Book Review: "A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez" by Selena Roberts

Sports Illustrated writer Selena Roberts' report on Alex Rodriguez's steroid use from 2001-2003 and Rodriguez's subsequent confession created a media firestorm this past February. If you scroll down long enough, you'll find my reactions to the whole saga, particularly ESPN's exclusive interview with the Yankees slugger.

The latest product of that firestorm is in the form of a (blatantly) unauthorized biography of Rodriguez as written by Roberts herself entitled A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez. The release date was moved up to last Monday, May 12, after portions of the book were leaked to the media.

The book itself has created even more controversy based on allegations made by anonymous sources that Rodriguez was using steroids as early as high school and has used them since joining the Yankees in 2004. I decided to see what all the ruckus was about.

My first observation regarding the book is that it was very hastily written and published. A handful of grammatical errors, as well as missing words in some cases, should be something unbecoming of a senior writer like Roberts.

There were also many amateurish similes and metaphors peppering the pages: "flicking his wrist like a lion tamer", "Pitches looked as big and slow as soap bubbles", "like a cat pawing at yarn", etc. Closer to Mad Libs, if you ask me.

Roberts' research and interviews were quite extensive, and she devotes five whole pages to listing all of her sources (except those who who requested anonymity, of course). Because the research was so thorough and varied, I expected some in-text citations to clarify it all, but none appeared. The credibility of her research is not necessarily diminished, but I would have preferred seeing which quote came from which interview, particularly when Rodriguez himself was quoted.

With regards to the 19 anonymous interviewees, I understand the desire to make some concessions to get juicy information, but 19 times? Really? What do these sources have to lose by making themselves known? Is the clubhouse really that sacred that publicly violating it would bring more shame than what Rodriguez and others did to the game? Would other reporters have granted anonymity so many times to make such a damning argument?

My final verdict: A quick read which was quickly written to quickly smear someone who (by Roberts' language throughout the book) probably deserved it.

Paging Steven Stills...

After grappling for two weeks on whether to write about the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer showdown and its ramifications, I decided to pull a Jarom 1:2 on the issue: "For what could I write more than my fathers have written?"

Since I'm more of a sports journalist guy anyway, I found an appealing story nonetheless.

The Washington Post recently hired Chico Harlan to serve as their beat reporter for the Washington Nationals, the still-fresh Major League Baseball team.

Trouble is, he'd rather be writing about something else.

In an interview with Washingtonian magazine, Harlan expressed that he did not see the Nationals beat as his life's calling:

“I don’t like sports—I am embarrassed that I cover them,” Harlan said. “I can’t wait to stop. It is a means to an end and a paycheck.”

Understandably, Nationals fans (though in small supply) expressed their outrage over the fact that the Post would alienate baseball readers with a writer who admittedly hates the game.

But...

Could his refusal to get into the details of the sport itself actually provide more objective coverage? The Post's other baseball writer, Tom Boswell, is notorious for his love/hate relationship with the fledgling Nationals, who have yet to finish over .500 since their move to Washington.

Harlan thinks he can.

“My approach might drive hard-core fans crazy because I might not get inside for that nitty-gritty play-by-play,” he said. “The passion I can drum up is wanting to capture what is unique about each game. I am interested in the characters more than anything.”

Obviously, every reporter will at some point have a beat or do a story outside of their hopes and dreams, but does it hurt one's credibility by making it public?

For me, all journalists ought to follow the mantra of Steven Stills:

"And if you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with."

Maybe I can snag that Nationals job in a couple years...I'd take it!

Rush Limbaugh: De Man, De Myth, De Facto

As the Republican party searches high and low for a definitive leader, the polarizing force that is Rush Limbaugh appears to have taken it upon himself to lead conservatives through the wilderness. The highlight of this ascension has been his keynote address at CPAC, the annual official conservative convention. The 90-minute speech included scathing remarks toward President Obama and misquoting the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, this de facto coronation of Limbaugh has rubbed some high-ranking conservatives the wrong way. The most notable of these has been recently elected RNC chairman Michael Steele:

"No he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party," Steele said.

The RNC chief went on to call Limbaugh a mere "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

Limbaugh fired back:

"So I am an entertainer and I have 20 million listeners because of my great song and dance routine," Limbaugh said. "Michael Steele, you are head of the Republican National Committee. You are not head of the Republican party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the Republican National Committee...and when you call them asking for money, they hang up on you."

"I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be," he said. "I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit."

Steele has since apologized to Limbaugh thusly:

"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh...I was maybe a little bit inarticulate... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking..."

Other prominent Republicans who have denounced then apologized to Rush have prompted the creation of a site straight out of Mad Libs: imsorryrush.com.

Limbaugh, as expected, has taken everything in stride, but is not necessarily doing anything to convince people he doesn't want to be a figurehead for the conservative cause.

Case in point, this challenge from his show today:

"I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues."

Oy...

While there will be many dissenters to the claim that Limbaugh is a journalist, let's just say he is for the sake of this argument. Sure, he may have a journalistic right to voice his opinion of dissent towards the presidency, but is he out of line to challenge Obama to such a duel? What are his motives? Does he want to cement himself as THE conservative voice for America and serve his party, or does he want boffo ratings? Would proper motives make this supposed debate more journalistically sound?

Above all: Is it a practicing journalist's proper place to find himself at such an elevated place within the political system?

Maybe Rush has been watching a little too much Frost/Nixon...

Jim Calhoun vs. Ken Krayeske...WHO YA GOT?

The #2 ranked University of Connecticut men's basketball team defeated #10 Marquette last night to give head coach Jim Calhoun his 800th career win, one of only seven men's college basketball coaches to achieve such a feat.

It was at his press conference after his 799th win over South Florida Saturday, however, that earns him a spot on the blog.

Among those in the press conference that night was blogger Ken Krayeske, a UConn law student. His blog, The 40-Year Plan, focuses mainly on issue affecting his beloved Connecticut, particularly how to dig out of a $2 billion budget deficit.

As you can see in the above video, Krayeske prodded Calhoun about his $1.6 million salary, making him the highest-paid Connecticut state employee (UConn is a public school), and whether that is the best thing for the state.

Calhoun, with a reputation for press conference tirades, apparently could not believe that such a question was being asked in this setting and ripped into Krayeske, refusing to give a serious answer.

Not surprisingly, reaction came swiftly.

Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell was not pleased with Calhoun's tirade:

"I think if coach Calhoun had the opportunity right now, he would welcome a do-over and not have that embarrassing display," Rell told reporters, adding that Calhoun's tone was what upset her most.

The Hartford Courant posted an editorial saying that the question was an appropriate one, even if the setting was not ideal.

Jason Whitlock of FOXSports.com said Calhoun's tirade was "stupid" and "brainless".

Krayeske himself said he was "thrilled" that his blasting by Calhoun got the amount of press it did.

"It wasn’t me who created this. He happened to respond in that way," Krayeske said. "We have to question the amount of importance placed on athletics," he said. "I always wanted to have this discussion on a national level, and here we are."

Despite this groundswell of support for Krayeske, there were many who took Calhoun's side, as well.

Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post and ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption", in addition to calling Krayeske a "weasel" defended Calhoun.

"Calhoun has won two NCAA championships and come close to winning two others. What, some bozo comes into a press conference and gets to challenge everybody's salary? If I was Calhoun, I'd have served up this clown on a platter. He's earned everything he's gotten and will get in the future."

CBSSports.com writer Gregg Doyel, who ironically wrote a scathing 2005 article about Calhoun and some supposedly shady recruiting methods, said he had no reason to defend the coach this time, but did anyway.

In addition to refusing to put Krayeske's name in print and calling him a "grandstanding attention hound", Doyel wrote this:

"For his troubles, the attention hound got blown up, which is exactly what he deserved. He's the one, not Calhoun, who walked down the wrong dark alley and picked a fight. Shame on the guy who started the fight -- not the guy who finished it...There was only one thug in that exchange. And Calhoun knocked the thug on his [expletive]."

Here are my observations on the incident:

*Calhoun invited Krayeske to speak to him in private about the situation at the 0:37 mark. After having read Doyel's description of his private meeting with Calhoun over the 2005 article, I believe him. Many people say this in vain, but I think Calhoun would have responded more favorably to that question in a private setting.

*Notice the reaction of the other journalists in the room when Krayeske tells Calhoun "If these guys covered this stuff, I wouldn't have to do it." Such disdain for their alleged comrade. I think it seems like just another salvo in the Bloggers vs. "Real" Journalists tussle. The rift seems to be growing wider and wider, but is the blog takeover inevitable?

My final verdict: Krayeske may have a point, but he needs to pick his battles (and the battlefield) a bit more carefully.

Political Cartoons: Is There Anyone They CAN'T Offend?

Well, I was getting ready to blog (again) on the Alex Rodriguez saga, particularly the response from ESPN's ombudsman on the exclusive interview with Peter Gammons. If that's still you're deal, feel free to click the link.

Anyway, as that post was developing, I caught a glimpse of the above cartoon from Wednesday's New York Post: a tragic combination of two of the major US news stories of the past week.

Among those in the journalistic realm, it doesn't take a trained monkey (pun semi-intended) to figure out that this particular cartoon is going to offend people. A lot of people.

Even those who aren't journalists have seen several political cartoons that have depicted African-Americans as monkey-like. Surely they had hope that with an African-American president now in office, this sort of thing would disappear.

'Fraid not.

Of course, the outrage has been pouring in. In what is a shock to no one, the Reverend Al Sharpton was quick to express his disgust:

"The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this in the cartoon...

"Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

Now, one would think in the realm of professional journalism, the Post would acknowledge Rev. Sharpton's opinion as well as apologize for the nature of the cartoon.

One would think...

Listen to the statement by the Post's editor-in-chief, Col Allan:

"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Shnikes!

From some reports, the mood in the newsroom is not quite as supportive of cartoonist Sean Delonas. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reported this:

"On Wednesday, an employee of the paper told the Huffington Post that the phone lines had been inundated with complaints over what was interpreted as a racially charged jab at Obama. 'As they f--king should be,' said the source."

Given the oft-criticized conservative slant of the Post, it shouldn't be a surprise that if a cartoon of this nature were to appear, it would happen there. But with the startlingly unapologetic response from Allan, it would seem that Rupert Murdoch now finds himself in a deep pile of didgeri-doo.

Unless, that is, the paper prints something akin to this.

A-Roid and Journalistic Ethics: Where to Begin?

As an aspiring sports journalist, I had an entirely different level of fascination with the revelation that Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees tested positive for steroids in 2003, when he was with the Texas Rangers.

Selena Roberts and David Epstein of Sports Illustrated first broke the story Saturday on the SI website, which he confirmed on ESPN Monday. What a scoop! Journalism at its' finest: digging, scratching and clawing to find the truth! Not even the news pixie herself, Katie Couric, could get A-Rod to admit it!

To what extent, however, did Roberts dig, scratch and claw? According to A-Rod, a bit too much.

"What makes me upset is Sports Illustrated pays this lady Selena Roberts to stalk me," Rodriguez told Peter Gammons in an exclusive interview with ESPN (More on this later). "This lady has been thrown out of my apartment in New York City. This lady has, five days ago she was thrown out of the University of Miami police for trespassing. And four days ago she tried to break into my house while my girls are up there sleeping, and got cited by the Miami Beach Police. I have the paper here.

"And this lady's coming out with all these allegations, all these lies, because she's writing an article for Sports Illustrated. And she's coming out with a book in May." (Actually, Alex, the publication date just got moved up to April 14...hmmm) "And really respectable journalists are following this lady off the cliff, and following her lead. And that to me is unfortunate."

So, is Selena Roberts a crazy A-Rod stalker? Why don't we ask her via the Major League Baseball (MLB) Network, The New York Observer and SI.com, shall we?

From the MLB Network interview, as reported by Newsday (NY):

"'I've never set foot in the lobby of Alex's New York apartment. I've never set foot on his property. It's pure fabrication,' said Roberts, who did say she drove by Rodriguez's house after receiving permission from Miami Beach police to drive on public property near A-Rod's house. The Miami Beach police have a "miscellaneous incident" report of that conversation, but Roberts was not cited for anything.

"Roberts also asked for and received permission from security at the University of Miami to enter the school's workout facilities and talk to Rodriguez on Thursday.

"'I think it's a diversion, a shoot-the-messenger type of thing,' Roberts said."

Roberts told the Observer the following with regards to the above quote:

“It’s not at all close to what happened. I wrote it off: It’s a diversionary tactic to throw blame on the messenger. He’s probably upset with me and maybe he wants to divert the attention to the credibility of the article, which is not in dispute.”

Roberts told SI.com this:

"In a meticulous process, we verified and re-verified our information, because this is a human being here, so you absolutely do not want to be wrong. We made a decision to confront Alex with the evidence we had regarding his positive test, and give him a chance to explain. He chose not to."

So, what about Roberts' methods and motives? Are they a product of the modern era of journalism, or is she kickin' it old school?

Now back to the exclusive interview on ESPN. (I swear that was said about 20 times during the hour of Sportscenter on Monday during which it aired.)

Why the lovable Peter Gammons? ESPN has loads of excellent baseball writers, including Tim Kurkjian and Buster Olney, who covered the Yankees for The New York Times for pity's sake?

SI writer Jeff Pearlman offered his opinion on his blog:

"The reason Gammons scored the interview with [John] Rocker (ten years ago) a decade back is the same reason he scored one with A-Rod today: He’s the Larry King of sports television. Softball questions, limited inquisitiveness, an easy time for all involved."

Specifically responding to how Gammons did not react to A-Rod's rant on Roberts, Pearlman said this:

"I’m not sure if Gammons was jealous of Selena for scoring a huge story, but he had to—absolutely had to—follow up Rodriguez’s presumably ludicrous accusations with a question or two or three or 10. 'Alex, are you saying Selena Roberts literally broke into your building? Alex, can I see the paper you’re referring to? Alex, you rip Selena Roberts’ reporting? But wasn’t she, ahem, correct?'"

Gammons gave his answer in an e-mail to the sports blog Deadspin:

"I think in retrospect, I should have interrupted the A-Rod rant. My first question asked if Selena's story were true, he essentially admitted it was, and I believed she was therefore vindicated. I usually don't get into grudges, and felt he was promoting her book, which will be her response. I was trying to get Alex in his own words, but Jeff's criticism has merit that I accept."

Does this mean Gammons is going to start getting tough on his interviewees? It probably won't matter, since he will probably never cover as big a story as this in his remaining years.

Nevertheless, A-Rod has confessed and apologized. Does this make him a sympathetic figure? Will the media respect him a bit more?

Not the New York Post.

This photo of A-Rod preparing for the exclusive ESPN interview at his home was published in the Tuesday edition of the Post and its website. However, A-Rid saw it as an invasion of privacy and had it removed from the site.

I can understand his beef with Roberts, but with the photog? Really?

The intrigue is just beginning on this story, both in the world of sports and journalism. I see it as a primer for what I need to be thoughtful about as I pursue a story like this in my sports journalism career. On the other hand, no matter how thoughtful I am, will it even matter in the mind of the player or team? Won't they just see me as an annoying reporter?

Is that fair?

The Curious Case of Rod Blagojevich or It's, It's a Blago Blitz!

After being knocked out by bronchitis last week, I'm back on my feet and ready to blog, baby!

I have a roommate from Naperville, Illinois. He is one of those people that is fun to rile up because of the way he reacts to things. Let's just say I have been given a lot of ammunition thanks to the alleged actions of the now ex-governor of his home state, Rod Blagojevich. Thankfully, he agrees with me, particularly thinking that this Daily Show clip towards the beginning of the scandal was absolute hilarity.

With such "low-hanging fruit" ready to convict Blago, most would think he'd just roll over and take it, much like former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

Then came the "Blago Blitz", where Blago, still in office at that point, appeared on just about any show that would give him time: The View, Good Morning America, the Today show, etc. The blitz may have seemed like a good idea at first, but then when he compared himself to Ghandi, MLK, and Nelson Mandela, among other inane things, he seemed to lose all credibility.

Unintentionally funny comments made by Blago in these interviews include, but are not limited to:

"The fix is in." (Today and GMA)

"It is true that among the many potential candidates for the Senate seat, we discussed Oprah." (The View)

Even after his impeachment and removal from office, the long strange trip has continued. Yesterday, Blago appeared on the Today show (again), Larry King Live, Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, and the Late Show with David Letterman. Included in these interviews were some precious one-liners from the man himself:

"I rejected an offer by leading senators to keep my job for two years and essentially be a ghost payroller governor." (Today show)

"And at the appropriate time, the truth will come out. And as it's written in Bible, the truth will set me free." (OTR)

"So the hypocrisy of these politicians is -- is incredible. And I think part of the reason to kind of add quickly is I don't think they want anybody looking into their stuff." (King)

Letterman by far was the most entertaining interview, with such exchanges as these:

Letterman: "Why exactly are you here, honest to God?"

Blago: "I've been wanting to be on your show in the worst way for the longest time."

Letterman: "Well, you're on in the worst way, believe me."

Letterman, not surprisingly, had the chutzpah to go toe-to-toe with the former governor, particularly with Blago's claim that his office was being "hijacked".

"You were not deprived of due process," Letterman said. "I don't believe you have been deprived of due process."

"The more you talked and the more you repeated your innocence, the more I thought, 'oh this guy's guilty,'" Letterman continued.

Could there perhaps be another motive? Some say yes, that a book deal or talk-show gig may be in the works. But who would hire him?

"A great many employers will not hire someone who has a felony charge pending against them," said Chicago defense attorney John Beal.

Well, it worked for the aforementioned Spitzer, who now writes for Slate magazine, even though the job, by his own admission, "sucks".

Going back to the time-honored questions that defined our class, I ask:

*Is the Blago Blitz journalism, or a ratings-monger feeding off an amazingly sensationalistic story?

*If Blago were to get a talk-show gig, does that make him a journalist? Is our opinion on that skewed by his removal from office? Does it for Spitzer?