to their side. They'd be perfect political speech writers for Fidel Castro. Many sports journalists are one step removed from keeping a diary like a blogger in their columns. In some cases, I wonder if there are any standards at all with editorial boards. They ramble unchecked about a grievance they have for weeks in some cases.
Are sports fans supposed to care that a journalist hates a particular coach or athlete? Does it really matter that Barry Bonds is a jerk? In some karma, spiritual way maybe, but these are athletes. If society didn’t place such an importance on them we wouldn't care. Certainly, we shouldn’t care. False idols are unhealthy.
It's one thing to mention a writer's frustration with an entertainer, however when it becomes a feature of your column on a regular basis it becomes tiresome to read.
It almost becomes a one-man crusade. Men of the papers sit down with their swords singing the 'Song of Roland' as they seek to mold the minds (notably us commoners) of the naïve and unsuspecting. Baseball writers are known to be jerks that way too. It's so bad that they won't let a deserving ball player in the Hall of Fame if they feel he wasn't kind to them. Feed 'em grapes and keep 'em 'appy, Maude.
That Schumacher was not popular is fine. We pick and choose who we like anyway. One can question his wild competitive spirit and wonder if it was good for the sport. But to flat out go after the man and his character to prove this point is dubious at best. Why should I entrust the journalist in dealing with a person's reputation?
Let's face it. There are many stupid journalists at large who simply deserve to be thrown on their asses. Dealing with mercurial hard asses from Bobby Knight to Lou Holtz to Ted Williams to Ty Cobb to even Bill Parcells (T.O.will do that to you), takes a special person. Most journalists are not up to the task. It happens everywhere. Marcello Lippi in Italy, one of the world's finest coaches, is constantly at war with the Italian sports press.
Fans concern themselves with one thing: winning. If you're a Ferrari fan all you care about is that Schumacher is a champion. Same with McLaren fans under the reign of Ayrton Senna a couple of decades back. Montreal football fans would not have cared about Matthews' attitude if he brought a second Grey Cup to Montreal. That he didn't was open season and journalists gleefully pounced on him. You know, because he was such a jerk to them. They love it - wink - when one falls from grace. That's what makes them - wink - evil. Then they all turn around and look at each other and wonder why the press is called out every once in a while. "Moi?" Not all to be sure, but a few nonetheless.
The perception is what drives our beliefs. With the athlete, journalists have appropriated themselves the right to attack them often without thought. I'm not saying don't bring to the attention of readers certain stories relating to character. We rely on them to bring forth the 'truth'. What I am saying is that it should not govern their objective observations. If it does, they are no better than the jerk they are impugning.
If you really want to get to the heart of how an athlete thinks, I imagine a long piece outside the mold of the sports pages may be a better place to do it. You can explore much more a person's soul with 2 500 words than 750. Until then, just….the….facts ma'am.
Schumi is probably more grilled here in Quebec - you know with the Villeneuve and all. Good to hear from you.
ReplyDelete