Re: the Jim Gray controversy

["Terrence M. Wood" <terry_wood@prodigy.net>]

While I am not up to speed on this, I don't remember anyone ever comming
forward with undeniable evidence that Pete bet on his own team or on
baseball at all.....He does have a gambling problem, at the casinos and the
race tracks.

I for one look at what he contributed to the sport and that is enough to say
he belongs in the hall of fame...period.   If what he did off the field then
is keeping him out, then most of the players with baggage should be
removed...then we would have an empty hall of fame.  Gray was definately
wrong in his questions, and should be reprimanded by GE for it.  Fired...NO!

Sports guys....Journalists?  Nah!

/terry
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin J. Waters <mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu>
To: <Dib9@aol.com>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: the Jim Gray controversy


> >Dan Billings wrote:
> >I am amazed by this controversy.  Apparently, sports reporters are not
> >supposed to act like journalists.
> >
> >Jim Gray kept pushing Rose because Rose lied and became combative when
Gray
> >asked his first questions.  If Rose had said something like "This isn't
the
> >time or place to get into that" I bet Gray would have moved on.
> <snip>
>
>         Gray absolutely had to bring up the subject, of course. I guess he
> pushed a little more than he needed to, especially since he should have
> been aware that he ran the risk of alienating people and moving the focus
> from Rose to himself. But I'm sure he's surprised at how bad it got for
> him. Gray had gotten what he needed to and should have stopped sooner, I
> suppose. But it's really no big deal. The only reason to keep up the line
> of questioning would have been if Rose gave any hint of remorse, changing
> his position, etc. Then you explore that. Once you established that Rose
> was taking the same hard-line denial stance, there wasn't much else to do
> with it. What he got was Rose lying and refusing to even acknowledge his
> wrongdoing, never mind apologize. So this is a case of shooting the
> messenger big time.
>         People should not be blasting Gray, but rather be appalled about
> Pete Rose, or maybe feel sorry for him.  It's not really surprising
though.
> The public dislikes news reporters, especially when they are perceived to
> be badgering people. Plus, in sports you don't usually have much real
rough
> news reporting. It's unexpected and so it seems even harsher. And baseball
> fans like Pete Rose. They, and the public generally, hear something vague
> about gambling and don't care. The public has an attention span of 30
> seconds and a bad memory going back a maximum of six months. Almost nobody
> actually remembers what the Rose thing was about. It was a million years
> ago. Plus, most sports fans find it ridiculous that anybody is "against"
> gambling. It's like almost every issue of public life: A country full of
> people with really strong opinions even though they know almost nothing
> about the issue.
>         One thing that seems to be going unnoticed is that Gray actually
> did his job very well because there had begun to be some suggestions that
> baseball might be considering reinstating Rose. Now, Selig says it won't
> happen while he is commissioner (whatever that means). IMO, baseball may
> have been watching to see what Rose did in Atlanta--if he would say the
> right things, etc., to show or even hint that he is finally ready to own
up
> to what he did. Thanks to Mr. Gray, we absolutely know the answer.
>
>