Actions Speak Louder than Words

[MrOrange82]

In re: "the source"...

...I didn't get the impression from the article that there was just one source. WAS there just one source? I don't think it'd qualify as taking pot-shots at the B-more media to clarify that point.

(because multiple sources saying the same thing(s) obviously lends more credence to what was written in the article...not that I disbelieve much/any of it)

[Tony-OH]

In re: "the source"...

...I didn't get the impression from the article that there was just one source. WAS there just one source? I don't think it'd qualify as taking pot-shots at the B-more media to clarify that point.

(because multiple sources saying the same thing(s) obviously lends more credence to what was written in the article...not that I disbelieve much/any of it)

No, it was not one source which is why it made me laugh when people say they know who my "source" was. I had multiple sources and they corroborated the info. I left out numerous things because I could not get them corroborated.

[TonySoprano]

The Duque and Kennedy were referring to Tony's article on XM today. Nothing specific, just Duque joking about how he first looked to see if it said anything bad about him. Didn't get the impression he was a source...:scratchchinhmm:

diversionary tactic;)

[MrOrange82]

No, it was not one source which is why it made me laugh when people say they know who my "source" was. I had multiple sources and they corroborated the info. I left out numerous things because I could not get them corroborated.

That's what I figured, and thanks for saying so. I understand that members of the mainstream media find themselves in difficult positions where issues like these are concerned, but I don't understand at-all why, if they feel inclined to comment, they comment in ways that implicitly (and erroneously) disparage/undercut the validity of what you wrote.

My hope for the article and its accompanying build-up was that it would start a widespread exchange throughout the outlets that regularly cover the Orioles. Instead, it seems as though the mainstream outlets simply want to keep things as they always have been...a column here about how Angelos won't cede control, an article there about MacPhail's deliberate nature. Essentially, doling out piecemeal stories to a starving, beaten-down fanbase in intervals...rarely saying anything new, never shedding light on the big picture, and never-ever reaching any sweeping conclusions or calling for legitimate, lasting change.

For my part, as a fan who's absolutely sick of the status-quo, Roch's/Steve's reactions, and the relative silence of other outlets, makes me question what it means to be a fan of what apparently amounts to an outdated idea: the "Baltimore" Orioles. The franchise is in disarray, and we, as fans, are seldom given more than an intravenous feed of FO excuses.

But, I guess, when you get down to the business of baseball, floundering is a story unto itself, so if you're covering the team...why give it all away at once, and for free? Maybe I should thank the School of Roch for that lesson, but I can't honestly say I'm grateful.

[24fps]

My hope for the article and its accompanying build-up was that it would start a widespread exchange throughout the outlets that regularly cover the Orioles. Instead, it seems as though the mainstream outlets simply want to keep things as they always have been...a column here about how Angelos won't cede control, an article there about MacPhail's deliberate nature. Essentially, doling out piecemeal stories to a starving, beaten-down fanbase in intervals...rarely saying anything new, never shedding light on the big picture, and never-ever reaching any sweeping conclusions or calling for legitimate, lasting change.

This isn't the case. Roch and Schmuck periodically write critically about the current dreadful state of the Orioles. I don't follow Melewski so I don't know in his case, but I would be very surprised if he were unremittingly spouting the party line.

Articles like Tony's have power precisely because they aren't an everyday occurrence. If it were a steady drumbeat of negative criticism, it would just become part of the background noise and everyone would tune it out. Face it, most days nothing gets done to improve the team in an immediately discernible way and the mainstream outlets perceive their job as reporting the news if there is any, not prosecuting an agenda.

[MrOrange82]

This isn't the case. Roch and Schmuck periodically write critically about the current dreadful state of the Orioles. I don't follow Melewski so I don't know in his case, but I would be very surprised if he were unremittingly spouting the party line.

Articles like Tony's have power precisely because they aren't an everyday occurrence. If it were a steady drumbeat of negative criticism, it would just become part of the background noise and everyone would tune it out. Face it, most days nothing gets done to improve the team in an immediately discernible way and the mainstream outlets perceive their job as reporting the news if there is any, not prosecuting an agenda.

Guess I just feel like improving the Orioles should be the agenda of the B-more sports media.

And given how many media outlets in a general sense get behind a party line of one kind or another, I don't think it'd be too much to ask...

Regardless, the periodic reporting is exactly what I was speaking to. IMO, ideally, I'd like to see guys like Roch, Steve, etc. pound the Orioles until the call for change is an ever-present roar. I'd like to see something radical. As things stand, too many of the right people seem to be getting paid regardless of how the O's perform to force any real change upon the franchise.

[24fps]

Guess I just feel like improving the Orioles should be the agenda of the B-more sports media.

And given how many media outlets in a general sense get behind a party line of one kind or another, I don't think it'd be too much to ask...

Regardless, the periodic reporting is exactly what I was speaking to. IMO, ideally, I'd like to see guys like Roch, Steve, etc. pound the Orioles until the call for change is an ever-present roar. I'd like to see something radical. As things stand, too many of the right people seem to be getting paid regardless of how the O's perform to force any real change upon the franchise.

Forget for the moment that Roch, Steve, etc. might still feel some personal obligation to respect a professional code of ethics, let's examine your proposition in a practical light.

If any beat reporter or affiliated blogger (in other words, not just another internet loudmouth) were to begin to "pound the Orioles" with no regard for balance, fairness or newsworthiness, how long do you think it would take before the Orioles ceased providing him access to players, coaches and executives? Not long, and at that point he's out of business because for him access is as necessary as oxygen. Boom. Game over that day because he no longer has anything to offer except an opinion and, well we all know what opinions are like....

Anyway, MASN and the Sun wouldn't allow that train wreck to gather any momentum in the first place for both legal and financial reasons as well as, yes, ethical ones.

There's another practical consideration aside from the main one and that is, if you're going to pick a public fight, you might want to think twice about doing so against a billionaire who owns a highly successful law firm.

[MrOrange82]

Forget for the moment that Roch, Steve, etc. might still feel some personal obligation to respect a professional code of ethics, let's examine your proposition in a practical light.

If any beat reporter or affiliated blogger (in other words, not just another internet loudmouth) were to begin to "pound the Orioles" with no regard for balance, fairness or newsworthiness, how long do you think it would take before the Orioles ceased providing him access to players, coaches and executives? Not long, and at that point he's out of business because for him access is as necessary as oxygen. Boom. Game over that day because he no longer has anything to offer except an opinion and, well we all know what opinions are like....

Anyway, MASN and the Sun wouldn't allow that train wreck to gather any momentum in the first place for both legal and financial reasons as well as, yes, ethical ones.

There's another practical consideration aside from the main one and that is, if you're going to pick a public fight, you might want to think twice about doing so against a billionaire who owns a highly successful law firm.

All perfectly reasonable...but some of it rests on a faulty assumption, IMO. Specifically, that "pounding the Orioles" would somehow run counter to truth in reporting, or imply that the reporters would have to be unduly biased. It seems to me that telling the whole story of the Orioles franchise necessarily involves condemning it in many respects...not out of spite, but because the Orioles consistently fail to do praiseworthy things.

I'd like to see the Orioles shut all media out, btw...that just wouldn't happen. Individuals are easy to ostracize, but if everyone simply reported, truthfully and regularly, that the Orioles have performed shamefully in virtually every organizational respect...what could the O's do but attempt to change/adapt? The O's need the press and the interest it entails/implies. That they've been able to maintain some press coverage without improving or evolving for so long speaks poorly of the media's commitment to its purported mandate.

IMO, your last point is the most important. I'd wager some people are intimidated. Maybe rightfully so, but sad nonetheless.

[RandyM]

Forget for the moment that Roch, Steve, etc. might still feel some personal obligation to respect a professional code of ethics, let's examine your proposition in a practical light.

If any beat reporter or affiliated blogger (in other words, not just another internet loudmouth) were to begin to "pound the Orioles" with no regard for balance, fairness or newsworthiness, how long do you think it would take before the Orioles ceased providing him access to players, coaches and executives? Not long, and at that point he's out of business because for him access is as necessary as oxygen. Boom. Game over that day because he no longer has anything to offer except an opinion and, well we all know what opinions are like....

Anyway, MASN and the Sun wouldn't allow that train wreck to gather any momentum in the first place for both legal and financial reasons as well as, yes, ethical ones.

There's another practical consideration aside from the main one and that is, if you're going to pick a public fight, you might want to think twice about doing so against a billionaire who owns a highly successful law firm.

All valid points. That is why having something like the OH around is so great. You have a different set of eyes that are a little further removed to have the "ability" to go in a little deeper. At that point, people can come up with their own informed decision. Not just getting their info from the OH, MASN, or Sun etc..

My issues were with some of the comments from MASN or Sun that I "personally" felt were made to discredit the article or at least poke "fun" of it. I didn't think they were necessary. Would think some kind of media fraternity good will would kick in there. But evidently not.

Tony's pretty much stated he had other real "ammunition" that he chose not to bring out because he couldn't get another set of confirmations. He took as far as he could go legally and journalistically. Really would love to know what those are one day .

[24fps]

All perfectly reasonable...but some of it rests on a faulty assumption, IMO. Specifically, that "pounding the Orioles" would somehow run counter to truth in reporting, or imply that the reporters would have to be unduly biased. It seems to me that telling the whole story of the Orioles franchise necessarily involves condemning it in many respects...not out of spite, but because the Orioles consistently fail to do praiseworthy things.

I'd like to see the Orioles shut all media out, btw...that just wouldn't happen. Individuals are easy to ostracize, but if everyone simply reported, truthfully and regularly, that the Orioles have performed shamefully in virtually every organizational respect...what could the O's do but attempt to change/adapt? The O's need the press and the interest it entails/implies. That they've been able to maintain some press coverage without improving or evolving for so long speaks poorly of the media's commitment to its purported mandate.

IMO, your last point is the most important. I'd wager some people are intimidated. Maybe rightfully so, but sad nonetheless.

All of the journalists of my acquaintance tend to think in terms of of balance and fairness and professional method and are perfectly content to allow "truth" to be the incidental by-product of process.

You recognize that the O's need the press, well the need is mutual. What's going on here isn't fundamentally adversarial although it can be at times, it's fundamentally transactional. It's not always a friendly relationship, but the boundaries of mutual self-interest are always clear to both parties. In my experience, far more often than not the restraint imposed by this reality is an aid to better understanding. After all, there's nothing more useless than a loudmouth with an agenda.

[24fps]

All valid points. That is why having something like the OH around is so great. You have a different set of eyes that are a little further removed to have the "ability" to go in a little deeper. At that point, people can come up with their own informed decision. Not just getting their info from the OH, MASN, or Sun etc..

My issues were with some of the comments from MASN or Sun that I "personally" felt were made to discredit the article or at least poke "fun" of it. I didn't think they were necessary. Would think some kind of media fraternity good will would kick in there. But evidently not.

Tony's pretty much stated he had other real "ammunition" that he chose not to bring out because he couldn't get another set of confirmations. He took as far as he could go legally and journalistically. Really would love to know what those are one day .

If you're talking about Tony's report being "nothing new" in their eyes, well it probably wasn't for them. I suspect for Roch and Melewski a lot of it fell into the context category - in other words part of the fabric of their daily jobs. As their jobs primarily revolve around topical news, Tony's piece would fall mostly into the realm of backstory. Evidently there's other stuff going on as well.

I think Tony deserves a lot of credit for only going with what he felt met his very high standards, even though the decision probably significantly diluted the impact for many people. It was a very worthwhile article that I don't think was possible from any other venue besides the OH.

[ScottieBaseball]

Perhaps they "considered the source"?......:scratchchinhmm:

Care to elaborate? :scratchchinhmm:

[ScottieBaseball]

Guess I just feel like improving the Orioles should be the agenda of the B-more sports media.

Really? You really feel this should be the agenda of the local sports media??? I'm pretty sure their responsibilities are to observe and report. For some, also to opine.

I said something earlier in this thread..."Hopefully more folks on the local beat will feel free to do the same, maybe do a little more probing, etc."

It wasn't intended as a shot or even a criticism of the guys on the local beat, although I understand it was read that way by some. I think those guys (Zrebiec, Schmuck, Roch, Connolly, Ginsburg, and the rest) do a fantastic job. I didn't mean to imply they were maliciously holding back or deliberately avoiding certain subjects. Clearly they haven't...they've been fair...both appropriately complimentary and critical for the most part and I don't even need to provide a link to support that.

Here's what I was driving at: Since coming aboard here at the Orioles Hangout, I've been privvy to information and stories that were negative/controversial/etc. that I chose not to publish. It wasn't that I was avoiding the laborious process of corroborating stories (like Tony did, thus the delay in the release of his story...kudos to him for putting in the work while still being a husband, father, AND keeping things going at his 9-to-5 gig) nor was I worried (as some in town my imply) that I'd lose my press credentials. I simply chose NOT to publish the story. Outside of filling in to write a recap here or there or offering up my take on an O's prospect, the majority of the material I post here is fluffy, feel-good, light features on players. I have a regular 9-to-5 job (like most of the other members of our staff here) that's stressful and mundane at times. What I get to do here is an outlet for me, so I choose to make it as much fun and fulfilling as I can.

Back to my original point...perhaps it's presumptuous of me, but especially when you consider how much greater their expsoure is to the Orioles, I have to imagine they might all make similar decisions when it comes time to print. I have no idea what goes into making those decisions and my comment was simply to say that I believe folks might be more interested in stories such as these than I thought.

That's not to say I'd like to see the local sports landscape become some huge gossip column or rumor mill, but I think there's a place in there for more stuff like what Tony wrote. That's all I was saying.

[SilentJames]

To go along with Scottie for a second. There is a media outlet that has taken it upon itself to go after the blogging community (collective, hive-mind) for not being "harder" on the Orioles.

And like Scott here I call bullcrap on that. We all have day-jobs, this is a release for us. Something to break up the banality of our everyday existence. The day this stops being fun for me is the day I stop and, surprisingly even now, it is still pretty fun.

[El Gordo]

Care to elaborate? :scratchchinhmm:

Clearly Roch and Steve felt that much of Tony's piece is based on one particular scource; a disgruntled former emplyee. They apparently give little credence to what he said. The contrast between Tony's embittered attitude towards the FO, and AM in particular, prior to the article, and the reletively mild criticism found in the article, indicates IMO, that much of what this source gave him couldn't be corroborated.