Has the power to change a lot of minds. Why doesn’t he?
Chris Broussard just reported that LeBron James is hung up on Dan Gilbert’s much scrutinized comic sans letter after LeBron left Cleveland for Miami. In most cases, professional sports owners lay back in the cut and allow team executives to run the show. Gilbert and Dan Snyder (pictured) are two who buck this normality and fly by the seat of their deep pocketed pants…
To be clear, I’m not speaking of light criticism but more the hard-core judging of athletes owners seem to evade.
This should go both ways right? If an owner deserves criticism he should slammed the same as an athlete deserves correct?
Is it reason enough that media members are less critical of ownership based on outlet business partnerships? Isn’t that reasoning flawed when you consider writers are criticized for having too close a relationship with athletes?
Those thinking I have it out for authority are missing the point. Respect is due for authority where authority of any sort is respectful. Get it?
We’re in an age where everything comes to light and as owners fine players for “speaking out of turn” on social media, it seems a check and balance is sorely needed for some of the statements they also make on social media and otherwise in the name of self-preservation.
Gilbert’s error might have cost him a redemptive shot at landing a very business savvy LeBron James. Dan Snyder is alienating many sports fans and offending an entire beaten down race of Native Americans by sticking to a misguided script seeking to keep the faux-honor of his team name. He could go a long way to helping this society rid a very stated appearance of hatred. We all know what went down with Donald Sterling and how that rightfully affected the belief of team ownership. This is a different time, and long gone are the days where preemptive strikes by franchises to smear players — for whatever reason — are no longer scrutinized.
The late great George Steinbrenner was a beast. He told it like it is (I’m critical of his handling of Dave Winfield, but not much else) and cared less of how he was viewed by the press and Major League Baseball.
Fans go after incompetent owners at every instance of team failings. The media are a different story, and rarely are team owners attacked (Jerry Jones and the aforementioned are obviously different cases) in print or otherwise to restore a semblance of the same integrity (if that’s even possible in sports anymore) journalists expect of pro athletes.
What’s your take? Should owners have a sense of anonymity or should they be outspoken in defense of their teams or when other social issues arise?
What is media responsibility of how team owners are viewed? Should the media have any responsibility?