Read on Twitter
The fundamental dynamic at play back then, I am convinced, was that a lot of people who had been insulated from any sort of criticism or feedback suddenly had it. First with blogs then social media. It was totally foreign to them, especially in sports.
Almost all of the people who reacted the worst to that talked about stuff I and others would say to them the way this gang in the open letter talk about cancel culture. As if they're being censored or what have you. These are people with national or giant city newspaper columns.
What was actually happening is that someone questioned them. Questioned their authority about baseball. Held them accountable for bad takes (congrats, you've left the yard!). They hated that and equated that criticism with censorship. It was laughable.
Almost all of those people who reacted the worst are out of the business now. The longstading people who are still in the business have, for the most part, adapted admirably and appreciate that give and take with readers or peers is part of the gig.
And, of course, my elbows aren't as sharp as they used to be, at least not with respect to the media.
Would that the political/social commentariat appreciate what sportswriters figured out ten years ago. Would that they grow up and realize they don't have a monopoly on ideas.
Would that the political/social commentariat appreciate what sportswriters figured out ten years ago. Would that they grow up and realize they don't have a monopoly on ideas.
Or, to put it more finely: that when they make dumbass arguments or write ill-formed ideas that they examine, for a moment, whether or not their critics actually make some good points.
