Unlike the Los Angeles Times, who have once again stooped to the lowest level of journalism possible. In their seemingly undying quest to bash all things Dodger blue, this "newspaper" hung the Dodgers' beloved Scully out to dry. They perpetuated an issue where there was none. They threw gasoline on a smoldering matchstick. They exposed themselves one more time as a horrible excuse for a news source in a major metropolitan area.
Lucy, I'll 'splain.
It starts as do most controversies swirling around the Dodgers and their beat reporters with Los Angeles Times "sports columnist" T.J. Simers. This is a guy who would be hard-pressed to cover water polo for the Bumfuk, Iowa High School newspaper. Yet, here he is, trolling around the sports franchises of the second largest media market in America.
Simers, who would need a significant upgrade just to rise to "idiot" status, fancies himself as not only a sports writer but a comedy scribe as well. He frequently starts with some crazy joke and works backwards in order to come up with the facts that would allow him to close his bowel movement of prose with that very punchline. Indeed, when it comes to Simers' columns, even dead fish are refusing to be wrapped up in those newspaper pages.
Now, regular readers here know that I am no ardent fan of Dodger owner Frank McCourt. I want him run back to the sewers of Boston just like the next guy. T.J. Simers, however, joins the rest of the hacks also known as the Los Angeles Times sport department, in taking this quest to almost maniacal extremes. If there is bad news to report about the team, Simers and the other knuckleheads passing as Times correspondents will do so with zeal. After all, when it comes to bad stuff happening, it's either Frank McCourt's fault. Unless, of course, if it's not the fault of George W. Bush. And, in the worst example of shoddy reporting, they will craft stories around e-mails they get from disgruntled fans and treat them like they are etched on a third tablet from Moses.
So, last week, Simers gets a communication from some irate season ticket holder who has been approached by the Dodgers to participate in a survey. Hey, as a fellow season subscriber, I've gotten similar invitations in the past. No big whoop. Except, according to this guy, this particular survey is asking questions about the capability of every one on the Dodger broadcast team. How could they? Is Vin Scully under the microphone? That Frank McCourt! What an asshole!
Simers gets this e-mail and is once again first in line to yell "fire" in a semi-crowded baseball stadium. Like Mrs. O'Leary's cow, he fans the flames all the way to Chicago. The Dodgers are idiots. They are obviously wondering if Scully should be invited back. They are perhaps scrimping on dollars again. Oh, the humanity!
Forget the fact that Vin Scully has been told by management that he has a lifetime deal to broadcast the Dodgers for as long as he wants. The only guy in the world with better job security than the Pope. And, forget the notion that Simers, unlike yours truly, has no knowledge whatsoever on the topic of market research. And survey design.
You see, when I read his story about the Dodgers doing a perception study on its broadcast crew, my immediate reaction was they were looking to make a change with their TV crew that does the games when Vin is not working. Their road TV announcer Eric Collins is horrific and might actually give you aural cancer. I read the column and I silently thank God. Eric Collins may not be long for the Dodger play-by-play world.
From years of experience with this sort of research, I know that, when designing a perceptual study, you need to create benchmarks for all levels of performance. And the only way you can do that is by surveying all possible candidates. And that, of course, would include Vin Scully. This, my friends, is basic Market Research Survey Design 101.
But, Simers takes the leap and incites a printed riot. I decide to help the schmuck out. I'd e-mail him and let him know the basics of perceptual study design.
"Dear TJ, you were unfortunately a little off-kilter on your story today. I have been involved in market research. When a research company develops a survey, they have to methodologically include ALL possible examples in order to establish a benchmark. My guess is that they need to get a reading on Vin Scully not because he is under the microscope. They are likely trying to get a comparison to use in judging their other announcers. This is pretty standard operating proceudre in market research."
I figured I'd get a thank you. Maybe even a form of a retraction in a subsequent column.
Instead, I get this from T.J..
"Sorry, no reason to subject him to such a thing_they already havew a reads on him_he's the best"
I typed that just as I received it.
Exactly. You can make your own call on Simers' jornalistic competence. And his ability to type a note correctly.
Basically, T.J. wanted nothing to do with my logic. And the facts.
Two days later, Vin Scully surprises the city of Los Angeles as he simply and humbly announces his decision to return for the 2012 baseball season. This is class personified. As only he can.
So, you read it plainly in Vin's own words. He came to his decision with some soul searching. And some praying to God. Got that?
The very next day, the Los Angeles Times sports department mis-directs the message one more time. This one comes from Dodger beat writer Dylan Hernandez who is also not in danger of winning a Pulitzer Prize any time soon. His headline on the story?
"Scully Gets OK to Return for 2012 Season."
Uh-huh. An okay to return. From whom? If you simply had followed Simers' column and not seen Vin's on-the-air message, you would be led to believe that the Dodgers had cleared him. Maybe Frank McCourt had figured out how to pay him. Whatever the case, from the Times' headline, Scully had been cleared.
You had to read deeply into the story to get the headline explained. It was God giving Scully the okay.
But, that wasn't enough of a story for the Los Angeles Times. Nope, they needed to give us a bushel full of bad news when all we needed to do is appreciate the kernel of good news.
And our media waters get muddied one more time.
Dinner last night: Leftover antipasto pasta salad.
No comments:
Post a Comment