A-Rod Haters Juiced with HGH (Hardened Glaring Hypocrisy)

I’ve spent the last two weeks combating the rampant Facebook frenzy documenting the polarizing nature of the story. Maybe polarizing isn’t the best word, actually, since that would suggest there’s more than three people on my humble pole-abode. 

As one buddy pointed out in an email, “You certainly didn’t choose the easy route when you elected to become an online superhero defending all things pinstripe. You should at least get free fountain drinks for all the hard work.” 

The chief problem with spearheading the Crusade Against Haters is that my client is guilty. A-Rod did indeed admit to using steroids, so to speak. (Perhaps the most beautifully candid line in this whole sordid ordeal is Cashman’s hilarious, “I don’t think that Alex is very good at communicating, to be honest.” In the docket of historic understatements, file that one alongside the penetrating questioning from the reporter at the 1956 World Series, “Mr. Larsen, was that the best game you ever pitched?”)

But despite the damning evidence, I’m finding the entire treatment of “A-Roid” ludicrously unsavory. And unjustly divisive. Evidently, you’re either with him or against him, and that amounts to being either for steroids or against them. And even more over reactionary, that means you’re either righteously upstanding or morally despicable.

It’s amazing how swiftly I’m dismissed when I purport the unfairness of it all.

“He brought it all on himself,” I was told last night. “The media isn’t killing him. He did it himself.” I thought about this. My buddy’s right. The news isn’t reporting anything that isn’t true, more or less. But then I thought about something else.

This past election has demonstrated many things about this country, not least of which is that the power of journalism is otherworldly and more profoundly powerful than we had ever thought. When America became outrageously obsessive about two men, when we spat vitriol at each other while debating the merits of each candidate, what did we use as our supporting points? 

The simple fact is that everything we knew about O and Mac, was what was presented to us in the media. Unless you’re Cindy or Michelle, you know nothing more than what you’ve read online. And this makes the media so dangerously influential that it’s ignorant to dismiss its role in shaping our perceptions of people we know nothing about.

How can this be fair?

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?