Hard to recalled a more revered player in the baseball.
Monthly Archives: January 2013
Tatum O’Neal reflects on legacy of Bad News Bears: ‘It’s just so wrong on so many levels’
The next edition of Costas at the Movies features the classic, Bad News Bears (Monday, 8 p.m. ET, MLB Network).
Bob Costas sits down with Tatum O’Neal to recall the movie and its legacy. Then the movie follows.
Here’s same excerpts of the interview from MLB Network:
Tatum O’Neal on preparing for the role of Amanda Whurlitzer:
“I took three months of heavy-duty pitching lessons.”
Tatum O’Neal on Walter Matthau:
“He was so talented. I’m just so lucky to have worked with him. He could do anything and he knew exactly how to do this role. He knew exactly how to just be a complete mess.”
Tatum O’Neal on her character:
“It’s so funny because I have a group of 48-year old men, like Vince Vaughn…who have posters of “Bad News Bears,” Jason Patric, Quentin Tarantino. There’s a group of people, mostly men, who think that character of Amanda Whurlitzer is the most appealing little girl at that age…It must be a toughness with a little femininity.”
Tatum O’Neal on being visited in the hospital by Matthau after a car accident:
“A couple of years later, when I turned about 15, I had a car accident. Lumbering down the hall was Walter, he said, ‘Kid, I just had to come in and see that you were all right.’ I can’t say that was true for every actor I’ve worked with…It was a pretty special moment for me, one that I will never forget.”
Tatum O’Neal on the relationship between Amanda and Coach Buttermaker in the film:
“It’s so real. You see the camaraderie that Walter and I had in the same way really that me and my father did at the time.”
Tatum O’Neal on the film’s legacy:
“It’s so funny. It’s so sweet. It’s sweet and, yet, it’s completely wrong. It’s just so wrong on so many levels.”
Sunday funnies: Kobe, Lionel Messi team up for Turkish Airways ad; plus behind scenes look
l saw this commercial repeatedly during a recent trip to South Africa. I was considering overseas expansion for ShermanReport, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out cricket.
Anyway, I don’t think this ad is running in the U.S. At least I can’t remember seeing it. That’s not to say it hasn’t been seen by many Americans since it has more than 100 million views on YouTube.
If you haven’t seen it, it is well done:
And here’s a behind the scenes look at the ad.
Jeremy Schaap on Te’o interview: ‘If people saw him on camera, he’s very convincing’
It’s been whirlwind couple of days for Jeremy Schaap.
“I’ve been sitting in the same conference room for the last 17 hours,” said Schaap around noon on Saturday. “I’ve been up for the last 35-36 hours. Yeah, it’s been a bit crazy.”
I called Schaap to get the backstory and his insights into landing the big interview with Manti Te’o last night. He spoke to the former Notre Dame linebacker off-camera for 2 1/2 hours.
Update: Here’s a link with the edited transcript of the interview.
Earlier, I wrote Schaap now has become part of the story. He said in his 11-minute ESPN report that he thought Te’o was “credible” in telling how he was duped in an elaborate hoax. Schaap’s view carries a lot of weight since he is the only journalist to interview Te’o.
Here’s my Q/A with Schaap.
How did the interview come about?
We became aware of the story (about nine days ago). We were trying to break the story, but Deadspin beat us to it.
It looked like I was going to get an interview with Manti on Thursday night. I flew down Thursday morning. By the time I landed (in Bradenton, Fla.), the interview was definitely off. His advisors wanted more time to consider his options. They said they weren’t ready to put him on camera.
What happened Friday?
Yesterday, at 3, (a Te’o representative) said, it’s a go, but no cameras.
What was your reaction to the no cameras part?
I said, ‘We really would like to have cameras. This is TV.’ They felt he would be more comfortable doing this without cameras. They said, “He’ll open up more in a relaxed setting. He’ll be a better interview. That’s our condition. You can ask any question you want. You can keep him as long as you want.”
Our obligation journalistically is to submit him to the tough questions. Obviously, you can accomplish those things without a camera there. I understand there are people frustrated that it wasn’t on camera. None more so than I.
Was it a smart move on their part?
He was very candid and forthcoming. Who knows if he would have been as forthcoming with cameras there?
Part of me disagrees with his advisors here. He was so comfortable. If people actually saw him on camera, he would be convincing.
The dynamic, though, changes with a camera. So you don’t know.
Did you have to negotiate to use the sound bites on air?
Yes. I said, ‘You remember when the Washington Post interviewed Joe Paterno, they put out a couple of sound bites.’ We agreed to put out some sound bites that would best tell the story. In no way were we fettered with any restrictions other than being off camera, which is disappointing.
Was there any point in the interview where you felt he was lying to you?
He admitted he lied to his father. That led to the stories that he had met her. He admitted that he mislead interviewers. It was embarrassing for him to say he never met the love of his life.
Maybe I’m the most gullible guy in the world. It’s a strange position to be everyone’s believability monitor here.
But he was calm, composed. He wasn’t hemming and hawing. He didn’t lose track of dates and events. I didn’t think he was lying. I thought he was telling the truth. I’ll be blunt about that.
Did you think twice about being so strong with your judgment?
Sure, there’s some hesitation. You’re always hesitant when you report a story like this to offer up your opinion. But this was a special circumstance. Part of my responsibility here was to share my opinions with people.
If I’m watching on TV, the first thing I want to know is, “What’s his explanation?” The second thing is, “Do I believe him?” It’s a fine line. It’s not a line I haven’t crossed before.
How did you address the speculation that Te’o created these stories to cover up that he is gay?
I didn’t ask him any questions about that. I saw no credible information that would suggest that he is gay. During the course of our interview, without my prompting, he spoke several times about his romantic relationships with women. He said he had a girlfriend after learning (the made-up person) had died.
Are you confident that you hit him hard and asked all the right questions?
I’m sure someone will point out the things I missed. I’ve avoided the Internet during the last 12 hours.
I’m sure something will come to me at some point. But at this point, considering I’ve been up for the last 35 hours, nothing comes to mind.
Did his people indicate to you whether Te’o will do more interviews and eventually answer questions on TV?
They did indicate he would do something, but they didn’t say when and where.
There are interviews that never happen with athletes in this circumstance. Is it in his best interest to do more after our interview? It probably is, because he is very credible.
Will the story start to fade away now?
I think it does. People wanted to hear his side of the story. They heard him answer questions that were aggressively put to him.
I can say he was very relieved at the end of our interview. It appeared like he had a huge weight off of his shoulders.
Is this the nuttiest story of all time?
It’s up there. I was talking to a friend today. There’s a good quote from Arthur Conan Doyle (creator of Sherlock Holmes) that applies here:
“When you’ve eliminated all which is impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
In Jeremy we trust: ESPN’s Schaap now part of story by saying Te’o is ‘credible’
Let’s keep in mind the Manti Te’o story centers around some incredibly cruel and twisted people and an incredibly naive football player. Maybe I’m naive, but I still have a hard time believing there are people out there who find sport in deceiving a person in this way. It really makes me feel bad about society.
Did Jeremy Schaap’s interview with Te’o on the late SportsCenter last night slow down the train a bit? Perhaps.
For Schaap to say the Notre Dame linebacker came off as “credible” is beyond huge. It carries a lot of weight for one of the most respected journalists to maintain that Te’o passed the bullshit test in his eyes.
In a way, Schaap now is part of the story as the only journalist to gain access to Te’o. He has become our eyes and ears. If Schaap says Te’o is credible, the majority of us will feel the same way.
It is interesting to note that Te’o’s handlers didn’t let him appear on camera for the interview. In retrospect, that appears to be a good move. It seems to have allowed the conversation to be more informal. A kitchen-table talk, if you will. It took away the pressure of Te’o having to be conscious of himself in front of a camera, although that day will come soon.
The sound bites that were released were pretty convincing. Maybe Te’o really was that naive.
For more, here’s the reaction from Deadspin.
Here’s the reaction from Big Lead.
ESPN advances story with interview, but is anonymous friend to be believed?
ESPN’s Shelley Smith landed an interview with a friend of Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, the person alleged to have been behind the Manti Te’o hoax.
From the post:
The friend, a woman in her mid-20s, agreed to be interviewed under the condition that she not be identified, saying she was fearful for her family’s safety because of the overwhelming publicity the story has generated. In the interview, she did allow for her voice to be recorded.
She says Tuiasosopo gave her the tearful confession and account of how he played, what he said was at first a game, on the unsuspecting Te’o. And, she says, he told her that it wasn’t the first time he had done it.
“He (Ronaiah) told me that Manti was not involved at all, he was a victim. … The girlfriend was a lie, the accident was a lie, the leukemia was a lie,” said the woman. “He was crying, he was literally crying, he’s like ‘I know, I know what I have to do.’
“It’s not only Manti, but he was telling me that it’s a lot of other people they had done this to.”
I think ESPN exercised caution in this situation and carefully vetted the source. But who knows anymore? What if this woman is just another extension of the grand hoax?
I asked ESPN for a comment, and spokesman Mike Soltys replied, “We’re going to let the reporting speak for itself.”
Still, there are plenty of doubters on Twitter:
Jason McIntyre of Big Lead: “What evidence did Shelley Smith have that the “mastermind” confessed to the “friend?” Polygraph? Recorded? Or is this another rabbit hole?”
Dan Levy of Bleacher Report: “Re: this Te’o hoax…these ppl spent 2 years tricking him & 3 months watching nation fawn over the story They aren’t playing us now? Please.”
I mean, has anyone seen this woman’s birth certificate? How do we know she’s real?
And the story continues.
Still not buying that Notre Dame reporters failed on Te’o story
Nothing like a little hindsight to make us all feel like idiots on the Manti Te’o story. You would almost think this is journalism’s darkest hour since Janet Cooke won the Pulitzer.
More piling on:
Ronnie Ramos of the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana:
It has become apparent in the past year that as mainstream media and journalists work online and across social media platforms, they have not brought with them the same accountability and transparency they demonstrated when they worked for newspapers.
(Later he wrote) One of the outcomes of this Te’o hoax should be an in-depth review of how stories are vetted and a constant standard established for each organization across all platforms. We saw last year that lax standards for Twitter contributed to the false report about former Penn State coach Joe Paterno’s death.
Patrick Hruby in The Atlantic:
The Te’o debacle isn’t like crediting the wrong player with a touchdown catch, or reporting an anonymously-sourced trade rumor that turns out to be false. This is a journalistic failure of the highest order, on a systemic scale, and frankly, there ought to be some sort of independent commission established to get to the bottom of how so many different organizations could be so very, very wrong about something so very, very basic.
********
And there were readers weighing in with comments on my site:
Barry: Not one reporter thought to contact the Stanford sports information director’s office on the outside chance of getting an interview with the “girlfriend’s” roommate, parents, a teacher, SOMEBODY, anybody that knew her personally?
Doing so more than likely would’ve revealed that the girl DIDN’T GO TO STANFORD! After which it likely would’ve been determined that SHE DIDN’T EXIST!
Might not be a bad idea for sportswriters to work the police and/or political beats for awhile before they migrate into the toy department. That way, they might be able to tell more easily when someone’s story sounds fishy.
Derek: Yes, a story should be verified before you run with it. Journalists like to hold themselves and their profession in high regard, but when they fail to display even a shred of the intellectual integrity necessary to the pursuit of truth, and act with the unquestioning credulity of the proverbial choir member, things like this, which make the entire profession seem indistinguishable from the much-maligned, amateur blogosphere, are bound to occur.
Because no one at SI, ESPN, or any other outlet felt it necessary to scratch beneath the surface of a good story, the entire media is now being forced to absorb yet another black eye to its already battered reputation.
*******
And finally, Deadspin editor Tommy Craggs offered this assessment in his interview with Poytner:
I have less sympathy for the folks who crafted those painstaking “Love Story”-in-cleats feature stories about Manti and his dead girlfriend. Those were dumb, infantilizing stories to begin with, and they were executed poorly and sloppily, and if there’s any lesson to be drawn from this, it’s that this kind of simpering crap should be eliminated from the sports pages entirely.
*******
As I posted yesterday, I have a hard time blaming the reporters who covered the story and wrote about Te’o’s girlfriend. Why wouldn’t you believe Te’o? Why wouldn’t you believe Notre Dame? Brian Kelly made a spectacle out of giving him the game ball after the Michigan game.
Perhaps, reporters should have dug deeper to find out about the deceased girlfriend. To add details of who she was to the narrative. However, I don’t think it was imperative, considering what Te’o said about her.
It’s all hindsight. And don’t forget the media now works in a world where the deadline was five minutes ago. It does put a premium on going with what you’ve got now.
Obviously, the lesson here is the age-old notion of making that extra phone call. Easier to say now than prior to Deadspin publishing its story.
And speaking of Deadspin, the writers don’t get that story without receiving a tip. Otherwise, they had no reason to believe Te’o’s girlfriend was make-believe.
Deadspin did a superb job of running with what they got. It was a good day in journalism for them.
However, to condemn everyone else isn’t fair. The reporters who worked on this story didn’t have the benefit of hindsight.
Armstrong interview; Good TV, but didn’t believe a word he said; props for Oprah
Actually, I did believe a couple of things Lance Armstrong said. He called himself an “arrogant prick.” Highly believable. Then when he began an answer by saying, “Why would anyone believe me now?”
Indeed, Armstrong knows he has as much credibility as Jon Lovitz’s liar character on SNL. Do you believe him when he said he wasn’t doping in his last two Tour de France races? If you do, I’ve got a story to tell you about Manti Te’o’s girlfriend.
You couldn’t believe a word Armstrong said Thursday during part one of his big interview. The guy is a serial liar and always will be.
Still, it made for good TV. Oprah Winfrey did a good job for the most part. Opening with quick yes-no questions on the key issues was solid scene-setter. I do think Winfrey missed the opportunity for some follow-up questions, especially on Armstrong’s Italian doctor.
But Winfrey did make Armstrong squirm. There was some satisfaction in watching his humiliation. I’ll tune in for round 2 tonight.
Here’s a round-up of what they’re writing today:
Richard Deitsch, SI.com:
It was interesting theater, at least for those who could find the little-watched network, and a night where the interviewer came off far better than her subject.
Winfrey wasted little time in asking Armstrong a series of yes-or-no questions, including whether he had used the blood booster EPO, whether he had used cortisone and HGH, and whether he doped for each of his seven Tour de France victories. He answered “yes,” to each of her first five questions and then said he did not believe it would have been possible to win the Tour seven times had he not doped. On the surface, it was curious choice by Winfrey to opt for such closed-ended questions at the start, but it worked. Armstrong’s affirmative answers shifted immediate power to Winfrey and she controlled most of the 90-minute interview, even if the former cyclist was often light on the details to queries.
Bonnie Ford, ESPN.com:
It was a typical Lance Event, although it was about as far from the bike as it gets. It was about spectacle and managed production and trying to craft another chapter in a punctured epic that has lost its helium and sunk to earth.
It was about what it is always about with Lance Armstrong: hubris and control, the same tightly intertwined strands of his DNA that convinced him he would never be exposed, that the dozens and dozens of people privy to his pyramid scheme would remain muzzled forever.
It was desperate. And huge chunks of it ranged from disingenuous to unbelievable. There was far too much defiance and contradiction of evidence and abdication of responsibility to respond to in one column, although I will start by saying that I don’t believe for a minute that he was clean in his comeback. And we’ve seen only half the footage from the Oprah Winfrey interview.
Philip Hersh, Chicago Tribune:
Armstrong’s admissions in many areas were incomplete, and that failure to tell the whole truth for whatever reasons — legal protection or more defiance — will continue to impugn his credibility. His failure to make a public apology for the lies he told about other people also undermined Armstrong’s attempt to turn the interview to his benefit.
Christine Brennan, USA Today:
If it was possible to like Lance Armstrong even less, his 90-minute interview with Winfrey on Thursday night went a long way to accomplishing that fact. If he was hoping to win over some supporters in the court of public opinion while trying to return to some semblance of public life less than three months after being officially banned and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, it’s hard to imagine how he might have accomplished that.
He was even more unlikable than one might have imagined. He was smug. He was curt. He was cold and unfeeling. And he doesn’t yet seem to get what he’s in for if he ever wants to even consider having a chance to come back to compete someday in age-group triathlons and marathons.
Will Leitch, Sports on Earth:
Rather than pile on Lance Armstrong after watching Part One of his interview with Oprah Winfrey on Thursday night, I decided to do some math.
Yes/No Questions Asked By Oprah in the first 20 seconds: 6
Times Lance praised a question asked by Oprah: 4
Times Lance touched his chest: 7
Times Lance said the word “technically”: 2
Times Lance said “biological passport”: 3
Times Lance said “absolutely not”: 5
Times Lance denied something: 27
Times Lance admitted something: 28
Times Lance said “I deserve this”: 2
NBC exec on NHL return: We’re in uncharted territory
Hockey returns Saturday. Battered and bruised, for sure, but I think we live in an age where people forget fairly quickly.
Bottom line: There’s only one NHL, and fans still want to see the best players in the world do their thing. If you need to be reminded, check out this “Hockey is Back” video below.
Maybe I’m naive at underestimating the fans’ anger, but I don’t think so. All I know is that I have a 17-year-old Blackhawks fan who is counting down the minutes to Saturday’s opening game against the Los Angeles Kings.
NBC and NBC Sports Network definitely are excited to have the NHL back. They have a full slate of games scheduled for Saturday, Sunday, next week and beyond.
The NHL built considerable momentum during last year’s Stanley Cup, when games were shown on several platforms. Obviously, the lockout derailed things. During a conference call this week, I asked NBC Sports executive producer Sam Flood about the possible fallout.
Flood said: “We’re in uncharted territory because our job is obviously to showcase as good of a game as we can and take advantage of the stars. The core fans are going to come back… Once the puck is dropped, they want to see their teams, and the fastest game and the greatest game on ice.
“All we can do is cover the games as best as we can and hope that the passion for hockey bubbles that to surface very quickly… The hockey fan is a passionate group and we’re cautiously optimistic they’ll come back. It won’t be instant. You’ve got to regain the trust, regain the passion, but we think we’ve got some good games out there.”
******
I know Mike Emrick is glad the NHL is back. I joked last week that he had so many varied assignments during the lockout he soon would be doing play-by-play on Mah Jong.
Emrick told me, “I want to let you know I’m learning Mah Jong.”
Perhaps Emrick’s most unusual assignment was covering figure skating in Skate America in October. As usual, Doc had a wonderful take on the sport.
He said: “I would compare it to being in the province of maybe 40 goaltenders at once because it’s such an individual sport, (ice skating and figure skating). You have to have your whole mental game together before you go out and compete and I think that’s what I saw in the hallways with these really talented young people who are warming up. The last thing you want to do is break the concentration because it’s so important during those 3, 4 or 5 minutes that they’re going to be out there.”
Deadspin shouldn’t have used ’80 percent sure’ quote about Te’o’s possible involvement
You can be sure Timothy Burke and Jack Dickey’s reporting on the Manti Te’o story is being dissected at journalism schools throughout the country. They did a solid job putting together the pieces of this incredible puzzle. They set a new standard for reporting through social media.
Yet I have a quibble with their story, and it isn’t insignificant. The end of the post includes this passage:
A friend of Ronaiah Tuiasosopo told us he was “80 percent sure” that Manti Te’o was “in on it,” and that the two perpetrated Lennay Kekua’s death with publicity in mind. According to the friend, there were numerous photos of Ronaiah Tuiasosopo and Te’o together on Tuiasosopo’s now-deleted Instagram account.
The “80 percent sure” was cited in most news accounts as possible evidence that Te’o was in on the hoax.
If I’m the editor, I don’t let that quote go through. Who was this friend of Tuiasosopo? Was this person also involved? Friends have a tendency to talk out of school. Maybe this person exaggerated the quote just to be part of the story?
Also, how can Deadspin be sure there were pictures of Te’o with Tuiasosopo?
Also, there’s the “80 percent” angle. What does that mean? Obviously, the person isn’t sure.
So now you’re running an incredibly damning quote from a single source who likely doesn’t know the complete story. 80 percent sure is long way from 100 percent sure in this instance.
And even if that friend was certain, most editors would require a corroborating source or two before running such an allegation. It is the only place in the story where Te’o is linked to being more than a victim of a hoax. The strong allegation is too much to hang on one person.
Clearly, there are plenty of questions for Te’o. However, using that “80 percent sure” quote wasn’t fair to him in this instance.