Panic At Nabisco

Yesterday during the game against the Toronto Blue Jays, Josh Beckett pitched just 2 & 1/3 innings and gave up EIGHT earned runs.
When he went to the dugout, he ripped off his shirt and carried on like a twelve-year old BRAT. He then had nothing but a litany of whiny curses for the media after the game.
Did Josh Beckett exhibit good sportsmanship? Is he a good role model? Does he cope with a poor performance well?
Even though these questions answer themselves, I'd be willing to bet that deserved criticism will slide off of his Teflon back...because; #1): He's still Josh Beckett; and until we see games like yesterday become more of a common display, we still think of him as the Josh Beckett of last October. #2): He doesn't need Flomax, so he's not relieving himself behind the "Green Monster." Nor does he have a chapped "diaper" (please substitute that word for the word that rhymes with "glass") towards any of the management (that we know of); so he hasn't expressed himself in such a way. No, he's yet to be considered "an embarrassment" by foaming at the mouth like Manny Ramirez, and probably won't be doing that anytime soon.
But if you ask me, Josh Beckett's performance yesterday (both on & off the field) was absolutely reprehensible. But I'll bet the headlines of the paper today will only reflect the fact that he had "an off game."

I am saddened and disgusted by the fact that so many fans are in such a hurry to kick Manny Ramirez to the curb.

Manny is foaming a lot of...uh..."unfortunate" stuff from his mouth in his embittered "mental" state, there's little doubt about that. 

But what about all that Manny has done for us?  What about the World Series'?  How many of you think we would have made it all the way without him?  Even if you think we could have made it without him, he gave us some of our greatest thrills along the way.

I forgive Manny for his comments.  I don't think he's really thinking about what he's saying.  I think he's just a bit messed-up right now.  I can't believe how judgmental everyone is being towards him.  None of you have ever said regrettable things when you've been bitter?  ...Glad you're all so da&mn perfect.

I know the massive sh&it-storm I'm facing for this blog, but I don't really care.  I'm quite grateful that I'm not such a hateful person nor am I a disloyal fan.

...Love you, Manny.  Wherever you're going, I hope you find what you're looking for.  Thanks for the great memories.

The media is very much a "damned if they do - damned if they don't" entity.

If they do cover the all of the news, they risk getting accused of "hype".  If they don't cover certain stories, everyone is screaming, "What's going on with...?(x, y, & z)".

Take the latest controversies over Tom Brady, for example...

It is relevant to report on the fact that Tom Brady - beloved Patriots quarterback who has taken his team to an undefeated season thus far with only the Superbowl left - was wearing a protective boot of some kind.  It's also relevant to report the fact that he was a no-show at practice, no matter if he was just waiting for the media to leave or what the reason!

But as usual, we have countless, implacable people who can't wait to throw their verbal tomatoes at the media; accusing them of so-called "hype".  Even though if nothing was said about Tom Brady, you can bet this same lynch-mob would be screaming "What the hell is going on?  What's the news on Tom Brady?  Is his foot OK or not?"

I really wish the media would conspire to be mum on a highly sought-after story just once - just to witness the outcry upon such an omission.  The hypocrisy would be undeniable.  The media could then collectively turn around and say, "Well, we didn't want to be guilty of HYPE !"

Is "hype" merely reporting on any controversial story?  Because I thought it was sensationalizing, and "amping-up" a controversial story.  I could have sworn that to have "hype", you had to do more than just report the facts; I thought you had to aggrandize the speculation and worry.  ...Dizzying editing, excitable voices, "swooshes"; unreasonable, wild speculations...all the earmarks of "hype". 

Simply saying "Tom Brady is wearing a protective boot.  Will he be OK for the Superbowl?" is not hype--it's journalism.  When someone is wearing a protective boot, of course it's reasonable to speculate on their well-being!  That does not make it hype!

TMZ hyped the story.  They used dizzying editing, excitable voices, fast camera-zooms...all of that...  Well, duh!  If you watch shows like TMZ and any tabloid-type of news program, hopefully you're smart enough to expect hype.  But don't even count them as "media".  It's not fair to the serious news broadcasts.  You cannot compare the Fox 25 News at 5:00 to TMZ; not fairly anyhow.

I want to know that Tom Brady is ready for the Superbowl.  I want to know the updates.  I want to stay informed and kept abreast of the updates.  Those of you who don't; shut off your TV's and give yourself a rectal exam.  But keep your hype to yourself.