Thursday, November 8, 2007

NYT on OJ, Day One

OK - here's my day one report for the New York Times. There might be an updated one later as testimony continues right now, but I've gotta go to UNLV now. See some of you there!


LinFromNJ said...

good job Steve.

V.S. said...

In your interview with Pete Rose, I thought you seemed to connect with him and, like me, were surprised that he came across as honest, candid, and sympathetic.

So I'm surprised and a little disappointed that in your otherwise terrfic coverage of the O.J. story you added, gratuitously imo, "disgraced" here:

"Also taken ... were ... baseballs signed “I’m sorry I bet on baseball” by the disgraced baseball great Pete Rose."

Your sentence that followed the one above adequately described what got Rose in trouble. So "Disgraced," while indisputably true, seems redundant, harsh, and unforgiving as that nice guy we heard in your interview tries to put the unpleasantness behind him.

I never paid attention to or cared about Rose or his problems before, but your interview and blog cause me to think about this. Does the journalisitc cliché "disgraced baseball great" invariably have to be attached to his name whenever it is printed 'til the day he dies for what MLB decided was an unforgivable sin?


hi v.s. - regardless of what anyone thinks of pete rose, he is disgraced. it's not so much a judgment but a fact. but thanks for the comment.