And when I say this:

“and it IS fine and dandy that they do what they do, since they are consistent with their standards”

I mean as well that it’s because I will let society (TV viewers) decide for themselves whether to listen to them or not.  I am not in favor of having some ethical or moral compass be set so that everyone has to revolve around that.  Let people do whatever they need to do (within the bounds of the law), and the “Wisdom of the Crowd” will tune them out as they see fit.

OK, Tom, we get it: you like neither the Fox News Channel nor conservative talk show hosts. Thanks for repeatedly sharing that information.

For Bill,

Actually, though, Ichiro’s OBP was only marginally better in 2007 than it is now. The only reason he’s not blowing that away is because his walk rate is way down. Why should he walk when he’s crushing the ball? And since when does steroids talk and speculation center around OBP?

Fact is, Ichiro is on-pace for his best OPS and slugging percentage since 2004, his most home runs and isolated power since 2005 and his most doubles since 2001. His OPS and slugging is the best of his career because of the home runs and doubles. That’s the stuff that’s being used to fuel steroids speculation in Ibanez’s case, so why not here in Ichiro’s case?

And remember, in 2004, Ichiro was 30. In 2005, he was 31.

Today, he is 35 and will be 36 in November, exactly the type of “late bloomer’’ status that is being used to excuse the Ibanez speculation. So, why not have some Ichiro speculation? He is coming close to career highs or second-best highs in several power categories. Sounds like fair game to me, if we apply the “logic’’ used to justify the targetting of Ibanez.

I just think it stinks in both cases.

And how about this idea? A player could also have theoretically used steroids to maintain a consistent level of production from 2001-2009. So, if Ichiro was indeed consistent all those years—which he wasn’t, because of the power spike I just showed you—could steroids not be the reason he is just as consistent at 35 as he was at age 28? Of course it could be. Which is why this type of speculation about Ibanez is bunk. You could speculate about anybody, given what we know about PEDs.

Morris had zero grounds to do so, other than the whispers of the uninformed, chattering classes, who he gave a voice to for whatever resaon.

@Jack, I happen to agree with you completely that societal ethical standards and, clearly, the ethical standards of those who are deemed by the reader responsible for disseminating “fact” should surpass legal definitions for defamation, libel, or slander (depending on the medium). 

No one should have to defend themselves against innuendo, nor, to use a phrase from “The Common Man” have a burden of proof of innocence against media rantings, suppositions, and, quite often, imagination; therefore, “Should the accusation be made?” is highly relevant. 

@Tom, if I understand your post, because left side of that bell-shaped curve called “ethical reporting” is so low, prohibiting other writers who consciously or inadvertently stoop to that level would essentially be engaging in censorship.  The media has already proved that it is corrupt and it’s hypocritical for it to bash others when they engage in the same journalistic style.  Hard for me to disagree with that, either.

Given that there is a worst kind of journalism that is promoted by some mainstream media sources and apparently acceptable and believable by a segment of the population, I have questions for Jack, Tom, and anyone else who’d like to comment.

Who should provide the moral and ethical leadership to solve this without engaging in censorship?
Asking an individual journalist with no moral/ethical compass to self-censor is akin to asking Madoff to run the NASD.
Should “reporting” come with rating system: “fact”, “some facts mixed with opinion”, “opinion”,“wild-ass guess”, etc.  so that the casual or lowest common denominator of reader doesn’t mistake one for the other?
Should it apply to any outlets where it is available for public consumption? 

@LCee- I dislike the falsification of information or deliberate misrepresentation of fact to support a political agenda, be it liberal or conservative.  After days of researching original source data (not media commentary from either side), Tom has merely pointed out the most consistently flagrant examples of those who engage in that type of “journalism/commentary”.

Geoff,

your substitution of Ichiro as a subject of PED speculation is a false analogy.  Ichiro has at one time, as you point out, produced at the level that he is currently at.  So our reasoning can accept that perhaps all of his peaks have come together in the same season.  Toss in the colloquial BP stories of Ichiro’s homerun power, and the whole season’s production is palatable. 

However, Ibanez is paced for numbers he has NEVER produced in his career (he does not “own” this production ability), and is generating the increased output at an age when a vast majority of hitters have already begun their decline. 

also consider that Ibanez is on pace for 57 HRs (cbssportsline.com player page).  His career high is 33.  Do you know how many players have hit 50+ HRs in a single season after turning 35?  Just two—Barry bonds (age 36 when he hit 73) and Mark McGwire (age 35 in 1999, hitting 65).

I am not saying that Ibanez is juicing.  I think the hot-start scenario (previously mentioned) is much more plausible, but I can’t ignore the possibility he could totally be Palmeiro-ing the situation, either. 

regarding another post, about the “B” student… no, you wouldn’t normally suspect a the kid of cheating in those circumstances.  But what if it came to light that 5 of the kids in the class had been caught hacking in to the teacher’s computer and getting the answer keys to the tests? Obviously, those were the “A” students (since they had all the answers) who were violating the class code of ethics.  A sudden increase in performance by another student would de facto call into question whether or not they had been involved in the cheating scam.

Re: who makes the standards?

This quote is from The Economist’s Lexington columnist:

“I think blogging is a way to test out an argument, explore a corner of an idea, expand on a thought, update a story, or otherwise look at a loose thread.”

If Lexington/The Economist is qualified to set the standard for blogging, set a standard, maybe this is it, and if so, it seems to me that Jerrod Morris falls within it. 

I wasn’t looking for the quote, but happened across it moments ago, and just thought I’d share: reasonable DO seem to disagree.

First off, quickly, thank you Mr. Baker for taking the time to respond. I agree 2 wrongs do not make a right, I obviously would not expect you to read every article written about baseball, and I appreciate and agree with the underlying rationale of your response.

I think what this discussion has shown is that taking things in voids and vacuums are bad and civil discussion is good. (Um, duh.) But seriously, I, for one, now understand and appreciate Mr. Baker’s initial arguments much better. I also understand the counterarguments much better. But more importantly, I think we also see that there is nuance and context and complication and history that need to be chewed over before jumping to heated, combative conclusions. This is all obvious and no one here needs to be reminded of it, but I think sometimes we tend to get lost inside of an us-versus-them mentality and then occasionally some parts of our brains shut off. Sometimes we also go a little too far in the name of wit or humor. And sometimes we forget that the other people involved are, well, people. All you see is text, and it’s much easier to put text in a little box and not consider the varied, multi-dimensional mind that is behind the text. Anyway my point is, there’s a lot of journalists who wouldn’t have the decency and patience to jump into this conversation, there’s a lot of bloggers who would have tried to capitalize on this or would have tried to score points by being clever ahead of being open to discussion, and there’s A LOT of people trolling the internet who would have sough to destroy or severely lower the tone of this conversation for their own amusement. So it’s pretty darn cool that instead of point-counterpoint, followed by angry-point-angry-counterpoint, followed by name calling and shouting, we’ve been able to have a conversation. Personally, I think I’ve learned the lesson mooseinohio mentioned a little while back, it’s more important to be civil (and open-minded) than it is to prove to the world that you and only you are right.

Just dropping in to say two things:

1. I’ve done my fair share of defamation law (even represented some newspapers!) and I can say with great confidence that there is an absolutely zero possibility that anything in Morris’ article could even arguably be construed as “actual malice.”  To suggest that Morris is a libel case is ridiculous, and I submit that the subject was injected into the debate as a means to provide some false moral high ground to those attacking him and bloggers in general.  We can argue whether he was “right” to write what he did, but the legal aspect to this is a red herring.

2. I personally don’t subscribe to the notion that someone’s moral compass is dictated or even suggested by the outlet for which they write. Any writer is only as good as his body of work, and no one is entitled to any greater deference or any greater scorn based on whether they’re a blogger or a paid reporter for a major daily or major media company.  I welcome the same scrutiny of my work that any MSM journalist normally receives, and in fact, I’d be insulted if someone told me that I’m subject to a lower standard as a blogger.  Sure, maybe that helps me if go astray, but credibility and integrity is a two way street.  Give me full credit when I do something good, give me full scorn when I #### up.

Any other approach is madness in my mind.

Geoff,

Again, you’re just WAY off-base in your understanding of libel and slander law. Just keep reading the link you just posted—the whole thing is about the “public figure doctrine,” which is the very thing that makes you terribly wrong about this. (You did mention “malice” in your blog post, but gave no hint at all of what a huge, almost insurmountable hurdle the “actual malice” standard actually is for public figures.)

For better or worse (I’d think most people in your line of work would be pretty well convinced it’s “better”), the Supreme Court has read our Constitution to make it almost impossible to defame a public figure (which Ibanez is, at least for these purposes) unless you’re really, really trying to. No amount of pure speculation will ever suffice. If he had said “Raul Ibanez is on steroids” in a way that suggested he knew it to be true, or if the article had been written about my cousin Jim Bob the obscure middle manager, then that would be an issue. Public figures often do sue for defamation, but they almost literally never have a leg to stand on.

I wrote a much longer explanation of it on my own blog (the-daily-something.blogspot.com), but the tone of it is the much more antagonistic tone of two days ago, so I don’t even want to link to it directly. If you do read it, I’ve softened on this a great deal since then (as it seems like most of us have on both sides), and I apologize.  

To get back to your response to me about Ichiro: I agree with you that it’s dumb to speculate about either Ichiro *or* Ibanez. But that misses the point. Ibanez is having exactly the kind of season, assuming it continues the way it’s started, that always leads to steroid speculation among large sectors of both your colleagues and mine (to the extent that bloggers are “colleagues,” which sounds a little haughty for our meagre set). Ichiro’s is just nowhere close. Yeah, he’s hit a couple more HR, but it’s all well within the bounds of what you might expect from him based on 2005-2008. I guess both Ichiro and Raul have hit twice as many HR as you’d expect, but there’s no reason to pretend that doubling up on 2 is anything at all like doubling up on 11. So both the bloggers and MSM (or some portions of both) engage in just the kind of speculation Morris engaged in; Craig writing a completely out-of-left(or right?)-field piece trashing Ichiro would be a totally different matter, so I don’t see how that gets us anywhere.

“Do you hold the WSJ to the same standard that you hold Hannity or Olbermann?  Or do you do as I suggest, and evaluate people based on their own standards?”

With the caveat that I no longer watch cable news of any type, I’ll offer that I don’t consider Hannity and Olbermann on the one hand, and the WSJ on the other, to be in the same business.  The talking heads are entertainers, and within their little world, yes, I hold them all to the same standard, and that standard is hardly ever met (thus my abandonment of them).

And that kind of distinction probably goes for me and you too.  I dabble (very inartfully) in some rough analysis. You don’t comment on breaking news and stuff and big circus issues as much as I do.  For the most part, we’re doing differnt things, even if we both do it in the context of our blogs.  My view is that any speculation you do about Roger Clemens in the service of your analysis of Roger Clemens’ performance is a different thing than my analysis of Roger Clemens as a person or personality or his Hall of Fame case or whatever. You have to speculate to make sense of numbers. If I speculate, it probably has to be couched differently.

Or maybe not. I’m not sure, to be honest. If it helps, though, I’ll state again that Morris’ stuff didn’t violate any standard in my mind.