“The unhappiness that exists among the Boston players and staff is multilayered and deep. Calls and texts and complaints about daily events and exchanges are being sprayed all over the baseball landscape as some involved share their frustration with friends and family and agents. Some already are talking about looking for work elsewhere down the road.”
Wow. Everyone in the Red Sox organization from ownership down to the lowliest of janitors is unhappy? Calls, texts, and complaints are widespread? Players and staffers are already planning their exits? This is some pretty deep stuff. Surely, the estimable Mr. Olney must have some outstanding sources. Oh, yeah. About that…
“Nobody has really gone on the record — yet — but it’s clear that if the Red Sox are to win this year, it’ll have to be in spite of the bad feelings. This team won’t turn into Happy Town any time soon. There are too many irreconcilable differences in place.”
So nobody has really gone on record yet? Have they gone on the record in the imaginary sense? Furthermore, if an anonymous source breaks the story, did it even really happen?
Kidding aside, I have serious issues when sports reporters quote anonymous sources on stories; especially hot button stories where exaggeration and half-truths have been running rampant. When it comes to anonymous sources, who are we talking about? They could be anyone. When a reporter says “a source close to the General Manager,” are they saying one of his assistant GMs or an intern that reports to him. When he/she quotes a “source inside the clubhouse,” is that source a player or janitor? Furthermore, what is said source’s motivation in leaking the story? Does he have a legitimate beef with teammates and management, or is he a malcontent? These questions are rarely answered by the reporter sharing them because they’re trying to protect the reliability of their own sources. Furthermore, their anonymity allows the sources to remain in a bubble, free from criticism or further questioning from other members of the media.
I have a great deal of respect for Buster Olney. He not only has an excellent reputation as a reporter, but also is known for being pretty accurate with the stories he breaks. All of that said, despite a reporter’s best intentions, a source will occasionally turn out to be a false lead. This happens all of the time, especially during the peaks of the hot stove season. For instance, a player is rumored to be on the verge of signing team A, only to have them sign with team B three days later. Sometimes, we’ll find out a couple of months later that team A was either not close to signing, or potentially not even interested in said player. Yet, for some reason the rumor was leaked regardless.
Why does this happen? Because in a media dominated world where 24/7 coverage is the norm, everyone wants a chance to be a part of the story. Reporters, especially since the advent of Twitter, are desperate to be the first to break a story. The front office officials that leak the stories may be hoping eventually for quid pro quo later on down the line. In doing so, it’s possible that reporter will name drop them as a potential candidate for a high profile job; thereby giving them greater visibility.
Again, I’m not criticizing Olney as a reporter. Instead, I’m hoping to add a healthy dose of skepticism to his piece. Anonymous sources and vague innuendos about widespread clubhouse dissension are hardly ironclad damnations. All we’ve received from Buster so far are promises that more information will come in the coming weeks. Perhaps, he’s right. It’s possible more information corroborating his story is forthcoming. Then again, isn’t it just as likely those promises come up empty?
Josh Beckett, rarely one to be shy about firing back at the media, had this to say about Olney’s report (h/t to Tim Britton of The Providence Journal):
“Completely fabricated. I don’t know where people get that from. I think people want that to be the case and I just don’t think it is. This is probably one of the tightest-knit groups I’ve ever been a part of, with dinners on the road, a couple family trips here this last time. We do a lot of stuff together. There’s a good continuity here.”
Beckett makes a pretty lucid point. Red Sox Nation is currently living in a world where the prevailing narrative is follows a specific motif: The Red Sox organization is a mess. Like any narrative, it tends to gain traction the longer it exists. This happens regardless of whether or not it’s rational or factually correct. We saw it last year with two major narratives: Justin Verlander dominance/MVP and Michael Young leadership discussions. One writer starts it, and others picked up on it. Next thing you know, you can’t watch, read, or listen to anything baseball related without hearing about it.
Additionally, we saw it in our own Red Sox as the media pointed to simplistic, fringy non-issues like “fried chicken and beer” in order to explain a phenomenon they clearly did not understand from a baseball perspective. Narratives are emotional, interesting, and addicting. Once that ball starts rolling, it’s very difficult to stop it.
The next time a new narrative is created, I’d like to remind you of one thing. Baseball writers root for stories–not players or teams. (In many cases, this includes people like me who write for blog sites.) They’re often very upfront about this position. As such, they have a vested interest in either breaking or perpetuating a story. Just a little food for thought for the next time a story spirals out of control.