Friday, September 22, 2006

End-of-Week Review

Thanks for another great week, everyone.

Don't forget to have your say about today's big takes:
*NFL Week 3!
*College Football Weekend!
*"G.O.S." jailtime!

Meanwhile, here's my ranking of my Top 10 favorite newsmakers of the week:

10. Pete Rose: Hardly "Sorry" ($299!)
9. Subway MLB: Mets, Yankees clinch!
8. Ryan Longwell: NFC North's best QB!
7. Trevor Hoffman: All-time saves = Cy!
6. Joey Porter's dogs: Hide your horses!
5. Jags D: Pitched a shutout on MNF!
4. David Boren: Okla prez sore loser!
3. Elin Nordegren: She's no porn star!
2. "Game of Shadows" guys: Off to clink
1. Peter Gammons: Welcome back!

Comments: Who was YOUR most significant newsmaker of the week?

Enjoy your weekend! Don't forget: I won't be live-blogging over the weekend, but I'll absolutely have two posts up, one for college football and one for NFL. Pick up the ball and go-go-go!

-- D.S.

7 comments:

Up and At Them! said...

Most significant newsmaker of the week: Bobby Knight reminding us all he's not in fact dead, by calling out OU.

Tony E said...

Jason Whitlock leaving page 2, I can only hope he sets up a blog as well, because who knows how AOL Sports will do.

Dan Mega said...

Most significant news of the week? T.O. is going to....wait who cares!

Bob said...

Significant newsmaker: Definitely Peter Gammons coming back, followed by the dogfight that is the AL Central.

Sheldiz said...

most significant game(s) of the week.... seeing what 2-0 NFL teams bite it this week. whole new ballgame by tuesday morning.

Jingoist said...

Malkin- Super Dud separating his shoulder in first pre-season NHL game for the Penguins. Talk about bad karma. I wonder if the Russian mob had something to do with it (see: paid LeClair to "fall") on behalf of the Russian Elite League.

kaimanawa said...

I think it's the journalists... here's my take:

A lot of people in this blog have been caught up in the hero/martyr/etc.. aspect of these two journalists, and have jumped on the first amendment bandwagon.

But doesn't another amendment give Mr. Bonds (or Conte, BALCO, etc) the right to a "fair" trial? So this story is more about a clash of values than it is a who's right, who's wrong discussion.

If you are willing to condone, martyr, or praise those journalists, then, taking some giant steps back to look at the big picture, you're implying that if all "facts" were uncovered by journalists who can legally protect sources, then the court of public opinion would provide Mr. Bonds with a fair trial.

This is far from the truth... In the case of Mr. Bonds, the fact that Mr. Anderson is prison-bound silent and the out-of-court settlement in the BALCO criminal case was enough to convict him in the court of public opinion. Publishing the grand jury testimony just provides some detail of the obvious fact that Mr. Anderson and BALCO have something to hide in relation to Mr. Bonds' biceps. So was it "necessary" for the two writers to break the law and publish sworn testimony nearly 2 years ago in the SF Chronicle? Hardly, it's just feeding our thirst for detailed gossip - something which is very profitable (in more ways than just $$, like fame).

Going back to the "fair trial" aspect, the whole idea of confidentiality and the paper wall between the media/[pre-trial] court proceedings is the best way we know of to conduct a fair trial. Supposedly, this allows an impartial jury access to all the facts without the biased input of a public who can make their votes known in this information age. It's nowhere near perfect - so for those who deify the journalists, I'd like to hear your opinion on how a presumed innocent man can receive a fair trial in the court of public opinion.

I don't think it's possible - take science, for example. Scientific findings do not have a private court, they're facing the court of public opinion. Most of the time, such as cases of debate in fibre optic microscopy, there are very few participants, and those who are participating are very well-informed. I think it's OK to say that public "trials" in fibre optic microscopy issues can be fair trials in the court of public opinion.

However, once the public-at-large becomes involved, then the idea of a fair trial goes down the toilet. Ask any environmentalist - whose platform is usually based on outcomes of these scientific trials. How many years did it take for the public to accept that DDT was bad? CFCs? The facts were there, but the defence was always mettling in BS tatics (creating the perception of disagreement). Now it's carbon dioxide... Is global warming getting a fair trial in the court of public opinion? You'd have to be completely indifferent to say yes...