On Velvet Ropes

None of you that have fashioned yourselves as self made writers through blogging need to do anything but do what you do. Personally, I feel you are not respecting yourself and work enough when you want to disparage other writers, and make your story about another writer instead of just doing what you do. Just as it is tragic when the umpire becomes the news instead of the game and players, so it is with writers writing about other writers. If the musician needs to tell you what the song is about in an introduction to the song, or how to hear the song, the song needs work. It should all be in the song.

Uhhh... on a really really quality forum with tons of great dialogue, with many reliable bloggers who often disagree, it shocks me that the velvet rope is even controversial. We literally had a respected poster break a Brian Dozier trade this off-season... that never happened. Access matters big time. In fact I think it's hypocritical to suggest otherwise, as our favorite bloggers frequently post whenever they get inside access. And we all love it. Access should be limited. There has to be a velvet rope. One could easily assert that Souhan deserves to be outside. Clearly his sources trust him to be in the inside. He literally for information that no one else had, but we have all probably wondered about. He added his own opinions which confused as to what was organizational concern and what was his own conjecture.

 

Anyone can start a blog. You don't need a journalism degree or even a GED. Limiting access to responsible journalists makes sense for everyone. Souhan supports the velvet rope, but he doesn't out it up. His attitude about it is very offputting, but that isn't really the point. I remember him begging bitter about Randy Moss getting a dream sports reporting gig with FOX after trashing the media in Minnesota. It was hilarious to see Moss go straight to the front desk while Souhan continues to struggle as a mere local personality. He is what he is. Appreciate the access, ignore the opinion.

Maybe I should start here. Can we all agree on the following thoughts / assumptions / conjecture / speculation / or whatever you want to call it?

 

*Miguel Sano is a pretty GD good third baseman, regardless of however much he weighs. Today, at 24 years of age.

 

*Sano is infinitely more valuable as a third baseman. His value will decrease if he moves to a lesser-premium defensive position like first base, and will certainly decrease more if he is ever moved to full-time DH.

 

*Sano may be able to play effectively at 285 or whatever, at age 24. Guess what? He ain't gonna be 24 forever. Most people are susceptible to gaining weight as they age. It would be extremely short-sighted, if not flat-out negligent, for the Twins to turn a blind eye to this. The sooner Sano addresses this, the easier it will be to remedy. It would take a lot of work & discipline for him to get down to 250 or 260. It will take a whole lot more effort than that for him to get down to 260 if he keeps putting on weight as he heads towards and passes the 300 mark.

 

*At some point, the Twins are going to have to decide whether or not they will be willing to commit to Sano long-term. Anyone think they aren't extremely nervous about committing big money & term on a guy whose size is going to have a major impact on his future? And if you don't believe that, can you at least acknowledge the uncertainty about where Sano will play in the field (if he's in the field at all) a mere five years from now, before Sano even hits 30?

Now, for the non-baseball side of this fiasco:

 

I have forged relationships with people I respect & admire on both sides of this debate. In the interest of full disclosure, I was once a blogger for the MinnCentric team. I enjoy Twins Daily a great deal. I also co-host a show on Souhan's podcast network.

 

Jim felt compelled to defend himself after his professionalism & integrity fell under attack for his August column on Sano. I get that. But I don't think there was much to gain by going after the bloggers. I think I know what he was driving at regarding the "People you should & shouldn't listen to" regarding Twins coverage. But it came across as self-righteous grandstanding. Again, I think I get where he was going here, but some different wording could have given more credence to his point.

 

As for Gleeman's part, I think he's come across here as pretty sophomoric. In his blind rage, he's alleged Souhan has written things that he hasn't. I haven't seen Souhan call Sano "soft" or blame him for being injured fouling a pitch off his shin. If he has & I missed it, please feel free to point that out to me. If Aaron inferred those things from something Souhan wrote, I would put that back on him. If someone infers something that was not written, isn't that on the reader? Jim did speculate that Sano's weight may prolong his recovery. Not sure there's a definitive answer there, but the longer Sano is out, maybe lends that there may be something to that theory.

 

Aaron also likes to post other people's questionable tweets on Twitter in an effort to tear them down or make them look foolish. Right or wrong, this comes across to me as rather petty, & just isn't a good look.

 

John's article here references Souhan's "Sano is Too Fat" article. That may have been how John read it, but that's not how I did. More than likely, our pre-existing biases play a role in our perceptions. Maybe even a larger role than we realize, or are willing to acknowledge.

 

Now this whole thing has (d)evolved into a pissing match. Pick a side, and then defend it vociferously. Logic & reason be damned. From my seat, this entire thing is as much, if not more, about who wrote it than what was written.

 

For my part, I will choose what I read, what I listen to, and what I believe all on my own. I ingest a ton of Twins content, and I can form my own opinions on the legitimacy & credibility of all that I take in. I do believe access is helpful, but I have read plenty of great content that's proven it's not a necessity, and will continue to do so.

 

As a friend of mine said- paraphrasing- 'This whole thing started when people took issue with the notion that a 300lb third baseman is sub-optimal...'

Access is very much a two edged sword! For both the reporter and the reader. There is a fine line between the reporter being coerced by access, and abusing it. It's a dance I would not want to do everyday. IMHO a reporter maintains a professional, yet agreeable distance between himself and his subject matter. If he writes what he considers a disruptive piece about the subject, he must be sure that his report has some basis. If it doesn't he will end up like me, sitting in a chair writing on a thread to TD. If he writes nothing but fawning accolades, his access will last much longer, but his readership will dribble to the choir. It's likely a far more difficult task to remain employed at that position for that many years, as Souhan, Ruesse, and their ilk has, than we would care to admit. At the point of that sword is the reader. We should be responsible enough to decipher and appreciate the nuances and the differences of the zillions of words and opinions spewed out daily by the press, bloggers, and some guy sitting in his chair. For if we decide about the validity of a story, simply based on who wrote it, or what the subject was, or with a bias towards the publication or media, then we waste time reading it, and even more time commenting on it. Whether one likes Souhan or not his article on Sanos weight was not disrespectful or insulting, and Sanos weight is certainly a concern. The lashing he took for it was probably overwrought, as was his blog response. I don't think his core premise that Access = Accuracy was wrong. But he could have left us decide which reporter/blogger uses their level of Access to the utmost Accuracy.

This thing went so far off the rails, there are no winners here.

 

But yes, I will agree the fat-shaming is also not a good look. And in the interest of being even-handed, I should have included that in my run-down on the whole fiasco.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Doubles

 

I pity Souhan. That's the most fearful, bitter rant I've read outside of conspiracy blogs.

 

Agreed. Starts out with the always cringe-worthy: "I'm not too good at this social media thing"....oh boy, heeeere we go. 

 

Then goes on to call everyone who criticizes his column Cinnabon-eating cowards and trolls.

 

Epic meltdown.

IMO... I think he did a terrible job making his point and that is why many misunderstood what he meant in the original article. I don't put that on the reader... I put that on the writer. 

 

That doesn't mean he is a terrible writer... just not very good this time. I immediately forgave him for that.

 

Now... The blog that followed?

 

Way too much ego. It was a bad idea from the start. He needed to go for a walk before sending.

 

Probably true! And that could apply to social media in general.

Had Souhan's original column contained some of the supporting evidence (this is who I talked to, this is how I followed up - etc.) that his second column contained, I think this whole thing is a non-issue. The problem many readers (myself included) had was that his original take was poorly argued and did not articulate his ultimate point. It read like a cheap shot at Sano, conveniently issued just as he went on the DL. 

 

The second column contains too many pot shots (Perkins, the "unnamed" blogger(s) who readers shouldn't trust) for me to put much credence in the content. In that regard, I feel like John's post is right on point. Souhan's take reads as "quality is defined by access" - and as others have successfully argued already - that's not accurate. 

 

Ultimately, it's much ado about nothing. I don't seek out Souhan's content due to many of the same issues that popped up in these past two columns. Readers should voice their opinion with clicks. Read the good stuff (e.g. Berardino, Brandon's stuff at Zone Coverage, Gleeman, and Twins Daily) and let the others shout into the void. 

Edited September 5, 2017 by iTwins

 

Forget about Souhan’s first column entirely for a minute. In the second column, he fat-shamed. On that basis alone, he loses.

 

I get what you're saying.  But the initial Sano column is where this all started.  Agree, the fat-shaming in the follow-up blog was out of bounds.  So was Gleeman's Twitter tirade alleging Souhan blamed Sano for his injury and called him soft, when neither of those things happened.

 

Just my opinion, but I lose a measure of respect for Aaron every time he mentions his kimono or Cinnabon.  I don't blame him for feeling insulted, but it was at his own behest.  He went after Souhan, questioned his professionalism & integrity.  Jim took the bait with an inflammatory blog post that crossed the line. I'm not saying that makes it right.  But now it looks like Gleeman is reveling in all the attention, and in my opinion, looks worse for doing so.  

 

As I said earlier, there are no winners here.  Everyone looks bad. 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Doubles

 

 

 

So, Sano quite literally could weigh 270-290 right now and be in better shape than he was at 260. That's 100% feasible. He also could have a very long career playing at 280 pounds on the infield. The number on the scale has minimal bearing on whether he's able to handle third base, it's 100% on the composition of his body as he attempts to handle the position, and Sano has missed almost nothing this year as far as games, outside of a few games early in August when he was plunked on the hand. 

 

I haven't re-read Souhan's article....but wasn't there a reference to Sano's weight fluctuating during the season?  I'm no kinesiologist, but I think there is a pretty low limit on the amount of 'good weight' that can be added in a short time frame.  So if Sano was at 260 in spring training, but is pushing 290 now, it's almost guaranteed that the gain is mostly 'bad weight'.  I'm kind of surprised no nutritional/fitness trainers have hopped in to discuss this (or maybe I missed it). I read the original article more as a warning long-term.  

 

I'm not sure what the "cuts both ways" comment is about here.

 

They know who he is and what he does -- and still gave him that information. They trusted him to disseminate it. 

 

They know who he is and what he does -- and still gave him that information. They trusted him to disseminate it. 

 

Agree, and this point furthers my belief that people had as much, if not more issue with who wrote it than what was written.  Messenger-killing.

 

I'd argue that the "when" was more impactful than the "who" or "what" in this case, but let's not act like Souhan hasn't earned a reputation for being unfair to injured players. 

 

...and I agree with that. It was poorly timed delivery on a pertinent message.

The view outside of the ropes is different than what you see inside the ropes. A bit further out you see the bigger picture. Inside the ropes you can find more detail. The argument that being let inside the ropes makes you somehow less objective, more homerish, in the writing is blown when it is pointed out that Souhan is unfair to players with injuries. The article is older, critical (unfairly) yet Souhan still moves freely inside the ropes.

The first piece by Souhan will not win any awards for writing. To make it twist proof would require more column inches than any newspaper would allow. I do not know the newspaper process to know if the editor shortened the piece.  The retort piece would have been a little more palatable had he just called out Gleeman and the twitter people leaving comments. The second piece in my opinion should not have made it past an editor unless the editor wanted the attention for the paper.   If Gleeman did indeed say that Souhan called Sano fat, Gleeman should be ripped as a journalist for the twisting. That will not be done by the writers outside the velvet ropes. That objectivity appears lost.

The "when" of this article being published was what irritated me initially, as it was way too convenient to publish the day after Sano was injured. Frankly, this story didn't need to be published at any point during the season. The Twins are playing good baseball, and there should be other stories to focus on than a hot take piece on Sano's "optimal weight".

 

If this were published in August 2016 when the Twins were 40-odd games under .500 and Sano struggling, I could understand. Not when the Twins are in the wild card hunt and playing well.

But he's REPORTING. You can't sit on comments then publish them months later and call it fair to your sources. I guess my issue is that Souhan, apparently, has not drawn a distinct line between news and op ed. Read his column as an op ed and no one should have any heartburn. You're talking about censoring the message (not disclosing something news worthy because of fear of being the murdered messanger). And I have a huge issue with that, in sports or other more important news. Edited September 5, 2017 by Jham

I have enjoyed reading the article and the comments about this topic, and I think it's an important topic.  It would be nice if Souhan could participate in this, but judging from his last blog or article (whatever it was), he'd likely get banned by the moderators for gratuitous ad hominem attacks.