(Discussed here in a fanshot, and elsewhere by Drayer)
Milton Bradley generates opinions. Milton Bradley generates opinions more than he generates runs, and he generates a lot of runs. By now, most baseball fans have formed their own opinions of Milton Bradley, and this is evident whenever Bradley finds himself in the news. Something done or said by Milton Bradley is treated differently than something done or said by another player, because it's Milton Bradley, and, well, we all know about Milton Bradley, don't we?
Bradley finds himself in the news again today on the heels of an interview with ESPN's Colleen Dominguez. It's an interview that, of course, covers his bad experience in Chicago (because who wants to talk about 2010 anyway?), and it's an interview that's generated a lot of negative feedback across the board, from the Internet, from Jim Hendry, and from people in between.
I'm not going to tell you what to think about the interview. That's not my place. How you respond to something like this is completely a matter of opinion. All I'm going to say is that, if you want to talk about Bradley's interview with ESPN, please watch the video. Watch the interview. Don't read about it. Words leave a lot out, a lot of things that are plainly evident when you actually watch people talk to each other.
Watch the interview. If you're anything like me, you'll come away with a much stronger opinion of Colleen Dominguez than Milton Bradley.
Update: After watching and re-watching over and over again, I'm not as turned off by Dominguez's approach as I was earlier on. However, Dominguez isn't the story here. The story is Bradley, and how he handles himself against that line of questioning.
0 recs | 144 comments
I hate interviewers like that.
Scruffy Lefty - March 10, 2010
I saw about half of it. Dominguez is just one of the many journalists trying to stir up controversey in nay way possible.
BrettJMiller - March 10, 2010
Same here. When she basically started demanding he answer the question about the letter, I just rolled my eyes and turned it off.
Goose - March 10, 2010
After watching that interview I actually thought Milton Bradley came off rather well.
Colleen Dominguez on the other hand…
BrianL - March 10, 2010
That's the most embarrassing interview I've ever seen.
She should be writing for Bleacher Report.
abender20 - March 10, 2010
I would like to coridally invite Colleen Dominguez to go play in traffic.
section331 - March 10, 2010
Cordially, even.
section331 - March 10, 2010
I had some meaner things to say about her.
But I’ll go with what you said instead.
skwid206 - March 10, 2010
I think it works.
Subtle because of the playing thing, but blunt because GO PLAY IN TRAFFIC.
section331 - March 10, 2010
So by "stronger" you mean "worse", right?
I was confused by that. If you meant strong-in-a-bad-way, then yes, I agree with you. She came off as a bad interviewer looking for a sound byte. Bradley came off as normal.
RunningFool - March 10, 2010
Ditto.
When I first read the post I did a double-take, initially thinking Jeff was impressed by Dominguez.
katal - March 10, 2010
I find it refreshing
that Milton Bradley sincerely answers the questions that he is asked. I prefer this to the canned, evasive responses that are often delivered by players and coaches.
ty540 - March 10, 2010
Milton Bradley seems like a polite, I've-got-plenty-of-issues baseball player
Pretty normal if you ask me.
Dominguez comes off as someone trying to stir the pot. I’m gonna be watching Bradley close this season, but I wonder how many of his interviews have gone like this. He might not deserve all the criticism he gets. He still definitely deserves SOME, mind you.
MT Olson - March 10, 2010
I'm not going to watch Bradley closely.
Its like picking at a scab, tonguing a sore tooth, or scratching at a mosquito bite. The act of focusing attention on negatives makes them seem all the worse. Selection bias and all that.
stredarts - March 10, 2010
It was like a politcal interview where the report pushes the canidate to make mistake.
Well welcome to Seattle Bradley. I hope your kids don’t have to deal with racists in the schools.
InSpokane - March 10, 2010
I took Jeff's advice and watched the video.
The media should be kept away from Bradley during ST. There are a lot of national media floating around in AZ right now with little real news to right about. Bradley is thus a target for these people, and the M’s should have protected him better from interviews like this. If this would have been managed better an M’s press officer would have been in the back butting in when the interview turned aggressive, getting them to move onto a different subject. I think Griffey did this very well when Ichiro turned up for camp in 2009 and the media ambushed him about the clubhouse in 2008, and Griffey protected Ichiro from their questions. I would have like to have seen Bradley protected from this line of questioning.
Nothing was going to be gained from doing an interview like this IMO. There are no M’s related questions, it’s all about 2009. Drayer has indicated that Wak has made the decision to let Bradley get on with it and not ban him from speaking to the media … I respect Wak’s decision because I think he is a good manager. However, personally I would have told Bradley to keep quiet until April, when the national media would have buggered off back East and this would have blown over.
The interviewer comes over as aggressive, but to be honest what else would you expect from an ESPN interview with Bradley? It’s obvious that the national media sees him as an easy story, and the easy story is going to be easier to coax out of him with an aggressive approach rather than the soft approach.
I don’t think much ultimately will come from this. I wish he hadn’t done the interview as it has not been a positive thing for the player of for the ballclub. But once the season starts Seattle will be left alone again by the national media, along [hopefully] with Bradley.
EnglishMariner - March 10, 2010
Hopefully!
I’m expecting a little more national media exposure this year than in years past, simply due to the offseason the Mariners had. They’re an “it” team right now, and if they perform at these new expectations or exceed them, there could be a lot more attention for them, both good and bad. There may even be some success-breeds-contempt happening, not up to par with NYY/BOS/LAA but perhaps a little anyway.
RunningFool - March 10, 2010
I agree with this comment completely. The only thing I've to say is this might be part of the manager treating Bradly
The only thing I’ve to say is this might be part of the manager treating Bradley like a responsible adult, and IMO of Bradleys’ conduct during the interview he’s fine. Also this might be a good step towards a healthy relationship between Bradley and the team, this kind of trust and subsequent result.
Kermit. - March 10, 2010
I don't think we should blame Colleen Dominguez for this interview.
This was clearly a hardball interview that Bradley agreed to do. Asking prying questions should be allowed in this case. She is not a reporter trying to catch Bradley at his locker to get him to say crazy things. This appears to be an attempt to lay everything out in the open and close the book on the ordeal.
I think Bradley handled the interview well and Colleen Dominguez did her job in an appropriate setting. I commend them both.
Wilder. - March 10, 2010
Dominguez asked questions attempting to get a juicy soundbite out of Bradley.
When he’d refuse to give her one, she’d just ask the same question again.
“Did you fear for your own safety?” followed up by “Did you fear for the safety of those around you?” followed by “Did you fear for the safety of your family?”.
She took a known volatile quantity and tried to exploit that.
abender20 - March 10, 2010
The questions about the hate letters potentially coming from inside the organization were also disgusting.
abender20 - March 10, 2010
She went out of her way to not only push that notion, but to ask TWICE if Bradley thought they were coming from inside the organization.
Fuck Coleen Dominguez.
Zwakamatsu - March 10, 2010
The tone was obnoxious as well.
Almost like a parent asking a child if they did something, the kid says no, so they repeat the question until they get a confession.
JonBBT - March 10, 2010
That's not what I took from it at all
He gave her an answer to the question “Do you think the Cubs sent you those letters?” which was “I don’t know” and that was not juicy enough for her, so she persisted, almost trying to bully him into saying what she wanted. There was obviously one answer that she wanted there, and that was “yes”, because there’s your story, and she wasn’t happy about not getting it. That suggests an agenda, not an airing of the facts.
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
I think people are reading into this interview too much.
A reporter’s agenda should be to pry to uncover the story and facts. To do that, you have to ask tough questions, which this type of interview permits. Dominguez may not have uncovered the story she was hoping to get, but she got the facts.
If Bradley wanted to do a softball interview, he should have gone back to Chicago and sat down with Oprah. I am happy with Dominguez’s interview and the way Bradley handled himself. Many of you may disagree about Dominguez, but she didn’t do anything different than if someone like Mike Wallace had Bradley on 60 Minutes.
Wilder. - March 10, 2010
She asked him the question, he gave her an answer, she asked the same question two more times more forcefully
There’s not much to read into there, she obviously didn’t get the answer she wanted the first time or she wouldn’t have asked twice more. That’s not hardball interviewing that’s fishing for a particular answer.
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
Exactly
She really pushed particular issues, even when Bradley had very clearly stated how he felt. He acted relaxed and showed no hesitation or agitation at the questions, so pressing him for the “real” story got her nowhere. It seemed like she was trying to lead him on or get him to trip up. Neither of those usually lead to good facts, just a good story.
MT Olson - March 10, 2010
She reminded me of a prosecutor trying to get a guilty verdict.
ToddK - March 10, 2010
Tell me, how is this any different than when A-Rod was interviewed by Katie Couric in 2007 about using steroids?
Wilder. - March 10, 2010
That's actually a bad example.
Couric is a softball interviewer. She asked some pressing questions, but nothing A-Rod wasn’t already prepared for.
Wilder. - March 10, 2010
Katie Couric wasn't a flaming dickbag and accepted the answers A-Rod gave
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
So the job of a reporter is to accept the answers they're given?
That whole segment is weird. Bradley’s making an implication there, and she should follow up. I’ll watch it again tonight, but what would YOU do if you’re the reporter?
marc w - March 10, 2010
I wouldn't take that tone with the person I'm interviewing
She treats him like he’s a child telling her a fib. And I think she did it on purpose, too, because that’s precisely the type of thing that’s likely to set him off.
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
Eh, actually, watching it again the tone wasn't as bad as I thought
It’s still a little condescending though, and I have no problem with following up on his suspicion, but it felt like it got to the point of her badgering him.
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
I'd like to hear specifics from the team regarding these letters.
Actually I’d like to never hear another thing about Bradley and his experience with the Cubs, but if she’s pursuing a story that would seem to be the next appropriate step to me. Get the Cubs side on this, how that could possibly happen, I wish he’d saved some of those letters to support his statement.
Or hopefully this is the end of it and he’s awesome for us.
Kermit. - March 10, 2010
I'm interested to know whether any teams screen for hate mail
I doubt the Cubs are that petty but judging from BCB you never know.
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
Something tells me that
As long as there is Chicago press and others in general, this will never, ever be over for him.
section331 - March 10, 2010
Huge difference between being interviewed and cross examined.
I don’t care if it is the “court of public opinion”, by refusing to accept his answers, she’s calling him a liar. She’s creating a situation instead of just reporting or interviewing.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 10, 2010
So a reporter must accept every statement they're given, else they're calling someone a liar.
Wowzers.
marc w - March 10, 2010
By not accepting the answer given, they're NOT calling them liars?
Explain that logic. You either believe what someone says and, thus, accept it as factual and truth, or you don’t.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 10, 2010
You aren't getting this at all.
By asking the question again, she’s not calling him a liar She’s not even necessarily saying she doesn’t believe him. She’s playing off of what Bradley is saying, thinks she might have identified an inconsistency or at least that he’s not entirely committed to his original answer, and as any interviewer ought to do, she observes that and tries to figure out what Bradley really means.
She’s not calling him a liar. She’s not saying he’s telling the truth. All she’s doing is trying to make sure Bradley is saying what he really means. And probably also praying she’s about to prod him into a strong accusation, but that’s just the news entertainment industry doing what it does best.
Torrid - March 10, 2010
RE: "All she’s doing is trying to make sure Bradley is saying what he really means"
And so… she’s assuming that there’s a possibility he may not be saying what he really means. Or in layman’s terms, she thinks he’s lying.
Or use whatever term you think is best. Deception. Withholding. Disingenuous. In none of these is she making an assumption that he’s being truthful, factual, or honest. In fact, in no way can this be spun in that direction.
And just because this is accepted behavior from the entertainment industry does not exonerate her from her actions. She chooses whether to be that way or not be that way and, thus, opens herself to criticism.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 10, 2010
This is such a bizarre argument that you are making.
Of course she’s being skeptical of what Bradley is saying. Every reporter is supposed to be. That’s basically the whole point of journalism.
I have no idea why you are taking this stand.
Matthew - March 10, 2010
General disapproval of jouranlism, then.
If the whole point of journalism is to be a skeptic, then there’s something wrong with journalism. There are many things in this world worth questioning. In no way am I saying that you should always take things at face value. At what point, though, have you gone beyond a point of just questioning and straight into “never going to believe a fucking thing you say, and neither will the audience” land?
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 10, 2010
I completely disagree with you
and am just going to leave it at that.
Matthew - March 10, 2010
If more people were skeptical then oh my God would the world be about seven billion times better
Aaron Campeau - March 10, 2010
Probably.
I come from what has been described as a highly skeptical generation. I, myself, question everything. If I didn’t, I’d have thumbed my nose at Dave Cameron and his “SABR crap” a long time ago.
I also wouldn’t have had as much fun.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 10, 2010
You seem to be confusing skepticism with cynicism
Aaron Campeau - March 11, 2010
Not really.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 11, 2010
Well, okay, I wouldn't be a skeptic myself if I didn't think about it.
I don’t particularly care for cynics, but the difference here is that the cynic is just going to flat out reject everything conventional. That’s not what I’m concerned over. In my narrow minded view of skepticism, the idea is to question things until such a time as a rational or logical argument or evidence is presented to you that answers your question. There are times when I think skeptics are actually cynics in disguise. They aren’t happy with any explanation or evidence and just remain contrarian.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 11, 2010
That's not at all what skepticism actually is.
And if your view is narrow minded then you are at fault for assigning incorrect meaning to the word.
Aaron Campeau - March 11, 2010
Wait, what?
You disapprove of journalism because it’s nature is to be intrinsically skeptical, but you yourself are a proud self-proclaimed skeptic? What am I missing here?
Terminator X - March 11, 2010
I thought I made it clear that skepticism isn't a bad thing.
However, I believe there is a point where skepticism tromps on someone’s integrity.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 11, 2010
Fair enough, it was a long discussion and I lost track of exactly what your stance was.
For the record though, your SN/sig are incredibly cynical.
Terminator X - March 11, 2010
Intentionally so.
I’m full of contradictions.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 12, 2010
Yes
vivaelpujols - March 14, 2010
That's the impression I got out of the interview.
Bradley came off quite well, IMO, giving me more reason to pull for him.
Colleen Dominguez came off like one those reporters that are constantly trying to get a story out of Bradley. I didn’t think much of it because I was a) Tired and b) focusing more on Bradley’s response. I must say that Colleen hammering the question about whether the hate mail was delivered by someone within the Cubs organization definitely rubbed me the wrong way. Bradley was clearly not trying to throw the Cubs org under the bus but Colleen wanted Bradley to throw the Cubs org under the bus.
And honestly, ever since Bradley arrived in Seattle I’ve had a much stronger opinion of the response by Cubs nation and the national media in general.
ThundaPC - March 10, 2010
Bradley actually showed some tact which was pretty surprising
You could tell he knew which questions were loaded and what he should and shouldn’t say. That’s cool.
And yeah, that interview was clearly set up to be a trap. I don’t know if that’s on Colleen Dominguez or the higher ups at ESPN, but wow could you make your agenda more obvious?
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
He showed more tact than I honestly would have in that situation.
Goose - March 10, 2010
I don't think I could have been that restrained.
Kudos to Bradley. He handled that pretty well.
BrianL - March 10, 2010
I thought so.
He came across as very genuine and sincere to me.
royalcurve - March 10, 2010
Agreed, I have an even higher opinion of him after watching that interview.
I would love for him to succeed big time this year in Seattle.
sanford_and_son - March 10, 2010
Honestly I feel bad for Bradley for not only having to go through what he did in Chicago,
but also because, from what I have been able to tell, he’s not near the monster people make him out to be. He seems a pretty good guy with a temper and maybe a low emotional boiling point, but a good guy. He seems like he doesn’t want to talk about Chicago anymore, and even mentions that he doesn’t really care to know who gave him the hate mail. He doesn’t seem like a violent guy, or even an angry guy, just a guy who, when he does get angry, can go a little overboard. Bradley seems bitter about his experience in Chicago, but seems ready to be done with it too, and I’m really happy for him that he landed in a place like Seattle, because I don’t think there’s another team in baseball better for him.
Zwakamatsu - March 10, 2010
Absolutely agree.
Well written. You basically said everything I wanted to say so now I don’t have to post my long-winded diatribe about Milton. Also, if anything, this is making me like him more, not less. I’m not saying he’s innocent or an angel, but I don’t think he’s as awful as the media (in Chicago, particularly) is making him out to be.
Kyle Rancourt - March 10, 2010
Honestly if we don't allow Bradley to talk to the press how will we ever hear amusing quotes
showing us how crazy he is and if you can’t enjoy these bat-shit crazy quotes then putting up with clubhouse cancers is just a chore. Speak freely Milton. I know I will grow to like you whatever you say.
Edgar for Pres - March 10, 2010
Eh.
I don’t have a problem with her asking a question about whether he thought the letters came from within. It’s a reasonable follow-up to ask after Bradley says there wasn’t an address or a postmark on the envelopes. He seems to be implying something along those lines. It’s not like she came up with the question out of the blue. She pushed him obnoxiously after that, but it’s not like he went out of his way to stop the line of questioning either. His shrugs and “hell if I know” look gave me the impression that he definitely has some suspicions, though he doesn’t appear to want to talk about them, which is probably smart.
The Milton Bradley-Chicago thing is interesting, and people obviously still want to talk about it. Bradley agreed to an interview he knew was going to be pressing. I’m not really seeing why everyone’s so up in arms. Annoying, maybe, but I’m not seeing some egregious breach of journalistic standards.
Kudos to Bradley for how he handled himself, though.
Teej - March 10, 2010
Thank you.
You are much more eloquent with words than myself.
Wilder. - March 10, 2010
My problem was with her obnoxious pushing and her tone (for about half of it)
Entirely a matter of opinion, but there you go. Thought she came in a little over the top.
Jeff Sullivan - March 10, 2010
The "I'm going to ask you again" was terribly condescending.
Ask me about my general opinion toward reporters’ attitudes, superiority complexes and senses of entitlement, and I’d probably line up with 99 percent of LL. But in this case, I just can’t get riled up. Athletes and reporters have such a weird codependency dynamic that stuff like this happens all the time. It was 10 seconds in a much longer interview.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m tired of hearing about Milton Bradley’s issues and want nothing more than for him to have a clean slate. But that’s just me. I imagine ESPN’s viewers would love to see him explode a few more times.
I can’t imagine a worse job than being a reporter during spring training.
Teej - March 10, 2010
Your imagination is poor.
ralphie81 - March 10, 2010
I think its fine if she is pushing
The major problem I have is with how ESPN spins in especially when you only read the article.
Edgar for Pres - March 10, 2010
I agree that this was well-worded, and I also agree with the sentiment.
The interviewer came off as obnoxious, but I think almost ALL interviewers are obnoxious, when it comes to television. She played her part, and Bradley took it all in stride.
Torrid - March 10, 2010
Is it just me, or does Dominguez look like Steven Tyler?
Bitch
OceanBird - March 10, 2010
Is she a relative of Joan Rivers?
PositivePaul - March 10, 2010
Colleen Dominguez is just dreadful here.
An interviewer is supposed to ask questions not attempt to force in answers. Also, a good interviewer is supposed to listen. The best questions are the results of listening to what the person is saying and continue on threads that they are telling instead of forcing ones that the “journalist” had previously written down. It’s upsetting that Dominguez and Katie Couric are doing their best to be the absolute worst interviewers on the planet and set women back in the field.
SethGrandpa - March 10, 2010
This type of interview is very common in the UK, usually with politicians.
If it looks like someone is dodging a question, they will continually probe that point to try and illicit the answer. It’s not pretty but it gets the sound bytes that these journalists are instructed to seek by their superiors. I wouldn’t say her conduct is setting women back in her field or anything: I think her bosses will be most pleased with her line of questioning and the subsequent national attention it has driven towards ESPN.
EnglishMariner - March 10, 2010
I think LL would hate Jeremy Paxman.
marc w - March 10, 2010
Bradley sounds remarkably intelligent.
The interviewer sounds like a bitch who enjoys drowning kittens in her spare time.
I Lick Squirrels - March 10, 2010
I'm just really happy he's on the Mariners this year.
He is probably the one player I’m most excited to watch, we’ll see how long that lasts.
JonF - March 10, 2010
To be honest I think this part just left a really sour taste in my mouth
Jeff Sullivan - March 10, 2010
Ugh
royalcurve - March 10, 2010
That gives me uterine fury
royalcurve - March 10, 2010
Holy fallopian tubes Batman, she did it!
Kermit. - March 10, 2010
"Were you worried about your family"
Looks like a Soap Opera.
ThundaPC - March 10, 2010
Yep.
The head shake, the faux concerned facial expression. Please.
section331 - March 10, 2010
You should read what they're saying in Bizarro World.
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2010/3/4/1356392/i-still-hate-milton-bradley-with
You don’t even need to read the whole thread, just read the green comments.
The more I read, the more I figure that the reason they haven’t won a world series in 102 years isn’t bad luck, but karma not wanting to give these jerks anything to cheer for.
craig3410 - March 10, 2010
Hmmm
The “Welcome to BCB” with the girl crying would actually work pretty well here to. Suck it up, buttercup!
appleshampoo - March 10, 2010
I think that was originally a Fark meme.
Goose - March 10, 2010
Yet another reason why I despise Cubs fans.
“Lovable losers”? Who are they kidding? If they never win the WS in my lifetime I will die a happy man. Fuck the Cubs.
Benne - March 10, 2010
"I give Seattle fans three months before they’re begging for us to give them Carlos Silva back"
http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/hat-fail.jpg
CUBS FANS.
blueside714 - March 11, 2010
The most disgusting posts are the attempts at downplaying the effect of racial comments.
They’re trying too hard to look at this from a white perspective.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 11, 2010
Colleen Dominguez is a longtime nobody trying to become a somebody.
She failed on the news side, failed on the entertainment side, and her career has now swerved into a ditch at ESPN where it apparently will end.
These rare kinds of opportunities represent her last chance. It smells of desperation.
But at the same time, I’m glad Bradley sat down with her. Who came across as imbalanced? I like the guy even more than I did before.
If Ms. Dominguez really cared about this story, she’d spend a few games incognito sitting in the bleachers at Wrigley. Having grown up on the north side of Chicago surrounded by proud ‘Bleacher Bums’, I can tell you there are few more racist locations in America. I am not saying every Cub fan is a racist; but there is a tone in those outfield seats that I really would be surprised to hear in any other city.
If you find this hard to believe, go to the Cub fan sites and read the comments today; it’s all there, just barely beneath the surface.
diderot - March 10, 2010
So after re-watching this about seven times and reading feedback in a few places
I’m going to back off previous remarks about Dominguez and say that, while I found sections of her questioning to be obnoxious, she did her job, and the problems I had with her earlier today are just problems I have with the media and interviews in general.
However, Dominguez isn’t the story here, and she never was the story. The story is that Bradley comes off a lot better in the interview than many have given him credit for, especially those who’ve just read the text. I’m with Drayer when she suggests that maybe Bradley shouldn’t be so accommodating with interview requests, but he did this one, and given the line of questioning, he was composed and thoughtful.
Jeff Sullivan - March 10, 2010
I hope this is the last one he does
He probably shouldn’t have aired his suspicions about the hate mail like that, but otherwise he handled himself well.
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
Right now, Hendry looks like the idiot.
Why does he even bother responding to Bradley at this point?
diderot - March 10, 2010
Whether right or wrong, there was a lot of public demand that the organization issue a response
Jeff Sullivan - March 10, 2010
So was the idea that Hendry was standing up for all his fans?
diderot - March 10, 2010
I'm thinking Hendry is building a case to defend the Bradley/Silva trade when Silva is fed to the wolves every fifth day
Wilder. - March 10, 2010
I don't know. I actually have MORE of a problem with this now that I watched the interview.
It’s very clear that this is a storyline that ESPN wants to keep going, and it’s reprehensible to watch a reporter (whose job it is to get the story, yes, but they’re also expected to maintain some level of impartiality) participate in what basically amounted to a televised bear-baiting.
I thought it was pretty clear that Bradley was trying to get away from the absurd line of questioning she was trying to push, and she wouldn’t let him, until he finally half-mumbled something that the rest of the ESPN talking heads can now grab onto and use to keep feeding the maw of the 24 hour news cycle.
I’m really dreading Bradley’s first slump, because you know this is going to come up again.
Jeff Nye - March 10, 2010
I also liked Bruce Levine's "comments".
“I don’t understand why Milton Bradley is talking about this now, rather than when he was in Chicago. Why bring it up six months later?”
A) He did. Repeatedly.
B) Because your reporter asked him about it THREE TIMES.
Jeff Nye - March 10, 2010
I want to give Bradley a big hug and then ask to join his gang
Graham MacAree - March 10, 2010
I, for one, am just glad Bradley has joined our gang.
diderot - March 10, 2010
But what about the people on BCB who are saying that we'll soon be begging for Carlos Silva back?
Jeff Nye - March 10, 2010
I would invite them to Seattle for coffee then show them a black person and watch them run away in fear and revulsion
Graham MacAree - March 10, 2010
Or have Teej meet them
Graham MacAree - March 10, 2010
They are wrong
Gihyou - March 10, 2010
Is Bradley's gang the Mariners, or does he have an additional affiliation?
katal - March 10, 2010
But do people really expect for ESPN to just let things like this lie and not to try and provoke a story?
Meaning, is there genuinely an expectation among the public that ESPN will conduct interviews of the highest journalistic integrity? Certainly it seems like that ought to be a goal and standard they should be held up to, but at the same time, it’s mainstream sports news.
Torrid - March 10, 2010
No one expects "the highest journalistic integrity" from ESPN.
But a little bit would be nice.
Jeff Nye - March 10, 2010
You can hold them to whatever standards you want.
They are responsible for their own actions.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 10, 2010
This is absolutely, 100% true.
Terminator X - March 11, 2010
One might argue
That if you have to “provoke” a story, there is no story there.
Maybe that’s your point? If so, sorry for missing it…
section331 - March 10, 2010
My point is more that ESPN is just being ESPN, and we should really expect no less.
No use getting so up in arms about it…
Torrid - March 10, 2010
So, since they're "just being ESPN", we should just shrug and pretend it didn't happen?
No. Stuff like this needs to be pointed out as the utter crap it is, regardless of whether it’ll do any good or not.
Jeff Nye - March 10, 2010
If ESPN had a history of punching babies, and one day punched your baby as it passed by you on the street,
would you get up in arms about it or shrug it off because, hey, that’s just ESPN being ESPN?
Terminator X - March 11, 2010
Did the baby deserve it?
Sometimes, babies can kinda be dicks. I don’t know what their problem was.
JAH - March 11, 2010
Be reasonable.
I’m not saying this isn’t worth dicussing. Clearly ESPN is trying to dredge up a story. What I am saying is there’s absolutely nothing unusual, shocking or egregious about this and the conduct of the interviewer. She behaved precisely in the manner of most television interviewers.
I found the response to Colleen Dominguez here (at least initially, I think some people have backed down) to be one of horror and disgust, as though this is clearly a low point in the field of journalism, when in reality a more appropriate response would be one of annoyance but realization that this happens everyday. The media machine isn’t worth getting so upset about. Bradley sure didn’t let it faze him.
Torrid - March 11, 2010
I'll be sure to check with you the next time something upsets me
to make sure my response meets with your approval~
Jeff Nye - March 11, 2010
I'm being quite reasonable. My post was exaggerated to make a point.
That point being that just because something happens alot does not make it above reproach or value judgement. Your post seems to imply you would be more upset if someone with a history of journalistic integrity did this exact interview instead, which doesn’t really make much sense when you break it down and actually think about it analytically.
Terminator X - March 11, 2010
Count Your Blessings
We’ve got Drayer, and she’d never do an obnoxious interview like this. Even when she reported on Yuni post-trade, she did it with grace and style.
robbbbbb - March 10, 2010
Bradley could not possibly be the most disruptive Mariner ever.
If playing for eight different teams is proof of ‘trouble’, then Mike Moore and Ron Villone must have been 50% more disruptive, since they share the major league record by having played for a dozen different teams.
diderot - March 10, 2010
I don't see what ESPN is fussing about.
Bradley seemed to have a pretty candid, polite interview about a subject he probably did not want to discuss. He seemed more sincere than Tiger Woods did too. The most ridiculous part is watching Bayless’s take on the situation. Did he even watch the Bradley interview or just read one quote and go?
Marinercoug - March 10, 2010
You're assuming Skip Bayless can read.
Jeff Nye - March 10, 2010
Skip Bayless is a douchebag who repeatedly bashes anything related to Seattle sports.
Then again, he does it on purpose just to troll the audience. He’s the worst kind of media personality.
The Typical Idiot Fan - March 10, 2010
I hope this is on-topic.
From what I understand, athletes in the U.K. are much more guarded from the media — at least while they’re at work. The regular access to the locker room that American reporters all enjoy doesn’t exist in the Premier League, for example. The managers are usually the only ones talking to the cameras after a game.
The British media in particular can be pretty brutal, but it seems aimed at managers a lot more than the players. Does the limited access to players lead to more fair treatment of them, or does it lead to more baseless conjecture, rumor-mongering, etc. because reporters can’t get answers so they make shit up?
In America, if Bradley starts declining every interview request, the treatment he receives from the press is unlikely to improve. You either play ball or get ripped by reporters who resent you for being “unaccountable” or whatever. So the only real option is to do the interviews, but be so boring that they don’t ask you to do any more. (Maybe that’s what Bradley’s figuring out!)
I think there’s a question in here somewhere. Basically asking some of our U.K. friends what they see.
Teej - March 10, 2010
It's just different culturally
I mean, break the “don’t have affairs with your teammate’s ex” code and they’ll slam you forever. Flip out at your manager and demanding to be sold? Nobody gives a fuck.
Graham MacAree - March 10, 2010
Or sob at the wheel of your Bentley over 5k a week
Aaron Campeau - March 10, 2010
British PL clubs protect their players a hell of a lot better than MLB teams.
Can you imagine Chelsea leaving John Terry to answer these sorts of questions on his own? No way. There would be agents, crisis management and PR experts briefing him beforehand and protecting him during the interview. They would be jumping in as soon as Terry looked uncomfortable to change the subject.
It makes for boring interviews, but it also helps avoid the type of situation that Bradley found himself in during the ESPN interview.
As I mentioned earlier on though, our media overall is very brutal especially with politicians, who are forced to agree to these conditions if they want air time.
I love the M’s [obviously] and the new front office, however in this one instance I disagree with the passive stance they appear to be taking with Bradley.
EnglishMariner - March 11, 2010
That's pretty tactful of him if you ask me.
If I were in his position I would’ve gone straight into Sven Kramer mode.
Rowsdower - March 10, 2010
You know what's going to be fun?
The June 22nd series against the Cubs. Thank god that’s a home series.
OlSalty - March 10, 2010
That's the series I'm going to!
I was thinking about it the other day and was like, “Wait a second, Milton Bradley! Oh man, I hope he goes like 12-15 with 4HR for the series.” Got so excited.
RunningFool - March 10, 2010
I take it this will be like a Yankees/Red Sox series where our stadium gets invaded by thousands of rival jerks?
I just hope the Safeco crowd grow a collective spine and shout down the inevitable Cubbie boos of Bradley in a forceful manner.
EnglishMariner - March 11, 2010
I have a Cubs fan friend that will be here over the summer
I hope we can go together, and I hope Silva pitches and sucks. Bradley doing well would be icing on the cake, but really I just want us to shell Silva.
appleshampoo - March 11, 2010
Colleen Dominguez's smile after
she got Bradley to say he would rather have torn his knee, just pissed me off. She looked sooo pleased with herself, she couldn’t even pretend to be concerned when she asked about if he feared for his life, she was just gloating with that big ole smile.
I mean he did pretty well, no the best, I’d prefer if he took a little more responsibility, but he is who he is
WestCoastBias. - March 10, 2010
Seriously. What kind of person grins when they ask "Did you fear for your life?"
Asshat.
JAH - March 10, 2010
Send a note to ESPN's Ombudsman
It’s probably spitting into the wind, but I sent them a note explaining why I thought the interview and ginned up controversy around it was a bogus move.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=2826900
njpozner - March 10, 2010
Thanks for the link, I sent them a note.
It won’t do any good but was at least cathartic.
Jeff Nye - March 10, 2010
A few weeks ago, after Rick Reilly's especially awful Olympic articles, I sent (as did Katall) a note to the Ombudsman.
A few days later, ESPN announced that Reilly would no longer be writing for ESPN the Mag (still .com, though). I think it’s entirely within reason to assume that Katal and I are responsible for the first step in the firing of Rick Reilly.
abender20 - March 11, 2010
On the one hand, the interview annoys me with its hamfisted manner.
On the other, a part of me feels the crappier the rest of the media treats Bradley, the more it makes Seattle seem to be a better place to play when our media doesn’t treat him like he’s going to flip out and shank somebody in the locker room.
JAH - March 10, 2010
You listening, Geoff?
Jeff Sullivan - March 10, 2010
I don't know. Are you?
Dewey N - March 11, 2010
Stop being silly
Teej - March 11, 2010
Divish chimes in:
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/mariners/2010/03/10/the-milton-bradley-interview-and-the-fallout/
Jeff Sullivan - March 10, 2010
Milton Bradley's facing a backlash because... what?
I went into this thinking I was going to see a shouting match and trying to pick who was more to blame. The interview was actually about 50% boring, and 50% making me feel sad for what Milton Bradley has had, and continues to go through. If that’s Milton Bradley misbehaving, all I can say is… welcome. Glad you’re here.
groovewrangler - March 11, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.