A-Rod vs. WSJ and NYTimes

A-Rod, A-Rod, A-Rod.  I’m tired of all the “A-Rod” stories.  It’s not just the Sports section that’s sensationalizing this story; it’s the Health section, the US section, and even the coverage page.  If feels as though both newspapers and society sensationalize the bad and hide the good.

Ironically, those previous statements can be contradictory at best.  Because what am I writing about? Alex Rodriguez aka “A-Rod.”

NY Times writers, David Waldstein and Steve Eder, published “Rodriguez Denies Implicating Others,” on August 16.  The article regards the recent reports and a “60 Minutes” interview with former Yankee all-star, Alex Rodriquez.  According to Waldstein and Eder, “the CBS news program “60 Minutes,” citing two unnamed sources, reported that associates of Rodriguez had leaked information tying other players to the anti-aging clinic at the heart of baseball’s recent drug investigations.”

The NY Times article is a bit of a contradiction.  It states the facts that led up to A-Rod’s current position and it states upcoming punishments or suspensions.  Additionally, the article features suitable quotes from both Rodriquez and other MLB players.  Yet the writers squeeze their own opinion on the article.  The writers state, “He [Rodriguez] was willing to point the finger at other players, perhaps to divert attention from his own Biogenesis problems.”  Although the facts point to Rodriguez incriminating fellow team members, it doesn’t seem fair to automatically assume he’s the bad guy.  It’s crucial to dig deeper into the story and discover what associates leaked the information.  Sure he may be guilty, but provide both sides of the story.  At least, that way, the article won’t shadow the plethora of ‘A-Rod articles.’

The Wall Street Journal published, “MLB Challenges Rodriguez to Present Evidence in Biogenesis Case,” on August 19, 2013.  The article regards the A-Rod scandal, of course, but it manages to portray the scandal in such a unique way.  I use the word unique because the article is unlike any of the other A-Rod stories published.  Unlike the other articles, the writer does not take a particular side.  Moreover, the article does not portray A-Rod as an MLB monster. The WSJ simply states the facts of the case.  “MLB Challenges Rodriguez to Present Evidence in Biogenesis Case,” steps outside the norm and almost allows the reader to forget about the bad image in which the media has infringed upon A-Rod.  If anything, the reader forgets Rodriquez and remembers to Tacopina.  Joseph Tacopina is one of Rodriquez’s attorneys.   Tacopina declined to discuss his client’s side on the “Today Show,” after receiving a letter by MLB Executive Vice President, Rob Manfred.  According to the article, the letter essentially offered, “to allow both sides to argue their cases regarding Rodriguez’s appeal of his 211-game suspension in the court of public opinion before it goes before an arbitrator.”  He declined for fear that it was a “trap”. It wasn’t until the last two or three paragraphs that the writer started discussing A-Rod.  Even toward the end of the article Rodriguez wasn’t portrayed as negatively as the media had previously characterized him to be.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s