|
 |
|
|
December 08, 2002
Saturday Evening. . .
The New York Times posted the columns on the controversy at Augusta National by Harvey Araton and Dave Anderson that had previously been spiked by senior editors at the newspaper. You can find Anderson's column here, and Araton's column here. After reading them both, it's hard to see just what all the fuss was about. In the end, the opinions expressed in both columns merely reflect a mild difference of opinion between a group of people who are all basically on the same side of the issue. If anything, the act of printing the columns only reinforces the perception that with a few notable exceptions (William Safire, John Tierney), real diversity of opinion doesn't exist on the pages of the New York Times in any meaningful way. By way of example, read this column ("Augusta Should Stay Men Only") by Sally Jenkins at the Washington Post, a paper plenty of conservatives consider biased to the Left (an opinion I don't share): I'm a lousy woman. I don't think the right thoughts, and I don't have the right sentiments. For instance, I don't know if I'm a spring, or a summer. I don't know what my color is. More importantly, I'm not as bothered by Augusta National's male-only policy as perhaps I should be, and what's worse, I suffer from the sneaking suspicion that there ought to be an anachronism or two left in the world, because we too often mistake equity for some lame idea of sameness. Compared to anything you'd find in Araton's or Anderson's columns, Jenkins is downright heretical. Can anyone seriously believe that an opinion such as this one would ever see the light of day at the New York Times? To some people (me, for example) the editorial (asking Woods to boycott Augusta-EMc) was typical of what happens when those who know nothing about sports presume that they can write about it anyway. It's common for newspapers to send non-sportswriters to write about sports events on the grounds that they're "fans." The fact that most are completely clueless on the realities of the sports business or on the personalities they are now assigned to write about doesn't seem to matter. After all, they're just games, right? I happen to be fascinated by the political process. I even covered politics for this newspaper for two years. But I would never presume to think I could breeze into a political campaign and know 1 percent of what David Broder or Dan Balz knows. Feinstein has a great point, and it's that the sort of treatment Araton and Anderson received would never have been visited on columnists like Maureen Dowd or Thomas Friedman. Somehow, because sports isn't taken seriously, the professionalism of those who follow it isn't always taken seriously either -- Pulitzer Prize winner or not. In addition, I have one little nit to pick with Araton's column. He mentions that Martha Burk may get involved in the decision over whether or not Women's Softball retains its status as an Olympic sport. As you read Araton's column, one could infer that Softball is being unfairly singled out -- this despite the fact that the International Olympic Committee is also considering whether to discontinue Olympic Baseball as well.
Eric
11:36 PM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsPost a commentThanks for signing in, . (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |