It’s hard to imagine there were many golf fans that were pulling against Phil Mickelson as he worked his way through the last 9 holes of the 2004 Masters.
That Mickelson won the tournament was as popular a victory as could be imagined. For years, the accomplished left-hander had earned a tag that the top golfers don’t really want: the best golfer never to win a major championship.
Oh, Mickelson had won his share of PGA tour events and was considered an elite player, certainly worthy of Ryder Cup play for the U.S. side, for example.
Yet he had developed, fairly or not, a reputation as a player who couldn’t win the big one, who folded somewhat under pressure; someone who perhaps did not bring the necessary ‘thinking’ and strategic tool box with him at crunch time in the big events.
It was also mentioned that he was not quite dedicated enough to winning, to getting himself into top physical condition as had others such as David Duval. He certainly did not seem to have the drive or the intensity of a Tiger Woods.
That said, Mickelson brought another quality with him to work every day, one that most professional athletes would do well to emulate: he was human and acted that way.
He was “normal”.
Even his critics would have to acknowledge that few in his sport -- and few in professional sports, period – were as patient and articulate in defeat as Mickelson. And given that he seemed to “lose” a lot, that patience was surely tested more than he might have cared for.
But unlike many in his sport (even Canada’s popular Mike Weir has been known to fly past reporters with little to say on days he does not play well), Mickelson will stand for lengthy periods of time, thoughtfully addressing the same questions over and over again.
He almost always does so, by all accounts, with as much good cheer as possible. He answers questions fully, not with short, clipped, defensive responses.
He is clearly a family man, with three young children, and for all his golf-earned wealth, appears to have a sense of perspective, which a family can certainly help achieve in terms of balancing life’s priorities. (It can be said that golfers, for the most part, can take themselves quite seriously and can provide unerring and excruciating detail on each shot they make, expressing wrenching disappointment regarding their woes in the sandtrap and such things. They sometimes give the impression they have no idea there is a world often in real pain beyond theirs.)
This is not to canonize Mickelson, simply to say the moral of the story here is this: you do often reap what you sow.
Why are people so happy for Mickelson? Not because he needs the money that winning the Masters will bring him in terms of earnings and endorsements.
No, people are happy for him, one senses, because he seems to be a genuinely decent, well-rounded guy. He loves baseball (spent some time “pitching” at a major-league training camp earlier this year, as I recall, a privilege not granted many, to be sure) and is about as accommodating as an athlete can get.
That even the media on hand was largely pulling for him demonstrates that he has earned their respect and support with his determination, accessibility, straightforwardness and honesty.
So yes, every once in a while “nice guys” can, deservedly, finish first.
And set a pretty good example for others in their field in doing so.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
He Said, She Said... Or Did They?
It’s so common now, and there’s no turning back the clock.
The issue? Unidentified sources.
This is certainly not a new phenomenon. The notion of a journalist, a reporter of some description, writing a story with compelling information from “sources” is as old as journalism. (Woodward and Bernstein will likely go to their graves without revealing the name of “deep throat”, the individual largely responsible for providing the then soon-to-be-famous investigative reporters the anonymous information that led to the disintegration of the Nixon administration in the mid 1970’s. Theirs may be one of the more prominent historical cases of the media utilizing so-called “unidentified sources” to chase down a story)
That these media “sources” are often undeclared remains through the years a question of some ethical debate. Reporters have, through the years, been willing to risk jail time in order to protect – that is, not publicly identify – their sources.
One view puts the information shared privately between the “source” and the investigating reporter in the realm of a sacred trust, not to be disclosed at any cost.
Others view this approach as a dangerous game.
If a person can report as fact something that may have occurred based on information obtained from anonymous sources, what guarantee is there that such events absolutely took place?
If a reporter quotes an individual speaking about someone else, without naming the first person, how does the public know that the quote was not simply “made up” in the interests of weaving a more ‘sale’-able story?
Might the reporter have an agenda, a personal bias?
These are but a few of the simplest questions that can be asked when discussing the reality of how such sources are utilized.
I recall a time (in the late 1970’s-early 80’s, if I’m not mistaken) when Scott Young, the highly-respected columnist for the Globe& Mail resigned his position at the prestigious Canadian national newspaper. Why? Because a younger fellow writer had written a rather poisonous piece about the then General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Punch Imlach.
Perspective and fairness requires that it be said that Young and Imlach had been close through the years, and had collaborated on a couple of popular books together. But Young’s resignation stemmed from his concern that the story which vilified Imlach was filled with quotes from unidentified sources – apparently not a longstanding or fully accepted practice at the time, at least not in Young’s mind, it would seem.
Young saw this as journalistically unsound, and lacking the high ethical standards required of a reporter.
So, he resigned in protest.
Much more recently, that same newspaper ran a major story on the alleged dysfunction within the basketball operation side of the Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment empire.
The story was sprinkled liberally with anonymous quotes about then General Manager Glen Grunwald (since fired) and his supposed internal battles with the apparently soon-to-be-fired Kevin O’Neill.
Not surprisingly, the story – quoting current and former Raptor players without attribution, as well as people supposedly ‘close’ to Raptors forward Vince Carter and others within the management group of MLSE – caused a firestorm. It also undoubtedly hastened the timetable that will see the continued dismantling of the struggling organization.
For appearances’ sake, on the record, at least, the players stood behind their coach. But the public is left to wonder: Who were these anonymous players who spoke out against O’Neill? Who were the management types who allegedly said the things they said? Did anyone have an agenda here?
Were all of these quotes accurate? Was the story really credible when everyone quoted was unnamed? Could any of this have been made up?
Was the newspaper outlet and its reporters simply reflecting what was really going on inside the organization?
In recent years, one of the best – and most outspoken – players in baseball has been pitcher Curt Schilling. Schilling of course was a mainstay with the Phillies and then the Diamondbacks, when Arizona beat the Yankees in the World Series a few seasons back.
Schilling went on a nationally syndicated radio program recently, and spoke about the media attention the Red Sox receive in Boston.
His contention was that the Boston press simply make up quotes to create stories, and sell newspapers.
So we can count Schilling as one athlete who does not support the use of anonymous quotes.
If you are a young athlete, you need to be aware that the media is always looking for a story – good, bad or anywhere in between. Most ‘beat’ reporters covering the local major-league NFL, NHL or NBA team need a story a day.
When they sense trouble in paradise (i.e. within the clubhouse or dressing room, or within the front office) it is in their blood to seek out – some will say create – the story.
They will utilize whatever approach and sources they can to develop a story that is entertaining and potentially of great interest.
It may even be accurate.
My sense has long been: if you don’t want to see it in the newspaper, don’t say it. Don’t say it in the elevator, the hotel lobby or the dressing room. On the record or “off the record”.
Just don’t say it.
If you go “off the record”, if you speak on the condition of anonymity, you may feel ‘protected’. And that particular reporter may like you as a “source”, especially if your comments gave that reporter a supposed ‘scoop’. But at the end of the day, he or she will wonder about your personal integrity, all the while using your quotes to make his or her story.
Since integrity is still important to most people, that’s something worth thinking about before playing the ‘unidentified source’ game.
The issue? Unidentified sources.
This is certainly not a new phenomenon. The notion of a journalist, a reporter of some description, writing a story with compelling information from “sources” is as old as journalism. (Woodward and Bernstein will likely go to their graves without revealing the name of “deep throat”, the individual largely responsible for providing the then soon-to-be-famous investigative reporters the anonymous information that led to the disintegration of the Nixon administration in the mid 1970’s. Theirs may be one of the more prominent historical cases of the media utilizing so-called “unidentified sources” to chase down a story)
That these media “sources” are often undeclared remains through the years a question of some ethical debate. Reporters have, through the years, been willing to risk jail time in order to protect – that is, not publicly identify – their sources.
One view puts the information shared privately between the “source” and the investigating reporter in the realm of a sacred trust, not to be disclosed at any cost.
Others view this approach as a dangerous game.
If a person can report as fact something that may have occurred based on information obtained from anonymous sources, what guarantee is there that such events absolutely took place?
If a reporter quotes an individual speaking about someone else, without naming the first person, how does the public know that the quote was not simply “made up” in the interests of weaving a more ‘sale’-able story?
Might the reporter have an agenda, a personal bias?
These are but a few of the simplest questions that can be asked when discussing the reality of how such sources are utilized.
I recall a time (in the late 1970’s-early 80’s, if I’m not mistaken) when Scott Young, the highly-respected columnist for the Globe& Mail resigned his position at the prestigious Canadian national newspaper. Why? Because a younger fellow writer had written a rather poisonous piece about the then General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Punch Imlach.
Perspective and fairness requires that it be said that Young and Imlach had been close through the years, and had collaborated on a couple of popular books together. But Young’s resignation stemmed from his concern that the story which vilified Imlach was filled with quotes from unidentified sources – apparently not a longstanding or fully accepted practice at the time, at least not in Young’s mind, it would seem.
Young saw this as journalistically unsound, and lacking the high ethical standards required of a reporter.
So, he resigned in protest.
Much more recently, that same newspaper ran a major story on the alleged dysfunction within the basketball operation side of the Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment empire.
The story was sprinkled liberally with anonymous quotes about then General Manager Glen Grunwald (since fired) and his supposed internal battles with the apparently soon-to-be-fired Kevin O’Neill.
Not surprisingly, the story – quoting current and former Raptor players without attribution, as well as people supposedly ‘close’ to Raptors forward Vince Carter and others within the management group of MLSE – caused a firestorm. It also undoubtedly hastened the timetable that will see the continued dismantling of the struggling organization.
For appearances’ sake, on the record, at least, the players stood behind their coach. But the public is left to wonder: Who were these anonymous players who spoke out against O’Neill? Who were the management types who allegedly said the things they said? Did anyone have an agenda here?
Were all of these quotes accurate? Was the story really credible when everyone quoted was unnamed? Could any of this have been made up?
Was the newspaper outlet and its reporters simply reflecting what was really going on inside the organization?
In recent years, one of the best – and most outspoken – players in baseball has been pitcher Curt Schilling. Schilling of course was a mainstay with the Phillies and then the Diamondbacks, when Arizona beat the Yankees in the World Series a few seasons back.
Schilling went on a nationally syndicated radio program recently, and spoke about the media attention the Red Sox receive in Boston.
His contention was that the Boston press simply make up quotes to create stories, and sell newspapers.
So we can count Schilling as one athlete who does not support the use of anonymous quotes.
If you are a young athlete, you need to be aware that the media is always looking for a story – good, bad or anywhere in between. Most ‘beat’ reporters covering the local major-league NFL, NHL or NBA team need a story a day.
When they sense trouble in paradise (i.e. within the clubhouse or dressing room, or within the front office) it is in their blood to seek out – some will say create – the story.
They will utilize whatever approach and sources they can to develop a story that is entertaining and potentially of great interest.
It may even be accurate.
My sense has long been: if you don’t want to see it in the newspaper, don’t say it. Don’t say it in the elevator, the hotel lobby or the dressing room. On the record or “off the record”.
Just don’t say it.
If you go “off the record”, if you speak on the condition of anonymity, you may feel ‘protected’. And that particular reporter may like you as a “source”, especially if your comments gave that reporter a supposed ‘scoop’. But at the end of the day, he or she will wonder about your personal integrity, all the while using your quotes to make his or her story.
Since integrity is still important to most people, that’s something worth thinking about before playing the ‘unidentified source’ game.
Thursday, April 1, 2004
The Same People You Met on Your Way Up
Most of us have heard the oft-repeated expression, which goes something along the lines of: “Be good to the people you pass on the way up, because you’ll be seeing them again on your way back down….”
Whether one agrees with the rationale for electing to ‘be good’ in this instance (choosing ‘goodness’ because it will help your own situation, as opposed to choosing to do good simply because it is the right thing to do), it is clear that this is a philosophy shared by some, but not all, in the field of sports.
This brings to mind a revealing newspaper article penned more than ten years ago by then Globe & Mail sports columnist Marty York. York wrote a piece about the at the time just-retired Expo catcher (and now Hall-of-Famer) Gary Carter, who broke into the big leagues with the Expos, won a World Series with the Mets before ultimately ending his career with his original club.
The gist of the article was this, as I recall:
Back in the mid-later 70’s, a young cub reporter, barely out of high school, was doing some freelance reporting from spring training. Being so young, this young man had no ‘reputation’ to speak of, so he was not known to the players. He had no hands-on cash to entice players as he begged for interviews from the players on hand -- any players.
As the story goes, he was routinely and repeatedly turned down by everyone he sought out for any kind of brief interview. He was evidently rebuffed by stars and non-stars alike.
The one player who took the time to do an interview with this young, fledgling reporter was then Expos star catcher Gary Carter.
Now, part of the perspective required to fully appreciate this story was that, in his own way, Carter was much like former hockey superstar Bobby Hull. At the height of his popularity and long before players were paid handsomely to attend collector shows and sign autographs for big cash, Hull would sign for virtually every person who asked, after practices and long after games, often while his teammates were waiting impatiently for the team bus to depart.
There was some resentment of Hull, it has often been written, because he seemed to like his celebrity a little too much, was all smiles for the cameras, the media and the public.
But the reality was that Hull, in those days, was genuine in wanting to ensure that he never turned down a polite person seeking his signature or attention, especially children. (He had a personal experience in his youth when the legendary Gordie Howe granted him an autograph, and he was determined to do the same for others.)
As a personal aside, my own one-time experience with Bobby Hull, by the way, was in keeping with his reputation at the time.
It was the mid 1960’s, and the night before the Black Hawks were to play the Red Wings at the old Detroit Olympia, Hull had been brought in (and probably paid a few hundred dollars, attractive money for an athlete back then) by Canadian Tire in Windsor, Ontario to shake hands with visitors to the store the evening before the Hawks played the Wings.
I recall sitting with my Dad and an elementary school chum for at least two to three hours in our car, waiting, as Dad put it, “for the line to get shorter”.
We finally left the car as the line was down to a couple of dozen people and waited to meet The Golden Jet. My friend, wiser than I, had brought a puck to be signed, which Hull gladly signed, though this was not a night for autographs, only shaking hands.
I shook Hull’s hand. Mad dad talked farming with Hull for a couple of minutes, and we all left more than pleased.
(As recently as the fall of 2003, I attended a collectibles show with my youngest son. Hull was asked by a collector to sign a particular piece of memorabilia, but the company sponsoring Hull’s appearance said no, because the time was up and the collectible was not one provided by the sponsoring company. Hull quietly suggested that the person wait until Hull was finished his responsibilities, and then he would sign for the man, free of charge. At about that time, my son went up to shake Hull’s hand, and Hull could not have been more gracious, though he earned not a cent for the handshake. He could easily have said, “Sorry folks, my time is up…”)
Hull made a lot of money for his impatient teammates over the years, especially when he took his skills and people skills to the new World Hockey Association in 1972 and helped drive hockey salaries upwards.
To this day he remains a hockey icon in Canada, despite some events that have tarnished his public persona somewhat. He remains popular largely because he was such a positive person in dealing with the media, and so patient and responsive in dealing with the public.
Sometimes the equity you build – and Hull built plenty over the years with the media and the public – helps you a great deal when things get difficult, as they sometimes have for Hull over the years for various reasons.
Back to Carter: The story goes that, not only did Carter give an interview to the young reporter, he brought him into the team’s dugout and chatted for about half an hour.
The young man filed his story, and from there built a successful career that later resulted in his being a key decision-maker with the network that was to air the Florida Marlins games when that team joined Major League Baseball as an expansion club in the early-mid 1990’s.
The now executive received hundreds of resumes from ex-jocks, all former players looking to land the coveted job of “color analyst” on the Marlin broadcasts in their inaugural season.
No doubt many of the resumes came from haughty players who, when they were ‘somebody’, had flipped off the young reporter back in the 1970’s.
In any event, who was among those looking to land that plum assignment, even though he had no broadcast experience other than doing interviews himself?
Gary Carter.
Who got the job?
Gary Carter.
Carter, like Hull before him, was said to be envied and disliked by many of his teammates over the years. He was, they whispered, too in love with a camera, too anxious to be quoted, too much of a self-promoter.
Yet, the above story reveals that his old teammates apparently wouldn’t give the time of day to a young guy who was just trying to catch a break, and get his career going in a small way.
But Carter did. And years later, the young man remembered, and returned the favor.
Whatever Carter’s motivation way back when, the story reminds us all – and certainly is a reminder for young athletes who are on their way to earning a more than substantial living as a professional athlete – that if being good to others because it is the right thing to do is not motivation enough, then doing good because you might benefit down the road is an acceptable “back up” motivation, perhaps.
Isn’t it better to make time for others, be accommodating, be patient, especially when you’ve been blessed with the opportunity to earn your living – a very successful living – doing something you really love to do?
Whether one agrees with the rationale for electing to ‘be good’ in this instance (choosing ‘goodness’ because it will help your own situation, as opposed to choosing to do good simply because it is the right thing to do), it is clear that this is a philosophy shared by some, but not all, in the field of sports.
This brings to mind a revealing newspaper article penned more than ten years ago by then Globe & Mail sports columnist Marty York. York wrote a piece about the at the time just-retired Expo catcher (and now Hall-of-Famer) Gary Carter, who broke into the big leagues with the Expos, won a World Series with the Mets before ultimately ending his career with his original club.
The gist of the article was this, as I recall:
Back in the mid-later 70’s, a young cub reporter, barely out of high school, was doing some freelance reporting from spring training. Being so young, this young man had no ‘reputation’ to speak of, so he was not known to the players. He had no hands-on cash to entice players as he begged for interviews from the players on hand -- any players.
As the story goes, he was routinely and repeatedly turned down by everyone he sought out for any kind of brief interview. He was evidently rebuffed by stars and non-stars alike.
The one player who took the time to do an interview with this young, fledgling reporter was then Expos star catcher Gary Carter.
Now, part of the perspective required to fully appreciate this story was that, in his own way, Carter was much like former hockey superstar Bobby Hull. At the height of his popularity and long before players were paid handsomely to attend collector shows and sign autographs for big cash, Hull would sign for virtually every person who asked, after practices and long after games, often while his teammates were waiting impatiently for the team bus to depart.
There was some resentment of Hull, it has often been written, because he seemed to like his celebrity a little too much, was all smiles for the cameras, the media and the public.
But the reality was that Hull, in those days, was genuine in wanting to ensure that he never turned down a polite person seeking his signature or attention, especially children. (He had a personal experience in his youth when the legendary Gordie Howe granted him an autograph, and he was determined to do the same for others.)
As a personal aside, my own one-time experience with Bobby Hull, by the way, was in keeping with his reputation at the time.
It was the mid 1960’s, and the night before the Black Hawks were to play the Red Wings at the old Detroit Olympia, Hull had been brought in (and probably paid a few hundred dollars, attractive money for an athlete back then) by Canadian Tire in Windsor, Ontario to shake hands with visitors to the store the evening before the Hawks played the Wings.
I recall sitting with my Dad and an elementary school chum for at least two to three hours in our car, waiting, as Dad put it, “for the line to get shorter”.
We finally left the car as the line was down to a couple of dozen people and waited to meet The Golden Jet. My friend, wiser than I, had brought a puck to be signed, which Hull gladly signed, though this was not a night for autographs, only shaking hands.
I shook Hull’s hand. Mad dad talked farming with Hull for a couple of minutes, and we all left more than pleased.
(As recently as the fall of 2003, I attended a collectibles show with my youngest son. Hull was asked by a collector to sign a particular piece of memorabilia, but the company sponsoring Hull’s appearance said no, because the time was up and the collectible was not one provided by the sponsoring company. Hull quietly suggested that the person wait until Hull was finished his responsibilities, and then he would sign for the man, free of charge. At about that time, my son went up to shake Hull’s hand, and Hull could not have been more gracious, though he earned not a cent for the handshake. He could easily have said, “Sorry folks, my time is up…”)
Hull made a lot of money for his impatient teammates over the years, especially when he took his skills and people skills to the new World Hockey Association in 1972 and helped drive hockey salaries upwards.
To this day he remains a hockey icon in Canada, despite some events that have tarnished his public persona somewhat. He remains popular largely because he was such a positive person in dealing with the media, and so patient and responsive in dealing with the public.
Sometimes the equity you build – and Hull built plenty over the years with the media and the public – helps you a great deal when things get difficult, as they sometimes have for Hull over the years for various reasons.
Back to Carter: The story goes that, not only did Carter give an interview to the young reporter, he brought him into the team’s dugout and chatted for about half an hour.
The young man filed his story, and from there built a successful career that later resulted in his being a key decision-maker with the network that was to air the Florida Marlins games when that team joined Major League Baseball as an expansion club in the early-mid 1990’s.
The now executive received hundreds of resumes from ex-jocks, all former players looking to land the coveted job of “color analyst” on the Marlin broadcasts in their inaugural season.
No doubt many of the resumes came from haughty players who, when they were ‘somebody’, had flipped off the young reporter back in the 1970’s.
In any event, who was among those looking to land that plum assignment, even though he had no broadcast experience other than doing interviews himself?
Gary Carter.
Who got the job?
Gary Carter.
Carter, like Hull before him, was said to be envied and disliked by many of his teammates over the years. He was, they whispered, too in love with a camera, too anxious to be quoted, too much of a self-promoter.
Yet, the above story reveals that his old teammates apparently wouldn’t give the time of day to a young guy who was just trying to catch a break, and get his career going in a small way.
But Carter did. And years later, the young man remembered, and returned the favor.
Whatever Carter’s motivation way back when, the story reminds us all – and certainly is a reminder for young athletes who are on their way to earning a more than substantial living as a professional athlete – that if being good to others because it is the right thing to do is not motivation enough, then doing good because you might benefit down the road is an acceptable “back up” motivation, perhaps.
Isn’t it better to make time for others, be accommodating, be patient, especially when you’ve been blessed with the opportunity to earn your living – a very successful living – doing something you really love to do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)