The big story of yesterday was the continuation of Raul Ibanez-Gate. This time it went from the pages of the Philly Inquirer to the television set, as ESPN got in on the story putting a panel together for Outside The Lines. That panel included Inqy scribe and friend of the show John Gonzalez, Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports and the author of the post that started this whole thing, Jerod Morris.

We are happy to have Jerod Morris on the show today, to talk about this entire crazy situation.

But first, Nick and I talk about the big story of TODAY. Cristiano Ronaldo is leaving the richest team in the world for the richest transfer fee of all time. Yes, Ronaldo is departing Manchester United for, you guessed it, Real Madrid. He’ll be joining Kaka at Real in two of the biggest moves in the history of the sport. How in the world does Real have this kind of money? Could we imagine if LeBron and Wade were both traded to the Knicks, in the middle of their contracts? That’s what just happened, but even bigger.

We also touch on the fact that ESPN talks a good soccer game, but didn’t even have this story on the front page as of the time we taped this show. They have since added a quick link about it, leaving their rotator for more state-side matters. As a listener sent us on Twitter today, ‘the only way Ronaldo (or for that matter any soccer star) on the front page of ESPN is to change their name to FAVRE.”

Print’s Not Dead:

We bring in Jerod Morris to talk about his blog post on Raul Ibanez, and wonder if he ever expected it to have the legs it did. We run through exactly how this became a national story and I ask if he agrees with my notion that the story didn’t become big until the Inquirer decided to make it big. Once the player in question commented on the speculation, the story became about Raul Ibanez. Before that, in my opinion at least, the story could have been about anyone. I ask Morris about that to see exactly how he thinks the story became so darn big.

The conversation leads to an interesting discussion on the responsibility of media and new media. Does he feel he should have been more responsible when bringing up a player’s name? And what does he think about the responsibility of the Inquirer to present the question to Ibanez in the proper context?

See, that’s the entire point of this story. Media members are using this as a cautionary tale to show how irresponsible blogs are. But only Jim Salisbury knows how he presented the story to Ibanez when asking for a quote (well, he and those in his vicinity). Did Salisbury hand Ibanez the original post and let him read it, asking for comment? Did he go up to him and say, “Gonzo wrote a story defending you because some blogger thinks you’re on juice” and THEN ask for comment? Ibanez was hearing this story third hand, and however he was presented this information clearly shaped his quotes.

We also discuss Morris’ appearance on Outside the Lines to talk about just how out of control this story got. And I get his reaction to Ken Rosenthal’s behavior on the show. Gonzalez, who was also on the show, disagreed with Morris, but did it in a clear and reasoned way. Rosenthal looked like a child throwing a tantrum.

Is Rosenthal just another apologist for the players, because he sure seemed like it on that show. Which leads to a new conversation, spinning it forward, of how close TV people get to the players they cover. TV personalities, and yes some radio and print reporters as well, have become celebrities. Rosenthal seemed less like a reporter on that show and more like a celebrity who felt that another celebrities name was being sullied. Or more like a guy defending players because he knows his relationship with them is his mealticket. If he defends a guy on TV, maybe the guy will remember it and give him a nugget of information for next time.

Either way, his condescending attitude was palpable. And I ask Morris if he felt that while on the show? Does he think Rosenthal would have treated a more established baseball writer like that? Did he take advantage of the situation because he was talking to ‘just a blogger?’

Inside The Press Box:

We bring Nick back in to get his thoughts, including the idea that I was way too easy on Morris. Fair point. We discuss notion of the different standards in journalism and Nick challenges the Inquirer to take Morris’ original post and edit it to the level that they feel would be appropriate for print in the newspaper. They admonish the article, but what specifically do they feel is irresponsible? Again, if Gonzo himself wrote this exact article, would this be a national story?

We also further the discussion about TV personalities like Rosenthal and

Fox’s Jay Glazer -- who felt the ire of SI writer much of yesterday -- being too close to the people they cover. Nick points out that for years members of the media have been in the inner circle of players. We’ve discussed before that there’d be hundreds of stories about the drinking and womanizing of old players back in the day if it wasn’t for the fact that the reporters who would be covering those stories were partaking in just as much drinking and womanizing.

But times have changed, and with the internet keeping our athletes more in check, is it time for more of us to keep our reporters in check. Sure for years the blogs report when someone does something salacious (re: Glazer), and sites like FJM would call out bad writing and reporting, but could a story like this steroid speculation spark a ‘real’ reporter to find out the truth about Ibanez...or any player? Is the underlying theme of the original post simply that we don’t know about players in baseball, not because they have been lying and cheating all this time, but because the people covering the sport haven’t done a good enough job finding the cheaters and liars? Was his post more of an indictment on the media’s inability to break this story than it was on the players themselves for cheating?

Listen, I’m not saying that all journalists aren’t doing their jobs and the bloggers have to hold THEM accountable. Far from it. There are many many many great journalists in this country. I just think it’s a little disingenuous of a guy like Rosenthal to go on TV talking about journalistic integrity in the same breath that he’s defending the virtue of a player, asking the writer how he’d feel if someone wrote a story like that about him. Why would his feelings matter? Are we seven years old still? Should we not write about when a player is in a slump? Should we not boo, too, Ken?

Personally, I’d love it if someone cared enough about my profession and my job therein to speculate on my abilities. It means people care. And want it clean. I don’t begrudge Ibanez for his reaction (again it’s all predicated on how Salisbury asked the question anyway) but I wish guys like Rosenthal, and the panelists on Around the Horn for that matter, would spend less time blindly defending their fellow celebrities and actually do some reporting to find the people who are cheating.

Housekeeping:

Speaking of good reporters, one lost her job this week. Aditi Kinkhabwala, formerly of the Bergen Record, was let go as they are shrinking their sports coverage and her position became expendable. It’s a sad time, and it’s sad for her and her readers. She’s a really really good writer (and former guest of our show) and we hope she lands somewhere soon.

We also briefly talk about the Holocaust Museum shooting, which is a much more tragic situation, obviously. Nick mentions another old man crime taking place in his building the other day as a bank was held up by a senior citizen. And as poor a transition as I can write, we talk about Blogs with Balls, and plug Friday’s guest Bethlehem Shoals.

Thanks for indulging again today.

| | | | | |