Tim Sylvester's Blog
  • 09:45 AM ET  11.30
Views
577
Comments
6

 

Greetings & Salutations my friends, I return from afar with a different perspective, one given to me by the planet now formerly know as Pluto -He's not happy with being grouped with Prince, but that's a different story- on players vs. media.

I woke this morning and heard all the hub-bub about Michael Strahan's comments, both on his weekly radio show and in the locker room. The media is crucifying him, several stations, ESPN being one of them, are showing you clips, playing snippets of the conversation, the speech, Strahan gave just the other day. I was intrigued by his comments, at least of the parts ESPN and several newspapers gave t the general public. Having been a big fan of Mike's and not being a fan of Plaxico Burress' for reasons only his play or lack there of could explain, I wanted to see; "what was up."

I always believe you keep problems within the family, never air your dirty laundry, well, almost never. There are reasons for sharing the troubles in a family, but like Pluto, that's another story. Any way, as I perused the INTERNET today, searching for every word Strahan uttered, trying to see how he came to say the snippets I was given by ESPN and other publications, I finally got to the bottom of the statements.

Here is the key phrase as found on the NY Times (not known for telling the truth all of the time); "On Monday, he was asked by the WFAN talk-show host Joe Benigno about Burress."

Michael was asked about Burress, in other words, he did not initiate the conversation about his teammate. Yes, he could have just given the company line; Great guy, hard worker, yadda, yadda, yadda. However, that would be some what painting a blue sky when it's raining. The knock on Burress, in NY and in Pittsburgh and even leading into his drafted year was that he is NOT a hard worker, will take plays off and lacks concentration among other detrimental factors. Instead, knowing his team had lost three in a row, suffered a complete melt down in the last game, blowing a 21 points lead with just over 11 minutes left in the game, I see Michael's comments as more him trying to get his teammate to give his best effort every time he takes the field.

Strahan's response to the question; "It's a shame, because Plaxico is a great player and he's a good guy to be around," Strahan said. "But, at the same time, you're judged by your actions out there on the field. And you can't give up, you can't quit, because you're not quitting on yourself, you're quitting on us, you're quitting on everybody."

Keep in mind, I/we still do not know the exact way (if you do please share with me) the question was framed. He goes on to say; "He's too great of a player to have people look at him and think: ‘Oh, he's a quitter. He doesn't finish. He doesn't try hard.' He's too good of a player for that, because we all see what he does, what he can do."

Now, the media, in general, wants to sell papers, wants you to click on the story and naturally will frame quotes the way they want you to read them. Do you see the key word in the last statement? "He's too great of a player to have people look at him and THINK."

 When you take his entire quotes into context, Strahan never said Plaxico quit, in fact, what he said is Burress is a great player who some are saying quit, that Burress gave them the impression he quit. Could he (Strahan) have chosen his words better? Sure, but at the same time, it is clear Burress did not give his all on a key interception most are saying turned the tide of the game. That Burress once again, failed to do everything possible to not only break the interception up, but also make the tackle; AGAIN. It was not the first time this type of apathy for a play has occurred with Burress and it will not be the last.

So when ESPN, the media, went "hunting" to find the story, when Strahan would not talk with them on Tuesday, his routine is to speak with the media on Thursdays, always has been that way, they went looking for Plaxico, to get a reaction from him. Sure, their job is to get stories, reactions, what have you. However, to me, this type of digging, it tantamount to a child tattling on his siblings with the sole intent on getting said sibling in trouble.

Apparently, Strahan felt the same way and frankly, I say- Go Mike, GO, when it comes to his remarks to a reporter for ESPN, yesterday. "We're 6-5; we've lost three games in a row," Strahan said. "What do you want us to do? Put our heads down and go into a corner? We don't do that. We're men. We get back, we practice hard, we prepare for plays to win. We don't prepare to come in to have someone who wants to take a comment and try to divide teammates in a way that it just disrupts this team, because we don't have that division here. So if you want to come here with the negative, you're coming to the wrong guy, because I'm not a negative guy. I don't kill my teammates. I'm a man, and I talk to my teammates."

Should Michael have gone that far? Was there truth in what he said? My feelings on the matter, yes, to both questions. Those with press credentials, who are at their respective team's facilities, day in and day out, do know the players very well. They know where the player is coming from when the player makes a statement. Yet time and again, they (the media) always have to justify their "tattling" with: "it's my job". I've watched it hear in Baltimore from the local media for 11 years now. Living in the proximity of several players, I have been out in establishments at the same time as several of those players. Witnessed some things, one would almost be taken aback, by the Professional athletes actions or words. You know what? They are humans, just as we are. The difference is their job, their's pays millions, mine, jelly donuts. Is it my duty to tell everyone what some of these players do in their off time? Does it really matter?

NO, it may help explain why a player is not performing well, may give me insight as to possible moves by the front office, in the off season. But by keeping it "quiet" I am not protecting the player, more so the team. If any reporter goes public with natural human nature stories, players just enjoying themselves, with in the law mind you, as most of us do, that leads to other reporters asking other players about these actions. In essence, stories like that, like what the ESPN reporter and all the reporters for that matter are now doing to Strahan and Burress, tears at the fiber of a  team, causes controversy and teams seldom recover. Oh it sells papers, people tune into the program, beit on television or radio, they click the links; the media wins.

Michael is clear in the way he asks, tells the reporter to not only approach him, but how she intended to frame her question."Come here, I want to see your face when you ask this question, the way you are going to ask it," Strahan said. "I know you are going to ask it in a way there is more division and more of a negative way than it was, so come here, I want to see your face, please."

There are many ways in which to ask a question and far more reasons for even asking said question. The real question is, does she need to ask it? Instead of asking why, putting the questions in a sense of-throwing a teamate under the bus- why not ask, "Michael, you said Plaxico has the abilities to be a great receiver in this game (see quotes form radio interview), yet he sometimes appears to get frustrated in games, is there anything the team can do to help him?" Or something in that form, that mind set? That is the spirit from which Michael is speaking. No, players do not want every question to be about patting them on the back, just report all of the quotes, all fo the facts and the nature of the quotes. Strahan was not throwing Burress under the us, he was basically telling him, the perception outside the locker room is that Plaxico is dogging it at times.

Strahan could have guarded his words more carefully, but he certainly does not deserve his feet put to the fire on this one. This was all media driven and because a person from the media was called out, they have circled the wagons in the name of "doing their jobs." Want proof? Turn on ESPN today, see if they give you Strahan's entire quote from his radio show, and tell you exactly what talk-show host Joe Benigno asked Michael.  The next time you read what could be a controversial article , hear it on the radio or see it on tv, make sure to read it, hear it, see it, thoroughly, get all the facts, before you decide judgment.

November 30, 2006  11:29 AM ET

TCat.
Great analysis, but I don't agree. Don't agree at all.

Strahan said what he said on Monday. He never let his teammate know what he had said, what he had been asked. Strahan is a senior player on the team, the senior player and he should be smart enough to let his teammate know. Coughling knew what had been said and seemed to regret the comment had been made (even if he agrees with it).

Burress was blindsided by the question on Wednesday but he wouldn't have been if Strahan had let him know. For Strahan to think that it wouldn't is way too disingenuous.

Dissecting his comments, you could make a case that he didn't say what it seemed he said. And you do a good, a very good, job of making that case. But....Strahan's physical presence with the reporter, his 'come here I want to see your face' is pure intimidation. He knows it. There are too many people surrounding him for it not to be an act of intimidation. And he's the senior player on the team. Was this the right time to make comments like that?

It's like he got a gas can and said, "hmmm I wonder what will happen if I dorp a little of this on that fire." If he stuck to his 'policy' of only talking on Thursday, he could have defused this issue by saying, 'I'll answer the questions tomorrow when I always speak and after I've talked to my teammate.'

He's trying to make a statement that these problems with the Giants are all the media's making. Uh uh. Ain't gonna fly.

November 30, 2006  02:22 PM ET

Oh I expected to be alone on this line of thinking Arthur. I do agree, he intended to try and succeeded, to intimidate her and any other reporter. He is a smart guy and yes a team leader. I wonder, is he smart enough to get the NY media's focus off of the team and young Eli's problems and now pointed directly at him?

Was this his plan? Or is it as ESPN and other media outlets are saying; He knew he screwed up and was not man enough to admit it?

It has just happened so much in my presence, media mis-quoting- making up their version of the story, that I tend to lean toward the player and truly read what they are saying. Hell, I've been privy to seeing crimes committed, and then watched as the media turned the crime upside down to "make a better story."

In this case, she had already talked with Plax, knew Michael had not met with him yet, but still asked him in a room full of reporters; Did you speak with Plaxico?"

Why start with a question she knew the answer to? So that when he might say yes, she now truly has him? Most agree, when looking at what h really said on the radio, that he was not out of line. It was constructive criticism at most. Yet since ESPN and the NY media took it as him throwing Plax under the bus when in fact he technically did not, she needed something else.

That is how I am viewing it, wrong? Perhaps, but you of all people have witnessed over the years, player's comments taken out of context and used to bash them.

November 30, 2006  02:45 PM ET

Absolutely true that players are misquoted or taken out of context all the time. Just this time, I don't think he was. Whether his quitting comment, taken in context, would have been so bad, I could see how some may think it wasn't. I don't agree on that. But it was said for an impact and effect, the voice of a guy who carries weight and has not been able to do anything to help his team because he's hurt. Given the Giants situation going into the Tennessee game and coming out of it with all the mess they left on the field, he had to know this would be more than an innocent, accurate comment.

I don't think Strahan said what he did on Monday to take attention from Eli; I think he said what he said to PLACE attention on himself. He has a history of this, you know.

And I don't see anything wrong with her asking the question of Strahan that you say she knew the answer to. I did it all the time. No different than a lawyer doing that. This was two full days after Strahan made the comment on the radio and he could have been expected to have told his teammate what he had said. And then, did he lie when he answered her question? Did he say he had talked with Burress when it seems he hadn't? And according to one report, the ESPN reporter had asked Strahan earlier if they had talked and he said, I don't speak until Thursday. But then Burress was let in on what was said and Strahan went into full attack mode.

And as far as athletes being quoted out of context or misquoted, my advice was always to let it go. You create something out of nothing and give too much credence to what wasn't actually said. It's like getting toothpaste back in the tube.

I'm not sure you're alone on this TCat. I do know that you and I aren't in agreement. But that's ok. In the Nation we are absolutely free to disagree and we are absolutely free to be wrong (or right).

December 1, 2006  12:51 PM ET

TCat -- I find it hilarious that you accuse "the media" of distorting quotes and only spinning them in such a way that makes their story better, then you do the exact same thing with Strahan's original answer on WFAN on Monday. The very first part of his quote, as you've transcribed it above, was this:

"It's a shame, because Plaxico is a great player and he's a good guy to be around," Strahan said. "But, at the same time, you're judged by your actions out there on the field. And you can't give up, you can't quit, because you're not quitting on yourself, you're quitting on us, you're quitting on everybody."

Later, he makes the comment about not letting people think you're a quitter, but he already had pretty much called Burress a quitter.

You can pick through it all you want and try to defend your hero and blame the media, but Strahan was out of line both in what he said Monday and in how he reacted Wednesday.

This one was his fault, not "the media's."

December 1, 2006  06:38 PM ET

One other thing, TCat, Strahan does that radio bit every Monday. And that means he's getting paid to do it. Probably less than his Giants paycheck but paid nevertheless. So this is not something he does when a producer happens to reach his cellphone. He thinks about what he's saying and then says it. He might even prompt the interviewer where to take him.
Paid to trash your teammate and then lying about it and trying to blame the media. Wait a minute, maybe that's right. It was the media's fault. In this case Strahan WAS the media.

 
December 14, 2006  07:16 PM ET

Lofty, I see what you are saying, but riddle me this batman. Just where exactly did Michael say Plexiglass quit?

Can it be inferred? Did he imply it? Sure, do I honestly think he was saying just that? Yep, but then, how good a conversation could we have if we all agreed all the time?

The media does in fact skew facts, tell half truths, use quotes out of context often, not always and certainly not every member of the media. I do apologize for painting with a broad brush and not using the words, some or certain.

I don't know if you have been around the block or not, but I can tell you as many others can, some in the media do leave out all the facts, infer what they choose to, from quotes & facts just to sell a story.

Again, perhaps that is all Strahan did, get the attention off of his teammates-who were playing- and onto him-who was not playing. The Giants certainly look better since this little circus, no?

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Start Your Own Blog

Start Now
Check out our new Community,Groups, and Fans pages!

Stub Hub

The 2008 schedule has been released. Search for tickets!

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Vikings in market for QB?
    Views
    31620
    Comments
    1399
  2. 2
    How will Phillies replace Romero?
    Views
    2654
    Comments
    1132
  3. 3
    Report forced Cowboys to cut Pacman
    Views
    5236
    Comments
    802
  4. 4
    Red Sox close to signing Baldelli, Smoltz
    Views
    1737
    Comments
    510
  5. 5
    Hal Steinbrenner to Brewers: Mind your own business
    Views
    16547
    Comments
    348

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    Crikey!
  2. 2
    bcoltrinari
  3. 3
    Epoch1
  4. 4
    Dyhard is Mason Crosby
  5. 5
    Homey Deez

Message Boards

  1. NFL > New England Patriots

    The End of Mr. Brady
    Views
    1320
    Replies
    5
  2. MMA > Fight Club

    MMA rankings
    Views
    617
    Replies
    8
  3. NFL > Carolina Panthers

    Cardinal Game
    Views
    334
    Replies
    12

Blogs