|
Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune.
Buster Olney answers a reader's letter on ESPN (italics in original):
Q: Why would you even make that comment about Miguel Cabrera possibly being drunk while playing Saturday's game? The word "possibly" really gets you off the hook, but tends to put Cabrera in a bad light with your several readers. That's pretty -- no -- very irresponsible journalism.
-- Paul Puruleski (Grand Rapids, Mich.)
A: Paul: I have no idea if Cabrera was intoxicated when the game started at 7 p.m. Saturday. But he reportedly had a .26 blood alcohol level at sometime around 6:30 in the morning. According to research, the average drinker will process alcohol at .015 parts per hour, and an experienced drinker will process alcohol at a rate of .02. You do the math. If he was so intoxicated by the time he arrived at the park that he couldn't legally drive a vehicle, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that his ability to hit or catch a baseball might have been affected. It would be irresponsible journalism to not raise the issue of whether his alcohol ingestion might have affected his ability to play baseball, in one of the Tigers' most important games of the season.
Look, I absolutely believe that players have a right to privacy. I've known many players and coaches and managers who've battled drinking problems (and we all have friends and family members who have been overcome by this addiction). In almost all circumstances, it's a matter that's left untouched by reporters. But in this case, there was an alcohol-related incident in which police were called, in which Cabrera was taken away from his home by authorities, and -- most importantly -- in which there was a reasonable question about whether his ability to play baseball might have been significantly affected by his drinking. This is when the situation crosses from a private matter into something that reporters ask about -- when his play on the field might have been affected by alcohol ingestion, with tens of thousands of paying customers watching.
Sure, I'll do the math: at 0.02 per hour, it would take Cabrera 13 hours to be totally sober, or about two-and-a-half hours into the game. However, at what level is he impaired? It's worth noting here that we're talking about a top athlete, so he likely has a highly efficient metabolism.
But what intrigues me here is the journalistic angle. A blood alcohol level of 0.26 would probably be fatal for some people. That is not tipsy, or slightly impaired -- that is positively blotto. The fact that Cabrera got that drunk before a big game is scandal enough -- or should be, in Detroit.
So Buster says:
It would be irresponsible journalism to not raise the issue of whether his alcohol ingestion might have affected his ability to play baseball, in one of the Tigers' most important games of the season.
This is true -- if Buster always applies this standard. I'm guessing that he doesn't, but I'll be ready to retract that if someone tells me otherwise. Note how he hung it on to play on the field.
Back to politics: In political scandals, especially sex scandals, they always look for something to hang them on. One of the most frequently used hooks is "hypocrisy," because that somehow makes it more shocking.
There's only one problem with all this: it's completely arbitrary and at the journalist's discretion. Alcohol (and sex) are rampant in American politics, and one has to assume that there are more scandals out there that are known but haven't been broken in the press. (In fact, I'd wager that with some scandals part of the press reaction is relief at finally being able to print it.)
Is this veil good or bad? Not to put too fine a point on it, but they don't report, so we don't get to decide.
Part of me, I'll admit, wants to praise the journalistic restraint here. After all, serious journalists should focus on serious things. But the problem is that this protection (and that's what it is) is never entirely fair. Last year, when The New York Times broke the Vicki Eisman story, they likely expected it to become huge. It didn't for two reasons: the GOP closed ranks effectively, and more importantly, the rest of the press let it drop. Now, this looks wise enough -- but it wouldn't be (in my Democratic opinion) if John McCain were now president.
Coming to the point soon, I promise. Vicki Eisman's profession? Lobbyist.
Remember the California state senator who got caught bragging about his affairs? His affairs were with lobbyists.
I, for one, would like to hear more about these lobbyists and how they lobby.
Oh, but the answer might be icky! Scandalous! These are only two examples! Two which I say: well, those two GOP activists visited only six ACORN offices, and we got plenty of coverage of that. The lobbyist industry should invite public scrutiny, because, after all, they're all about the public interest.
|
