George, In ESPN.com's coverage of the NBA trade deadline, I feel the writing and presentation of one particular 'non-story' was remiss. Despite hearing from John Paxson to the contrary (and not hearing Danny Ainge to the affirmative), a trade between the Celtics and Bulls was covered extensively, and yet had no bearing on reality. Ordinarily, this is not such a huge deal, it happens all the time. But let's keep a few things in mind; Paul Pierce and the Celtics' fan base are strange bedfellows, as you know, Boston fans are extremely fickle, and love their stars one minute and hate them the next. Irresponsible reporting like this makes the comfort level of both parties involved in that particular love-hate affair considerably lower than perhaps it should be. Making an already tense situation for Boston fans, who generally love Pierce and respect his heart and his game, more tense not only for the fans, but the for the star himself, just isn't right. The only other issue I find with the coverage is that Paxson's denial of the rumors was vehement, clear, blunt, and reproachful, and ESPN failed to run a single word on his comments. Paxson made it clear that ESPN was being irresponsible in its reporting, and as a result, ESPN simply did not print his comments. With those comments left unprinted, and thusly a non-story allowed to continue to run, ESPN.com paved the way for Pierce's face to be all over their 'trade machine.' Despite the fact that there were no legitimate trade rumors featuring Paul Pierce, his name was touted as headlining personality on this creation. Once again, this appears to be furthering the ridiculous notion that Pierce and Co. in Boston are in a state of disarray and that the management team in Boston is not to be trusted. That being because they had made no mention of Pierce being moved, they're obviously working tirelessly behind the scenes to unload the star and start the team afresh. I would like to know why it was that this story was continued to be allowed to run, and I would also like to know why ESPN.com felt it had no responsibility to print Paxson's comments debunking these rumors. Also, in light of the marketing that took place as a result, I guess I would also like an explanation as to why someone else's face wasn't on that ridiculous 'trade machine.' While I may be an upset fan of the local team, I am also a consumer, and I do not appreciate my intelligence being tromped upon by a major media outlet. I have tried my utmost in the past to not let that happen, and have long considered ESPN.com to be one of the very few places that I would not be assailed, but it appears that I, too, am remiss.
A relevant point. I understand your point, and was similarly irritated by seeing Pierce's face as the header for "The Trade Machine" (which was fun to play with.) Your objection to it is articulate enough, but betrays a sort of naivete that I know you don't possess. American media is as much about creating news as it is about reporting it. Would we really hate Barry Bonds so much if he didn't spend large portions of his time abusing reporters, who in turn bash him? Or take the Knicks and Isiah Thomas: without the media ruthlessly savaging him, I'm not sure that Thomas would be making such boneheaded moves. I also believe Skip Bayless' assessment that Larry Brown is trying to be half of a savior, again. The problem is that Bayless stole the idea from John Hollinger, who wrote about it before the season even started. I'm electing not to get into the more political derivations of this news creation concept. It's unnecessarily divisive. I should also stop cracking on Isiah as it's too easy. I'm assuming you read Simmons' interview with David Stern, where my next point is implied: Even more important is the idea that the NBA is a form of entertainment. It is not a real thing, it is a creation of PR people. So the intervention of further PR is almost always good for the league, if not for the teams. We paid more attention to the Celtics these last few weeks because of rumors of Pierce moving. It's rubbernecking, but it's true. I'm glad he's still here, but I understood why Pierce's face was up there. Which stories about Pierce being traded were just made up? Which were plants by the Celts or other teams? We don't know. We know which jersey he's wearing. And for the moment we know just which way the wind is blowing.
