Sports Illustrated’s Curious COVERage of Barry Bonds
Sports Illustrated’s Curious COVERage of Barry Bonds (Part 1 of 2: Before BALCO)
Cover Below from May 24, 1993
[8], 
It was a vintage picture of Hammerin’ Hank Aaron. No, this wasn’t the aging 1970’s Atlanta version in that indefensible god-awful uniform. This was the lean-mean Milwaukee version in the authentic gray flannel which you wish today’s players still wore. The shot was simply classic. Hank was standing in the batter’s box with hands clutching the end of bat, his no ear-flap helmet was OVER the cap creating that cool “double-bill” look, and he exerted laser-like focus as he was undoubtedly ready to tear the ensuing pitch into the left-center outfield gap in the worst case scenario. So when I pulled that cover picture of Sports Illustrated (SI) out of my mailbox this past week, a big smile spread across this baseball history fan’s face. Barry Bonds ascent to 755 would be a reason to pay homage to a former great… just the way it oughtta be…
And then I read the cover’s title (“The Heart of 755”) and became a bit suspicious. Then I read the author’s name below it (Tom Verducci [1]) and became downright skeptical. And then I immediately opened to the story to see the article’s title (“The People’s King”) and any remaining doubts were removed. Here we go again. This was not going to be a well-deserved Aaron tribute based on the merits of his career; it was yet another Sports Illustrated anti-Bonds article. And this time SI used the great Aaron as the latest vehicle to bash big bad Barry. And SI, which on the surface was attempting to hail Hank, actually cheapened his legend in the process. As I read on, it became clear: Hank was reduced to a mere device… a tool… a prop… a ploy… Such disingenuous usage of Aaron’s legacy in mainstream media has already been pointed out by others including these two fine pieces by Slate and The Starting Five. But what distinguishes Sports Illustrated from other media sources is that this is part of a long series of Bonds-biased coverage that goes back at least 15 years! That’s right. Before the allegations of “performance enhancing drugs”, before BALCO laboratory raids, and long before elaborate government sting operations targeting a man who makes his living hitting a ball of string with a piece of wood, Sports Illustrated most definitely had it in for Barry Bonds.
The Sports Illustrated Cover Significance: If a fresh-off-the-spaceship alien requested a crash course on the last 50 years of American sports, you would surely begin with a review of the covers of Sports Illustrated. SI covers chronicle our greatest sports times, events, moments, history, teams, and individual player achievements. When it comes to SI, you CAN judge a book, or magazine, by its cover. Only a handful of American athletes in the last 50 years have rose to a level of historic greatness that puts a GULF between themselves and the next best athlete in their respective sport. They are Michael Jordan (40+ covers), Muhammad Ali (30+ covers), Jack Nicklaus (20 covers), Tiger Woods (19 covers), Wayne Gretzky (12 covers) and then, Barry Bonds (3 covers pre-PED allegations; 4 covers post-PED allegations) [2].
A) The Skinny Barry Years (1990s): SI Cover Debut -
The Sporting News named Barry Bonds Major League Baseball’s “Player of the Decade” for the 1990’s. Bonds won three MVPs in landslide votes, was also robbed of the trophy in 1991 [3]; won eight gold gloves; and in 1996 became only the 3rd player in MLB history to hit 40 home runs and steal 40 bases in the same season. During this time Bonds landed on the cover of Sports Illustrated just two times. The first cover on May 4, 1992 read: “Bonds Away!” The article itself was about the Pirates and only really devoted the following to Barry: “Leftfielder Barry Bonds continues to go long, like an Oscar acceptance speech, seemingly every time he steps to the plate”. Not impressed? Well, you should be. This would be one of the best Bonds cover story articles that SI would ever print.
A. Villian is Born: One year later, and just three weeks after SI published its cover story, “Where Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio?”, it unwittingly found his modern day version by turning its lonely eyes and pens to a well-written but unflattering cover story: “I’m Barry Bonds and You’re Not”. Just like Joe D., Bonds in 1993 was a “five-tool” player without weakness; had a flawless swing; was a picture of grace in the field; and could be a major-league jerk off of it (contrary to popular DiMaggio myth-making). The article did not question his superb skills, preparation, and dedication to the game as Bonds was in the midst of his then-finest season (46 HR, 123 RBI, .336, Gold Glove, & 103 team victories). One of the multiple quotes describing Bonds’ excellence comes from teammate Royce Clayton: “I’ve never seen anyone like him…Barry is like Magic Johnson—he makes everyone around him better”. Clayton was undoubtedly referring to other players not sportswriters. The article’s author, Richard Hoffer, was more interested in discussing the “complaining”, “rudeness”, and “insensitivity” of Bonds. In the article, Hoffer reveals what may have been Bonds most egregious crime:
“A writer might spend the first three days just trying to establish the possibility of an interview. Bonds might fail to look up or register any recognition during conversations with the would be interviewer, might pick at imaginary scabs on his arm and repeat “Whatever, dude” over and over. The next phase might be a series of decreasingly vague promises by Bonds as he warms to the idea of the interview. This part of the process also includes actual recognition of the interviewer. The third, most tantalizing phase includes specific appointments, at first broken and later delayed. … Day Seven: Aw, dude! I forgot about stretching!”… on Day eight Bonds finally sits down, as he promised so long ago.”
Hey, do you think that Hoffer might have been one of those “would be interviewers”? The author’s commentary not only tells us about Bonds’ poor treatment of the press, but also sheds light on some of the unprofessional reasons behind Sports Illustrated’s COVERage of Bonds for the following 15 years. In the article Hoffer also states:
“And then, of all the people he might have chosen to present his second MVP award—his father, his manager—he chose Mays and singer Michael Bolton. It was an odd scene at Candlestick Park before this year’s home opener: Mays handed the trophy to Bolton, who handed it to Bonds. What was wrong with this picture? It was as if Bonds, who had met Bolton when he played in one of the singer’s charity softball games, were saying that his personality could no longer be contained by baseball. He would henceforth like to be identified with entertainment supernovas. Obviously, Bonds doesn’t fight fame with all his heart.
Hoffer’s most interesting psychoanalysis sees the Bolton invitation as Bonds subconsciously desiring fame all the while he is running away from it… or something like that. But how about THIS potential explanation: Michael Bolton invited Bonds to a charity game. Bonds graciously accepted. Who knows, maybe, just maybe, the given charity had special meaning to Bonds. He became friends with Bolton or at least admired his singing enough to show his appreciation through the gesture of the trophy ceremony. Many folks might interpret these actions as two separate good deeds on the part of Bonds. But cynical reporters who get blown off see the glass differently and often report that glass differently. Potential good deeds now become character flaws. Bonds maltreatment of intrusive reporters now becomes the story of how Bonds treats EVERYBODY. And any story that confirms this will be sought out, while stories that contradict this will be ignored… for the next 15 years. If the first passage reveals Bonds’ overall disdain for the press (also fueled by media maltreatment of his father Bobby Bonds), then the second one might tell us WHY Bonds or any athlete might have that very disdain.
Moral of story: Bonds is no angel, but neither are the writers that cover him. The major difference is that Bonds dedicated himself to his own craft. Or as Hoffer begrudgingly conceded: “He prepares well (whatever you do, don’t ever try to talk to him before a game), and he plays hard. He does not let the game down.” Now in a perfect universe such commitment to both the game AND pre-game interviews would be quite lovely. But if forced to choose between a fully-prepared-but-petulant Bonds, or a jovial-but-allergic-to-a-treadmill Tony Gwynn (who sacrificed the end of his career– and a potential run at 4000 hits– in favor of double-interviews and double-cheeseburgers) this sports fan is choosing Bonds any day of the week. Really nice interviewees are a dime a dozen, but dedicated baseball genius ala Barry is a once in a lifetime proposition. The reality is that by 1993, Bonds blew off one too many less-dedicated Sports Illustrated reporters and he would pay dearly for it. “The player of the ‘90’s” would not grace another SI cover for the rest of the decade.
B) The Bigger Barry Years (2000-2003: Still Pre-BALCO Raid):
Although a very serious stretch, one might explain away the 1990’s Bonds SI treatment as just one of those cover quirks[4]. However, such an explanation could not begin to explain the next phase of the SI cover “freeze-out” as anything other than indefensible anti-Bonds bias. This revealing statement by author and serial Bonds Basher Jeff Pearlman offers insight:
"I’d actually interviewed Barry four or five times during my years at Sports Illustrated. During the 2000 season I even did a lengthy profile on him—the first time he talked to the magazine in seven years. We sat down for about an hour, and he was spectacular. Funny, charming, charismatic. In fact, when I handed in the piece my editor was very angry. His exact words, and I quote, were, "If you wanted to give Barry Bonds a blowjob, we could have flown him to New York." So I adjusted the story, which still was very positive."
C) Sports Illustrated COVERage Recap (1990 – 2003: Pre-BALCO Raid Years)
- Barry Bonds, the greatest player of his generation and, arguably, of all time, lands on three Sports Illustrated covers.
- At least 10 other baseball players land on MORE covers of SI [7] during this time frame.
- This list includes Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams [8] both of whom retired in the 1960’s. Ironically, both of these players personalities could be every bit as boorish as Barry Bonds.
- Of Bonds two 1990’s SI cover stories, the “good cover” (1992) contains one sentence on Bonds. The “bad cover” (1993) contains nine pages mostly dedicated to how “Barry can be aloof”.
- Bonds is granted his third cover in 2001 amidst the greatest 4 year stretch in baseball history.
- All of this documented SI COVERage on Bonds was BEFORE any BALCO-laboratories raid ever existed. Since 2004, SI has posted FOUR cover stories in which steroid allegations are the central theme.
- Final SI Cover Tally through July 2007: 22 years in league = 2 Positive Stories, 4 negative ones, 1 balanced[9].
DON’T EVEN TRY IT!: While the pre-BALCO Bonds was destroying baseball’s record books from 2000-2003 players gaining more SI covers during that span included …Roger Clemens and Jason Giambi. These individuals are notable since the former has since been confronted with steroids allegations and the latter has since been proven. Any claim from Sports Illustrated that they froze out Bonds because they suspected his use of performance enhancing drugs would simply fall flat in the face of these and other blatant contradictions (the 1990’s in general and Mark McGwire in particular).
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: No, not “performance enhancing drugs” (PEDs), this “Part 1″ article is about PRE-PED allegations. The OTHER elephant: RACE. While race has surely played a role in how mainstream media covers Bonds and other African American athletes, Cosellout simply lacks adequate information to make such a specific claim about SI despite reasons for pause [10]. While not accusing nor dismissing the possible influence of race as factor, this article focuses on SI’s failed obligation to remain objective in the face of an unpleasant personality. A commonly heard refrain is that “Bonds doesn’t get treated bad by media because he is black, but because he is a jerk”. While a very strong argument can be made that “black jerks” receive far greater scrutiny and attention than “white jerks”, this false-choice statement assumes that biased journalism is still somehow acceptable if reporters don’t like the athletes they cover. Journalists, like doctors, police officers, teachers, and athletes have a responsibility to do their job without personal bias. If a player wouldn’t play hard for their coach because they disliked them, fans would exert outrage. Well, SI clearly “plays when it wants to play” and fans should not accept this from Randy Moss or Sports Illustrated. Bonds has been baseball royalty, but treated like a pawn. The only difference between Mozart (a well-documented jerk) and Bonds (pre-allegations) is that Wolfgang’s symphonies could be heard unfiltered, straight from the CD, and with no sportswriter chaser.
CONCLUSION: SI’s COVERage of Bonds has been personal in nature for a very long time. Perhaps, Barry told one too many SI writers to “get lost”, “go away”, or “beat it”. Or maybe he didn’t put a “please” before his sentence, a “thank you” afterwards, or say “pretty please with sugar on top”. Or possibly, he neither felt nor expressed enough “gratitude” for being able to earn millions playing a kid’s game or the adequate appreciation to garner the daily attention of an older, wiser, and whiter sports journalistic community. While it is hard to say for sure, one thing is definitely clear: For more than 15 years, Sports Illustrated has cheated the institution of journalism and its readers long before any accusations surfaced of Barry Bonds cheating the game of baseball and its fans. Because of petty grudges, it has substituted objections for objectivity, “payback” for professionalism, and retaliation for responsible reporting. Its treatment of Bonds is akin to the Oscars committee not nominating “The Godfather” for “Best Picture” because Marlon Brando blew off a couple of its committee members (which is well-documented by the way!).
SI talks about the game’s integrity, but has sacrificed its own long ago. Don’t be fooled by SI’s smoke and mirrors, by their disingenuous claims that their Bonds coverage is merely a response to BALCO allegations, or by their transparent pseudo-tributes to legends like Hank Aaron. Such claims should insult the intelligence of those fans who demand fairness in reporting. The truth is that when the offices of BALCO got raided in September 2003, it was exactly what Sports Illustrated desperately desired. Steroid allegations may have been bad news for Barry Bonds, baseball, and its fans, but it was a godsend for SI. Now they got their man! If proven true, SI could be absolved for 15 years of deliberately biased reporting. The BALCO evidence (which will be discussed in Part 2) and the “Game of Shadows” book were SI’s two tickets to moral paradise. So fair warning to all readers as you join SI on their self-righteous anti-Bonds beach: read with extreme caution or you just might get sunburned.
Related Article: 1A - See Giving Rick Reilly His Due, a direct line-by-line response to his hit job on Barry Bonds on the back page of the Hank Aaron cover story.
[1] Let’s just state that Tom Verducci does not care for Barry Bonds (before or after allegations of performance enhancing drugs) and leave it at that for now.
[3] Pendleton won in a very close vote despite Bonds having 30 more RBIs, 33 more stolen bases, a .410 to .363 advantage in OBP, and a Gold Glove. Both teams also made the playoffs. This would not be the first time that sports writers exercised their power to punish Bonds. While a good argument can also be made for Bonds as MVP in 2000, unlike the Pendleton vote, it is still more than reasonable for writers to have awarded teammate Jeff Kent with that MVP. And while Bonds did win 7 MVPs, in not one of those years did Bonds have a close competitor.
[4] A skeptic might argue that in the ‘90s: Bonds had no postseason success (see Derek Jeter); accurately state that baseball players generally get less cover attention than other sports, or that it usually takes HISTORIC seasons to guarantee an SI cover. While such an argument doesn’t seem probable, at the same time, it isn’t implausible.
[5] It is hard to overstate the on-field accomplishments of Barry Bonds from 2001 - 2004. It is not just the famous 73 home runs in 2001. Students of the game are even more mind-boggled by his all-time record .863 slugging percentage that same year; his all-time record .582 on-base percentage in 2002; and the fact that he broke that same record in 2004 aided by receiving 120 intentional walks. His greatest feat is the fact that no hitter in baseball history, not even Babe Ruth and we suspect Josh Gibson, was more respected, more avoided, and more feared by pitchers than Barry Bonds. With the possible exception of Wayne Gretzky there is no other athlete in team sports, not even Michael Jordan, who so completely mastered their craft like Barry Bonds.
[6] No, we do not count these tiny little token “inserts” at the very top of a page as making a cover. But for the record, this happened twice during this span.
[7] Besides Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle, this list includes Roger Clemens, Cal Ripken, Derek Jeter, Mark McGwire, Ken Griffey, Jr., Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, and Alex Rodriguez.
[8] Ted Williams was also quite combattive with the media and punished for it in the form of MVP robberies. His story tells us that sports media may have ALWAYS been a collectively an unprofessional group exerting personal bias. His latter day media adulation also suggests that Bond’s media legacy 40 years from now may be much more favorable than it is right now.
[9] Only the last of the four (“Living with Barry”) is written in a balanced fashion.
[10] The disparity in treatment of Bonds vs. Roger Clemens is a concern. Clemens, a surefire HOFer, has a history of steroid allegations, on-field misbehavior (see bat-throwing Piazza incidents), and yearly contract negotiations but has received relative kid-glove treatment from the press versus Bonds.
Sphere: Related Content
You are an excellent writer and there are things in your piece that may be indeed true. But what is really is your point? Bonds is a jerk? In fact, most sports writers (who will remain anonymous) and beat writers who covered the games when he was in Pittsburgh new that way back when. He has disdain for people in general! He took the steroids because he was jealous of McGuire and Sosa (who also took steroids…have you seen any photos of McGuire lately). Everyone know this to be true who were around him. He just couldn’t stand it!
It’s one thing to be competitive but it’s another thing to do what Bonds did? And contrary to what most people think steroids can improve both reaction time and vision because most produce increases in testosterone. I should know because I am a biologist. When you were younger you probably had better vision and better reflexes..Right! IN fact, there is great debate in the medical community about testosterone injections for older men and all of the things they appear to restore but at what cost to the rest of the cellular structure of other organs. Bond would have been a great player no matter what. But he would not have done the things he has done without the steroids.
SI may be indeed biased but that doesn’t change the facts about Bonds…he’s a jerk no matter what. Furthermore, when Aaron and Mantle and Mays played the mound was higher I believe the pitches were much harder to hit ( I believe it was changed after Gibson unbelievable era one year). The parks are smaller today also but Bonds does have great power etc. Mantle was not a pull hitter contrary to the short porch in Yankee Stadium. He hit in the power allies of an enormous Yankee stadium. It is estimated by many that Mantle may have hit over 300 balls in Yankee stadium alone that would have been HRs elsewhere. Aaron was a model of consistency and a classic gentlemen who carried the banner of greatness and dignity and represented his race with pride. Wille Mays was Willie Mays…just great. I remember an interview with Mantle and Mays when I was a kid. The reporter was trying force Mantle or Mays to say each was better than the other. But it didn’t work. Mantle said that Willie was better and Willie said that Mickey was better. They had a respect for each other and for the game. Mantle had serious demons in his soul from how he grew up and it manifested itself in all lot of different negative ways. He thought he would die young like his dad and uncles. Willie had his demons too. But they loved each other and they loved their teammates. On Mantle’s plaque at Yankee Stadium it says: A great Teammate.
These guys loved the game and they loved and respected each other. Bonds likes no one and respects no one…so as I said What’s your point? The guy is a jerk who took steroids pure and simple! And nothing can change that.
July 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmHow can you say Barry loves and respects no one? What’s your basis for that? Mickey Mantle was a jerk too, according to some of the less fawning biographies of him.
What does being a jerk have to do with being treated unfairly by the media? Newsflash, if the media wants to pretend to be objective about how they cover people, then they need to cover jerks and great guys the same. Otherwise, get off that high horse.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pmGene, let me tackle some of your points:
“But what is really is your point? Bonds is a jerk?”
Gene, the point of the article is about SI’s MEDIA BIAS, not so much Bonds. Bonds my be retired two years from now but SI will still be printing new biased stories about new athletes. The fact that Bonds may be a jerk (which I personally believe is overstated) has no bearing on journalists responsiblility to properly cover his achievements (1 cover between 2000-2003 is simply indefensible). Sports is virtually the ONLY arena where such journalist behavior is accepted. When Roger Ebert writes a movie or actor review, we expect unbiased coverage no matter what the personality of that actor. It is not a pro-Bonds article, it is a pro-professionalism in sports journalism article.
“He took the steroids because he was jealous of McGwire and Sosa”
The McGwire/Sosa connection is pure conjecture based off of Game of Shadows book quoting a very NOT credible witness in Kimberly Bell. But any steroid commentary, whether I agree or disagree, is moot because the entire article focused on SI’s coverage BEFORE BALCO allegations.
“Aaron was a model of consistency and a classic gentlemen who carried the banner of greatness and dignity and represented his race with pride.”
Conversely, do you believe that Mantle represented the white race poorly because of his well-documented alcoholism?
“Mantle had serious demons in his soul from how he grew up and it manifested itself in all lot of different negative ways. He thought he would die young like his dad and uncles.”
Not only did Mantle have bouts with alcoholism, but such binges also included notoriously boorish behavior that might make Bonds seem like a choir boy. You seem willing to extend Mantle some benefit of the doubt by searching for deeply-rooted explanations for his behavior. I am curious if you have extended Bonds the very same leeway. Bonds, as you know, is the child of Bobby Bonds who had “addiction problems” just like Mantle. Bobby Bonds was treated extremely poorly by the press and as young boy, Barry saw this treatment first-hand. Naturally, Barry grew up with a great distrust and disdain for the media. Freud need not be present to connect these dots. Moral of story: Please be consistent. If Mantle gets a pass and historical understanding, then Barry should too. If Barry simply “is a jerk”, than so is Mickey.
“On Mantle’s plaque at Yankee Stadium it says: A great Teammate.”
Let me reprint this article quote from Royce Clayton: “I’ve never seen anyone like him…Barry is like Magic Johnson—he makes everyone around him better”.
July 29th, 2007 at 2:50 amThe media has treated many athletes unfairly including Pete Rose in my estimation who tarnished the game but never destroyed the integrity of the game by cheating. Bonds prior to steroids use was great player and one of the best if not the best of his generation. However, once Bonds crossed the line and used steroids because he wanted what he couldn’t get naturally is superhero status. You can say whatever you want about Mantle but he never considered himself superior to other players and had a respect for the game with all of his problems. His teammates truly loved him and he did make people around him better including Maris. But you can quote Royce Clayton all you want! To compare what Magic Johnson did as basketball player with the Lakers and Bonds did with Giants makes no sense. It’s unfair comparison for two reasons: 1) Magic won a championships; 2)point guards have ultimate control of the team and baseball players do not. By the way Magic made his players better not only by what he did on the court but what he brought to the team. Barry could have brought that to his team but Barry is about Barry and Magic was about the team!
Mantle, Mays, Aaron never compromised the integrity of the game….Bonds has. We can forgive or be sympathetic to all types of transgressions and weaknesses of our athletes because they are heroic figures out of some play in the journey of life and we almost expect such weakness like the gods of mythology however, when you cross the line like Bonds ( McGurire and Sosa also)it becomes very hard to accept what Bonds has done and the way he acts. I liked his dad as a ball player so did many other people. Fans do not expect their athletes to be saints and I’m sure SI has gone overboard in how they portray Bonds but Bonds is not the only one. Arod takes more heat from fans and the media yet his numbers are historical. When you are little boy you want to play sports because there is a fairness to the game. No matter what color you are you hope the game if played fairly because it’s justice! Maybe the it’s the justice you don’t get in your everyday life. Bonds and others have voided that justice! It was his choice and he has hurt the integrity of the game and his arrogance about it is part of the problem. There used to be something in sports called sportsmanship….there is little left and Bonds is the poster boy for it’s demise!
July 30th, 2007 at 1:18 pmGreat, great write-up. Can’t stand Bonds, as a Dodger fan, but that’s just me. And I’m not a sportswriter.
Baseball has so much downtime (part of my point in my Bonds post). That includes downtime for writers, who seem to think of it all like a fraternity. Well, Bonds has the right to be a dick. As did Eddie Murray or Steve Carlton. Common themes, no? Carlton was the best of his generation, but we heard little and still hear little about his greatness. Murray was unreal, yet Ripken’s most-boring-record-ever was always the story of Baltimore’s baseball team.
My point: who cares if Bonds if friendly? That is an interesting and minor point, but, really, there is no better player from my lifetime - except an imaginary injury-free Griffey, Jr. and A-Rod. For Bonds to have this SI treatment, huh, I guess it shows how little the magazine cares about actual greatness. Sad.
Thanks for the excellent post.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:12 amJohn, thanks and I suppose that if a Dodger fan can get the point, then ANYONE can.
Gene, I won’t comment on post-PEDs coverage since I will address more thoroughly in future column. And I know that you know that no baseball player can carry a team like a great basketball player ala Magic. But if you go through the years to look at the people who batted before ore after Barry, you will see that they all had their best career years (Bonilla, Kent, Rich Aurillia, many others).
Finally, while I understand your point about desiring “fairness”, we have to also be real about the game and its history. Bonds is part of an era where probably 70% of the players juiced (including probably whoever is your favotite player if not Griffey). Mays (as alleged in court) and most likely Aaron and Mantle took amphetimines as most Major Leaguers did. Not the same as steroids, but wouldn’t qualify under your nostalgic “sportsmanship” category. I suspect that, as Mike Schmidt admitted, that all those greats from other eras would have juiced had they been playing in our era.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:43 amRe: the juiced era. Since being juiced was so prevalent in the latter part of his era, including pitchers, Bonds being singled out is bullshit. Also, given how all the “greats” who are constantly referred to (aside from the strong point made by MODI about the post-Jackie Robinson era and amphetamines), competed under baseball apartheid (and thus against opponents diminished in quality) how is that not cause for seeing their records as suspect? And to thank I once read “The Glory of Their Times” unquestioningly as to whether those days were really so “glorious”.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:25 pmGreat article, lots of amazing research here. I’ve been meaning to mention this on my website - I will write something about your article on it before the week is done.
Also, congrats on getting this put on over at Counterpunch. Much props, and looking forward to whatever you got in store for us next.
Oh, and nice job responding to Gene’s criticism.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:27 pmLupica, thanks and any website love you provide is always appreciated. Just trying to add to the great stuff that you and other folks have already been putting out for years.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:53 am[…] SI’s coverage of Barry Bonds, over the years. [Cosellout] […]
August 4th, 2007 at 2:27 pmSports Illustrates is atrocious. Thank you for revealing the pathetic job they’ve done in this one area. I suppose that Martian will have to do the rest.
THIS is what happens when your own effort does not grant you access to the places you desire; the affection you crave or the adulation you require. Sportswriters are quite possibly (with the exception of paparazzi) the greatest examples of living vicariously through others in today’s society. Consider that by and large, these people cover the games and the events - but seldom, if ever, apply a critical lens to management, owners, and their relationships with the communities in which teams operate. The business of covering sports is as important as the game - and when these mental midgets with puny egos and even smaller accomplishments get offended the only folks who need worry are players. Leagues are immune. The paucity of covers dedicated to Bonds is pathetic. All of this smells like the foiled aspirations of Pimple Boy Desperately Seeking Prom Queen. It’s as if the universe of sports writers are saying to Bonds, “Jeez, buddy! I know I’m a loser. You don’t have to rub it in my face.” Bonds is simply saying, “Shut your pie hole…quick bitchin’ and tell your story walking. If I wanted to hear a sob story, I’d go the hospital or the GD bus station.”
Sportswriters, as a body, are a sad lot who add precious little to the game. Invariably their insights are JAFO. Hell, I can watch the game for myself. What is most important is that they will no longer be allowed to provide the sole historical recollection of what happens between the lines and outside the lines. The next time an observer comes from Mars, they can take their ass online and read some real stuff - like this.
Gene’s criticism is spawned from the same interpersonal failings so evident around those lockers. The gods are being pestered by the jesters. The very idea of raising the beloved Charlie Hustle into this conversation is tantamount to posing nude with your crack pipe and a 12-year old. Get a life.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:48 pmTemple,
Thanks and SI is atrocious indeed. I am glad that you bring up the point about management and ownership. The lack of spotlight on them is also reminiscient of MSM’s media coverage of the music industry and particularly hip-hop.
“What is most important is that they will no longer be allowed to provide the sole historical recollection of what happens between the lines and outside the lines, they can take their ass online…”
It’s funny that you should say that because I’ve only been in the blogoshere since May and I’ve read so much good stuff from other bloggers that it seems that mainstream media is really only a reflection of mass public opinion, and online content is a relection of TRUTH.
BTW, Part 2 of this SI vs. Bonds series has just been posted. http://www.cosellout.com/?p=61
It was only going to be two parts, but the more I look into it, the more I am finding more messed up SI coverage so this might end up as a 4 or 5 part series…
August 5th, 2007 at 2:22 amCall me a pragmatist but to succeed in any career you have to be respectful of the people you work with or believe me it will come back to haunt you. Like it or not when you are a professional athlete the press and the fans are part of your workday and you have a choice to make, either you make them a priority and possibly reap long term benefits or you don’t and let the chips fall where they may. It seems Bonds took the latter route like a lot of athletes do and that’s his right but don’t blame the sportswriters for Barry’s choice. His actions and attitude had easily foreseeable consequences, he grew up watching his Dad walk the same road and also had the opposing example of how to do it right, from his godfather Willie Mays. I mean this is the real world and your attitude towards them has a direct bearing on their attitude towards you. Reporters are supposed to be impartial but but they’re also human, even if they’re not superstars.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pmNewmanae, thanks for the post. You should know that I make my living as an employment training specialist so I would naturally agree with you that “attitude” is the most important attribute for MOST employees in most professions.
However, I disagree that this needs to be a “part of the job” for athletes, at least in relation to the media anyway (there is much evidence that Bonds is far more pleasant than to media http://stopmikelupica.com/2007/08/media_bias_in_the_coverage_of.php ). Cordiality to media is a certainly a nice BONUS, but should not be an expected requirement IMO. While sportswriters are human, they are also professionals and SHOULD be impartial the same way we expect Roger Ebert to be in his review no matter an actor’s personality.
Nwemanae, now I love and appreciate Tony Gwynn as much as anyone and believe that he is the best “pure” average hitter of our generation. Now Gwynn never met an interview that he didn’t like. If you look at the last 4 years of his career you will see that due to an assortment of injuries that he only averaged 86 games per year. Now if the older roly-poly Gwynn had a stronger off-field work-ethic, not only could he have very well avoided many of these injuries, but could have possibly played 3 or 4 more years and attained 4000 hits. His batting eye was still in top form, it was only his body that broke down. Here is my point: I have never read one single article of a sportswriter taking Tony to task for “letting down the game” because he was not dedicated enough to his craft to workout more in the off-season.
So, Newmanae, here is my question for you: putting the question of PEDs aside, which superstar is worthy of more negative press: the one who blows off interviews in favor of diligently preparing his body and mind for the rigors of a 162 game season, or the one who gladly accepts all interviews and comes unprepared toward the latter part of their career? Which is more “unprofessional”?
August 5th, 2007 at 9:04 pmI wasn’t talking unprofessional I was talking prudent, like it or not the media plays a large part of any public figures career the “fuck ‘em” approach often brings a “fuck you” response and that is what we’re seeing, fair or not it’s just the way it is.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:33 pmRegarding Gene’s post:
“Mantle, Mays, Aaron never compromised the integrity of the game.”
How can you say the above when Mantle himself admitted to repeatedly showing up hungover AND/OR drunk on gameday. He also had an uneasy relationship with fans and was notoriously mean when not in the mood to talk to media or the public.
Babe Ruth was a known drunk, womanizer and glutton.
Joe Dimaggio was a vile, controlling person (the media leaves this out).
Bonds, Mantle, Ruth, Dimaggio are all cursed/blessed with the kind of genius that few of us can relate to - especially the artist/genius/self-serving moody-ness that comes with the territory.
The successful, white-collar A-hole CEOs out there are applauded for their hardass focus. For some reason ballplayers today don’t get a pass from the media (in fact no one does).
Ease up on Bonds already.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:38 amWex– good point about CEO’s attitudes becoming credentials
Newmanae– “fair or not, it’s just the way it is” doesn’t go over too well with me. Why not strive to make “the way it is” FAIR? If bias in media is “the way it is”, it is only because of an accepting public.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pm“Integrity of the game”
The game never had integrity (see racial segregation)
August 27th, 2007 at 9:57 pm[…] not a Barry Bonds fan. That’s really not a radical statement on any level. But I came across this article from cosellout.com. Very interesting job of tracking the bias between SI and Bonds. And , it […]
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm[…] Sports Illus-hatred of Barry Bonds […]
November 19th, 2007 at 2:22 ambecome hentai id hentai tifa id
September 4th, 2008 at 8:34 pmThe Minor League Baseball League had minor leagure statistics. When you played baseball as a kid there was always one who could pitch and hit but as he went up into leagues of higher skill.
Another minor league phenomenon is horrible pithing along with a few incredible pitcher (Cy and Walter)
The great pitchers of MLB pre-JR had laughable numbers for the same reason you or someone you know had a .833 era and 20 complete games in 20 appearancee. Was he the greatest?
You can remember that slugger who had at least 1 hr every game but when he entered Highschool, he was just another good slugger. (Babe Ruth)
Babe Ruth numbers must be multiplie by .8 and his BA by .9 to get a fair number. If it sounds too good, then it probably is. I think Ted is the most romantic story in all ow baseball but he proably would not have hit 400 in todays baseball.
The Era that is the era of balance was Jackie-Reggie.
After Winfield signed his historical contract, baseball was on the road that ultimately lead to the house of steroids.
This era must be looked at with the same scrutiny as cy young, Walter, and Babe era. Emotions are not allowed and we must assume that A-Rod is Juice ad well as Pulols and every performer who puts up number better than the Aaron, Willie Era because they
The numbers Barry Put up were by no MLB illegal means but any logical person can tell that A-Rod, Pujols, Bonds, all juiced. I think Manny is most likey Manny because he is reminiscent of Reggie.
So all you guys who think Barry Juice, then be honest and admit Pujols was Juicing while in High School and A-Rod surely added to his mass from when he came into the league.
Let’s Kick all 3 out of MLB and anyone else who puts up numbers better than Willie because Nobody can be better than the perfect baseball player with cheating.
If that is silly then that is how silly all you sound when not recognizing that you were lucky to witness the only time in MLB history where the pictcher was afraid to throw a man a strike. You will never see a baseball play like Barry Bonds for another 30 years. He is by far the greatest player of our era. ACCEPT IT!
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 amThanks for that darrell
October 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pmDo you have an RSS feed?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:28 amIntegrity my ASS!! For what a sport that for 70some YEARS didn’t allow anyone but white males to play yeah I don’t see the media all upset about that!! Or glorified sleazbags,womanizers,and at least ONE wife-beater[Joe Dimaggio]and truth be told Ty Cobb was certainly NO prize in fact his o-w-n team viciously hated him. Furthermore have you ever read or listen to most[i.e.white male]sportswriters?!! There are the MOST racist,hypcorcitical,juvenile,whiny,bitchy,gossipy,lewd,stupid,arrogant,snide,biased a-holes on the planet! A lot of them are no prize either and a big part of the reason why Bonds in such a ‘hated jerk’ and accused of being a jerk is his race. Bottom line the media doesn’t like him because he’s not ‘humble’ or the good little Negro he’s outspoken,loud, and demands respect which he deserves to and if they don’t like that they should find a new damn job! His is to be a baseball player not make sure some jealous,whiny,hateful, and yes RACIST jizzwad in the media does or doesn’t get that coveted interview. Maybe if THEY were so damn arrogant and full og themselves they’d realize that.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:40 pmFirst, Bonds use of PEDs isn’t in question, he admitted it, what’s in question is whether it was knowing use or not. Bonds claim is that he thought the cream & clear were for different uses than they actually were. Given the excellent statistical analysis of the guys at Baseball Prospectus, Kevin Walker at baseball-and-steroids.com, and many other baseball statisticians, the effect of steroid use on the game is well known to be none at all. Using steroids has no effect on performance. They even go over Bonds career and numbers with a fine-toothed comb and it is very clear that Bonds’ performance over his last 5 seasons, while incredible, was not at all out of line with reasonable projections or expectations from a player that worked as hard as he did and had as good an eye or swing.
So yeah, guilty or not, Bonds is no villain. Also, having met Bonds personally my impression of him was quite the opposite in that he seemed very friendly and personable, even gave me tickets to a game and a bat and all I did was coach a little league team that a friend of Bonds kid was on. This was back in 2002 and I immediately thought Bonds’ reputation as a jerk was GROSSLY overstated by the media.
Summarizing Baseball Prospectus’ conclusion on steroids effects on performance and stats from their book Baseball Between the Numbers, “it is impossible to reject the statistical hypothesis that the spectacular performance of players like Bonds is the result of good old-fashioned determination and hard work.”
June 7th, 2009 at 3:04 am