The sports world, not just the baseball world, has been knee deep into the A-Roid scandal since Saturday. People either are shocked, sad and angry that Alex Rodriguez cheated or they give him a pass because during The Steroid Era 'everyone was doing something.'
Over the last few days I've talked to friends in the media and friends who aren't in the media about the Rodriguez story. The conclusion that I've come to is this:
Fans aren't ticked off at Rodriguez. The media is.
In fact, it might not be a stretch to say that the media is more up in arms over steroids than fans are. The evidence is there. When Mark McGwire was caught with andro in his locker eleven years ago, fans were shocked and outraged. Now, fast forward eleven years. Hundreds of players have been outed as users of performance enhancing drugs. Others have come forward and admitted using steroids. The shock value, from the fans standpoint, seems to be gone. News of a player using steroids has become routine.
By the time Roger Clemens was 'outed' by The Mitchell Report, fans had seemingly had enough. I can say this because I saw the reaction firsthand. At one time, the topic of steroids in baseball was a sure way to 'light up the phone lines.' It became, at one point, what the Pete Rose/ Hall of Fame debate used to be.
But by the time Clemens was exposed, the novelty of it all wore off. The phones weren't ringing as they once had. The lesson learned by this radio talk show host is that there is a shelf life for everything. Steroids in baseball, in terms of a talk radio topic, has become old hat. Not that the topic doesn't merit discussion. It does, even if the phones don't ring. But the outrage from the average fan isn't what it used to be.
That being said, take a look at what the columnists are writing. Take a listen to what the other radio talk show hosts are saying. They (and I am among the group in the interest of full disclosure) are ripping A-Rod apart. On the other hand, the fans seem to be saying 'What's the big deal?'
Which leads to an interesting question.
Why is the media ticked off when the fans aren't?
I think I have a clue as to why.
The media is partly responsible for building up guys like Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and Mark McGwire. When players like that burst on to the scene, produce, and become superstars, we in the media like to think we have a hand in that by either writing good things about them or praising them on the radio. When one of these players does something we don't agree with, we in the media tend to take it personally. We in the media feel betrayed when a guy like McGwire, who was universally praised for the way he came back from years of injuries, is found out to be a product of steroids and Human Growth Hormone. As a result, we go into attack mode.
Alex Rodriguez was built up by the media to be the anti-Bonds. The savior of the game. To find out he was as dirty as anyone else, well, it comes as an insult to those of us that built him up, hoping to be the guy that forever removes the stain Bonds soiled the record books with.
While the fans go to games and enjoy what they see on the field, members of media go to games and sit in the press box working. For fans, sports is entertainment. For media, sports is a job (a great job, but still a job no matter how you slice it). It's easier for fans to be more forgiving than the media. Fans watch the game and go home. Media people watch the game and then go to work. When a story like the A-Rod scandal breaks, it makes it more work than a lot in the media want it to be. Media members tend to resent that. That resentment can lead to negativity.
Does it mean that we in the media are bad people? No. But, I just thought I'd try to explain why fans are treating A-Rod one way and the media is treating him a different way.
Click here for today's podcast: Do you want the Milwaukee Bucks to give up on the season? Listen and find out why I don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment