Implications from the Epstein departure
are significant enough to warrant our full attention today (apologies
to the NBA), so let’s get right into it. The fallout from Epstein’s
announcement has resulted in two separate, but obviously related,
controversies: first, what prompted Theo’s unexpected departure?
Second, to what extent is Dan Shaughnessy, The Globe, and its relationship to the Sox to blame for Epstein’s loss?
Well, there’s a third one, but it involves a man in a gorilla suit.
Two theories as to why Epstein left, and, as usual, there’s no
compelling reason why they both can’t be true. The first has
essentially been the Peter Gammons party-line doctrine since his
initial response on Monday’s SportsCenter: Epstein left because
of the “fishbowl” culture in Boston, he’s an incredibly “private” man
who just needs some space. PG followed this up yesterday by suggesting
that the Sox are well-set for the next few years if Lucchino doesn’t rush the next few decisions,
trades, that “the Red Sox can make their run in 2006, and by 2007 be in
position to be the best team in the division for a five-year run.”
To
be fair, Gammons’ take here is far from popular, and the much more
widespread (and sexier) explanation blames Shaughnessy for the now-infamous column in Sunday’s Globe
that seemed to come right from the mouth of Lucchino himself. Did
Lucchino use Dan-o as a mouthpiece for private grievances that then
forced Epstein’s hand, sending him packing seemingly without
explanation? Is it a conspiracy theory, or just the most logical
explanation?
Shaughnessy has been on a media blitz for the
past twenty-four hours, one that will certainly come to a head this
afternoon when Epstein holds his first postgame press conference.
Adding to his implicit denials in yesterday’s column, Dan-o is now publicly denying being puppeted by Sox ownership, but it’s safe to say that outside The Globe, Boston sports media observers are less than convinced. For more local coverage than SMW can possibly provide, check out Bruce Allen’s extensive analysis or the increasingly-useful Dan Shaughnessy Watch.
As much as it pains SMW to admit this, the best national coverage of Shaughnessy has actually come from the mouth of ESPN’s own Sports Guy.
In what must be his most significantly-journalistic writing in months,
Simmons paints a picture of media/sport conglomeration and direct
ownership ties (specifically, the Sox ownership of The Globe and its implications for Globe objectivity), and speaks with a level of candor and gravity rare in these pages.
“As
for the Red Sox, they have shamed themselves beyond belief, with the
Shaughnessy column being the final straw. The same guys who brought
Boston a World Series also formed an Orwellian media conglomerate in
which they control all the information in the city's most important
newspaper, as well as the TV and radio stations that carry the games.
Just about every Red Sox-related scoop is directed to one of those
three outlets, with Boston Herald writers repeatedly
complaining about the unfairness of it all. In particular, the Epstein
coverage was appallingly one-sided from the Globe's side --
culminating in Shaughnessy's incredible column, to the point that Red
Sox fans have to question the credibility of anything they read in what
used to be a sports section that meant something. It was telling that,
on the same day that Theo announced his resignation, Monday's Globe contained a story reporting that he had signed for three years.”
In
this case, Simmons’ Boston exodus has perhaps given him a level of
perspective that those buried into the story’s intricacies are
hard-pressed to display: if the Shaugnessy conspiracy holds water, then
it begs serious questions about media ownership, not just about the
ethical standards of one sportswriter (whose credibility with Boston
sports fans is now somewhere below John Harrington’s).
And
this is certainly the most important, and perhaps least-stated,
implication of the Epstein/Shaughnessy affair. Sure, Bristol has
covered reaction to the departure from Sox players: Schilling was on SportsCenter last night showing his aggravation, PTI reported some negative blowback from David Ortiz, and Varitek has made similar public protests.
But the analysis that needs to happen – the questions about media
ownership and the threads of power that weave through coverage and what
we call journalistic objectivity – is simply not happening. Boston fans
are right in demanding that The Globe take a long, hard look in
the mirror, but it’s just a matter of time, and attention, until more
spectators begin to notice many of the same cut corners and
self-serving promotions at Bristol, Fox, or CNN.
Let’s say
that more directly: if ESPN were the standard-bearer of sports
journalism that it purports to be, it would be investigating every
corner of this story, every unlit corridor of power, with its full
resources. The relationship between The Globe and the Sox is by no means unique, and while ESPN isn’t owned by a single sports franchise the way that The Globe is,
Bristol certainly has a massive economic stake in the continuing
viability of many major sports leagues, especially the NFL, MLB, and
NCAA football and basketball. Let’s not fake surprise at ESPN’s
unwillingness to look underneath those rocks, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t need to question why.
Apologies to Everyone Who Doesn't Care About Boston
You're better off anyway. So, today’s promised NBA coverage
previews have been pushed to tomorrow due to a massive case of East
Coast Bias (see above). In the meantime, check out Patrick J. Byrnett’s excellent column on the NBA dress code, which (in its own way) predicted NBA opener coverage better than any national preview we saw elsewhere. |
Daily Digest 
