I just finished watching an "Outside the Lines" report on ESPN about the responsibilities of a blogger.
He stated that PEDs are one logical explanation for the jump. Well, you know how rumors spread. Before you knew it, the story was that Jerrod had explicitly accused Ibanez of taking steroids.
Shortly after, this "accusation" was brought to Ibanez's attention and to put it in a nice way, he flipped like a burnt flapjack.
Next, there was a link on ESPN and the whole thing had spiraled out of control.
The "Outside the Lines" report on the issue featured Jerrod, a journalist that wrote for the Philadelphia Inquirer, and another journalist.
As the interview went on, I learned a few things...
1. Journalists really don't like bloggers. I think it has something to do with bloggers apparently being cowards, but they hate them more than a leaky sink.
2. ESPN set up Jerrod. They brought in two journalists that just completely ripped on Jerrod. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it was two on one and Jerrod didn't stand a chance. I might have cried if it was me.
3. Neither of the journalists read the article. They did everything but come out and say it, but it was so obvious that they came in with the idea that Jerrod had flat out accused Ibanez of taking steroids which just isn't true.
After the show (and if I didn't make this painfully clear before, Jerrod was completely mauled), one thing really struck me.
The journalists were upset at Jerrod because he made "claims" without proof or actual knowledge of the subject. In their view, it was just an opinion with no accountability.
This may be true, but weren't they doing the same thing. If neither of the journalists read the article, and were instilling strong opinions to a national audience based on what they "think" was said in the article, aren't they doing the same exact thing they're accusing Jerrod of doing?
Now, I'm a blogger, but I want to be a journalist so I see both sides of this issue. But the journalists took this too far by insinuating the uselessness of bloggers.
Both bloggers and journalists have a spot in our society. However, I see one fundamental difference between them. Journalists constantly have to worry about what they say and bloggers don't.
It's that simple.
And really, there's no problem with either of them. In all reality, with their access, journalists probably serve a more important role in our society, but sometimes certain things need to be said and bloggers are the ones to say it.
Now do bloggers sometimes take things too far?
But you can't deny that there are some really talented bloggers out there that make a lot insightful points. And some of those points happen to be bold insults
Just look at Bill Simmons. He's pretty much a blogger with an editor. He rips on guys (really rips on guys), but man, does he know his sports.
If I was Raul Ibanez, my initial reaction would be harsh too. But afterwards, I definitely would have read the article and then lightened my stance a little bit.
The thing is, what if Raul didn't react so violently?
I think that would only arouse more suspicion.
Unfortunately, in this era of PEDs in baseball, Raul is pretty much obligated to react that way.
It's really upsetting that we've come to that, but that's just the way it is.
So if there's a lesson to be learned from any of this, it's to be at least somewhat informed on what you are talking/writing about.
Everyone has some degree of responsibility.
Yes, even bloggers.