The results, were predictably, less than satisfying to many.
Among the perceived "snubs", coach Bill Parcells and defense end Charles Haley were left out this year. Perhaps they will get in next year. Or maybe never. The logic of why a guy is not worthy one year, but then worthy the next year, or perhaps 7 years or more later, remains one of the great mysteries of the process.
I won't get into the merits or critiques of this year's inducted class - that's a robust discussion you can have with your buddies over a beer - but rather let me once again highlight the sheer stupidity of the PROCESS involved.
To begin with, allowing just 44 voices to determine a man's life work in the game is absurdly small. Let's bump that up to 100 as a start, and keep an open mind to adding even more if needed.
Secondly, take a look at how un-inspiring this list of writers really is. I mean, how many of these people have you heard of?
Many of these writers, have lost their full time newspaper job years ago. I don't want to name names, because this is not a personal attack on them (or their relative football acumen). But I know the guys in that room, who are NOT currently practicing full-time NFL writers. They should no longer be on the panel.
Also, you will see a small handful of TV broadcasters on this list. I don't object to that, per se. However, I maintain that it's absurd to not include some long time sports radio talk show hosts on the committee. I would not volunteer myself, because I understand my own biases. But sports talk radio hosts are, in my opinion, especially suited to HOF arguments, because we HAVE THEM ALL THE TIME in the course of our regular work.
It'll be a cold day in hell, before they let in an unwashed "sports talk radio host" into this little enclave. Better to have a former beat writer, from a 50,000 circulation paper that is now just a website, to help decide if Bill Parcells deserves a bronze bust in Canton.
My buddy, and now (wait for it....) FELLOW SPORTS RADIO colleague Thom Loverro - himself a former major market newspaper columnists (although he still does fine work for a smaller, free paper here in Washington, the D.C. Examiner) tried to ZING me by saying "how about sports radio hosts who ACTUALLY GO INTO THE LOCKEROOM AND TALK TO PLAYERS AND COACHES."
Oooh. Burn. Not really.
Thom actually makes a great point in my favor on this one. By NOT going into the lockeroom as frequently (or ever) as writers, we are not subject to the negative bias of many writers who have felt the sting of rejection from certain players.
We don't hold grudges, because we have no grudges to hold.
So what if Parcells was a liar, a bully and a tyrant to the scribes who covered him? The guy built NFL teams from the ground up, proved innovative in big games, and bequeathed a tree of assistants that is legendary. So what if Charles Haley was a borderline sociopath and mostly un-cooperative to the press? The guy has 5 rings and terrorized offenses. I'd love to see/hear/read the 44 electors "rationale" for why Chris Doleman belongs ahead of him.
If you are on the committee, you should be required to divulge your votes on each nominee, and not just "up" or "down." I would require each selector to write a concise 1 paragraph explanation of their vote. At least lets see their "logic" and let it stand on it's own. If you can't take the hate mail, hate tweets, or general "heat" of a strong opinion, then get out of the room. It's that simple.
Finally, there should be a price for being on this committee. As it currently stands, the committee meets conveniently during Super Bowl week, where there is essentially zero cost to the members. Take a few hours out of your week, haggle over inductees, turn in your votes, go have a steak dinner on your employers' per diem.
Nice work, if you can get it.
I would hold this annual meeting outside of the Super Bowl week, and I would require members to pay for their own travel and accommodations. If it matters that much for you to be on this committee, then you should put some money behind it.
See how quickly the room clears out once you do that.
The Hall of 44 Horribly Biased (and Increasingly Irrelevant) Sportswriters: An Examination
In the world of sports journalism, credibility, impartiality, and integrity are paramount. Sportswriters are tasked with the responsibility of providing fans with unbiased and insightful coverage of their favorite teams and athletes. However, as with any profession, there are instances where biases can creep in, potentially compromising the quality of reporting. In this article, we will delve into a controversial topic: the "Hall of 44 Horribly Biased (and Increasingly Irrelevant) Sportswriters." We will explore the concept, its implications, and answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding this polarizing issue.
The "Hall of 44 Horribly Biased Sportswriters": What Is It?
The term "Hall of 44 Horribly Biased Sportswriters" is a satirical, hypothetical concept used by some sports fans and critics to highlight instances of perceived bias in sports journalism. It suggests that there are a select group of sportswriters who, intentionally or unintentionally, allow their personal biases to influence their reporting and commentary.
Understanding Bias in Sports Journalism
Before delving deeper into the concept, it's essential to understand the nature of bias in sports journalism. Bias can manifest in various ways:
Team Bias: Some sportswriters may have strong allegiances to particular teams, leading them to favor those teams in their reporting. This can result in disproportionately positive coverage for the favored team and negative coverage for rivals.
Player Bias: Bias can also be directed towards individual athletes. Sportswriters may show favoritism towards certain players, leading to biased analysis or praise.
Regional Bias: Geographic bias can influence coverage, with sportswriters from certain regions providing more extensive coverage of local teams and less coverage of teams from other areas.
Confirmation Bias: Writers may unconsciously seek out or emphasize information that confirms their preexisting beliefs or opinions.
Political or Social Bias: Occasionally, sportswriters may bring their political or social views into their sports reporting, leading to biased commentary on sports-related issues.
The Implications of Bias in Sports Journalism
Bias in sports journalism can have several implications:
Diminished Credibility: When sportswriters are perceived as biased, their credibility can be undermined. Fans may question the objectivity of their reporting and analysis.
Loss of Trust: Bias erodes trust between sportswriters and their audience. Fans rely on journalists for accurate and unbiased information, and when that trust is broken, it can be challenging to regain.
Polarization: Biased reporting can contribute to polarization among fans. When coverage consistently favors one team or player, it can intensify rivalries and lead to hostile fan interactions.
Inaccurate Analysis: Biased reporting can lead to inaccurate or one-sided analysis of events, preventing fans from gaining a comprehensive understanding of a sports story.
FAQs: Answering Your Questions
Is it common for sportswriters to be biased?
While most sportswriters strive for objectivity, instances of bias do occur. It's essential to distinguish between unconscious bias and deliberate bias. Deliberate bias is less common but can be more damaging to credibility.
Can sportswriters have personal favorites without being biased?
Sportswriters can have personal favorites without necessarily being biased, as long as they maintain objectivity in their reporting and analysis. It's important to acknowledge personal preferences but not let them dominate coverage.
How can readers identify bias in sports journalism?
Readers can identify bias by paying attention to patterns in reporting. If a sportswriter consistently portrays a particular team or athlete in a significantly more positive or negative light than others, it may be indicative of bias.
What measures can sports media organizations take to address bias?
Sports media organizations can establish and enforce editorial guidelines that emphasize impartiality and objectivity. They can also provide training and support to help their writers recognize and minimize bias.
Should sportswriters disclose their personal biases to their readers?
While disclosing personal biases can be transparent, it's not always necessary. The primary responsibility of sportswriters is to provide objective and fair coverage. Disclosing biases may be helpful in cases where potential conflicts of interest exist.
The "Hall of 44 Horribly Biased Sportswriters" serves as a reminder of the importance of objectivity and impartiality in sports journalism. While bias can be subtle and sometimes unintentional, its presence can have far-reaching implications for the credibility and trustworthiness of sportswriters and sports media organizations. Recognizing and addressing bias is essential to maintaining the integrity of sports journalism and ensuring that fans receive fair and accurate coverage of their favorite teams and athletes. Ultimately, sports journalism should prioritize the pursuit of truth over personal biases, delivering informed and unbiased perspectives to sports enthusiasts worldwide.
No comments:
Post a Comment