alright you guys, I've thought it over, and...
... what about leading by example and simply not covering whichever loser pro-athlete is cheating on their wife?
ball-players have always cheated on their wives, but writers/show hosts/commentators have not always covered the stories, that is the difference, don't you think?
or leading by example, like i do, and simply NOT booing Barry Bonds. by being at the games and acting appropriately in the midst of lots of others behaving badly.
one at a time can go a long way. leading by example can go along way. or so i hope, anyway...
it's because of coverage like that in today's paper about whoever is cheating on who, or acting badly in whichever way, that i don't buy or read those papers. these are the same papers (pretty much every paper in NY, sadly) that don't provide equal coverage of both of our ball teams, and i won't play ball with any of them for these reasons as well. does my $0.50 matter to them? I doubt it. Or will their advertisers miss having me see their ads? Seriously doubt it. But still, if there are a couple hundred or thousand people who feel this way, and who don't patronize these 'news' sources, perhaps it makes a difference over time?
coverage like that is exactly why i ONLY get my sports news (and game coverage via my full-season and off-season video subscriptions, thank you, MLB.com) from sources like yours, and the official team sources. i don't have much power, but at least i know i'm not part of the problem, that i give my hard-earned cash to deserving companies, and i appreciate that (usually) mlb.com isn't part of the problem either.
just one baseball fan's opinion, of course.
let's go mets!
melissa from brooklyn
[It was Vinny who read it, and then John who said "Melissa, that was a great email." :blush: Aww, thanks John! They went on to discuss it for a while, largely agreeing with me but also wondering whether it is the media who forces us to care about things we wouldn't normally care about, or is it that The People actually care about such things and the media is merely giving them what they want? I tend to think that people will generally care about whatever they are led to care about, at least with regard to print or other media, and that it's more likely the media that's the problem here, rather than the audience. Only a very sophisticated consumer can see through sensational headlines, images and language, to see that they're being manipulated, and even for the sophisticated I might think it'd be a challenge at times. So that's what I think, tho they never really reached a conclusion on the show.]