Ken Rosenthal is worried that, in all of this Clemens news, you may have forgotten the real enemy:Bonds represents a cancer in the industry. He is not the only player alleged to have used performance-enhancing drugs during baseball's steroid epidemic. But he is not just another name in the Mitchell report, either . . . Any owner who would prostitute himself by signing Bonds would face a storm of negative publicity boiling down to three words: Shame on you.Hey, while I prefer Ken Rosenthal the reporter to Rosenthal the editorial writer, he's entitled to his opinion. But Ken, are you really serious with this one?:
Then again, this is not a sabermetric exercise in which you calculate how many runs Bonds would add to a given lineup and proclaim his addition to be a masterstroke. Nor is this a situation analogous to the Kobe Bryant sexual-assault case, in which Bryant continued playing for the Lakers during pre-trail hearings in 2003-04.Bryant, like Bonds, was legally entitled to play, and the case against him eventually was dismissed. But Bryant's alleged offense was an act of personal indiscretion, not a reflection of his entire sport.
Just so we're clear: to Ken Rosenthal, rape is a matter of "personal indiscretion," that in no event is as serious as taking steroids. And one of the biggest stars in the NBA being (a) arrested for rape; and (b) selling out a teammate when interrogated isn't a reflection on the sport.
Wow. Better yet, NOW. As in, I wonder what women's groups think about rape being equated with rudeness, littering, and other "personal indiscretions."
UPDATE: The article has been edited. The paragraph with which I took umbrage now reads as follows:
Bryant, like Bonds, was legally entitled to play, and the case against him eventually was dismissed. But Bryant's alleged offense was an isolated incident, not a reflection of a league-wide problem.
[emphasis supplied].
I applaud Rosenthal and/or his editor for making the change. It was my hope that he didn't truly mean what he said, and I take the change as evidence that this was more a matter of poor wording than poor judgment.
6 comments:
Why would someone even bring the Kobe Bryant case into the discussion? Men should stay away from commenting about rape cases unless they have indisputable facts. I want to say something else, but I can't put the words together. Did Ken read this after he wrote it? He should have sat on it for 24 hours and read it again before publishing it. It just seems like an unnecessary comparison to make.
I wish we could erase the words "shame on you" from the vocabularies of people like Rosenthal. I recall one of the Congressman at the Clemens hearing telling McNamee "shame on you." Who do these people think they are to be judging others publicly in such an arrogant and close-minded fashion? Personally, I think it makes them look very small-minded.
The story that was linked has been edited. It now says "But Bryant's alleged offense was an isolated incident, not ..."
Thanks, ftalistcom. I've updated my post to refelect the change.
I think the change reflects the editors getting deluged with outraged email and immediately realizing that they're in serious trouble if they don't change the wording right this second.
I don't think you can describe rape as a "personal indescretion" unless you don't personally regard it as a huge deal. That strikes me as more than just bad wording. Doesn't make Rosenthal any less of a reporter, mind, but I cringe every time I see someone else that doesn't realize/doesn't know/doesn't think rape is the horrendously awful thing it is.
You may be right, Justin. Based on this, um, isolated incident, however, I'll refrain from continuing to slag Rosenthal on this point.
If it comes up again, though . . .
Post a Comment