Lee Mazzilli and Willie Randolph both are 53-year-olds who grew up in Brooklyn and spent the early parts of their careers playing in their hometown.
Yet, strangely, neither is ready to teach New York Sports Journalism 101. Or any kind of journalism, for that matter.
On SNY's post-game show Wednesday night, Mazzilli suggested columnist Ian O'Connor was wrong for not double-checking with Randolph to make sure their Sunday night conversation was on the record.
Technically, it's supposed to happen the other way around. It's up to the subject to make that clear before he starts speaking.
In fairness, it does not always work that way in the real world.
Journalists with a close, long-term relationship with a subject do sometimes give him or her the benefit of the doubt by asking whether a seemingly casual conversation is meant for publication.
But Randolph is the manager of the Mets, was standing in the middle of a clubhouse and had a tape recorder in his face.
Click below for a transcript of Mazzilli's comments, as well as those of Harold Reynolds, which were more to the point. The point being this: Until the Mets win a game, the Randolph saga will not go away.
Here's Maz: "I had a problem with that article, because he felt that it was kind of off the record. I know what Willie was going through by just chatting with this writer. I feel that there's an obligation for the journalist to ask that person if you really want to say this.
"Because if he said a quote and he wasn't sure about that, I think the writer has to say, 'Are you sure you want to say this?' And I think that's why there is a problem with athletes and writers because they don't trust them right now, because this is what happened up there.
"Willie says he didn't say that. I take Willie's word, and maybe that he should have asked Willie, 'Do you want me to print this?' And he didn't do that. And that's what started this. I think sometimes you say things and you shoot yourself in the foot and you don't want it out there, but I think this whole thing could have been avoided, I really do."
(I don't know where Maz got the notion Randolph claimed he didn't say something O'Connor quoted him saying.)
Harold Reynolds: "Here's my point: If they win, we've got interviews. Here comes David Wright! Here comes Delgado! And we're talking baseball. Tomorrow morning we're going to open up the newspaper and it's going to be, 'Willie addresses the media,' and, 'Here's what Willie had to say.' And they're still losing. So Santana has to win tomorrow to turn the cycle. It will not turn until they win. That's just my opinion."
Comments (8)
From two time zones away.....where the air is a tad cleaner.
This whole Randolph debacle is centered around "the race card".
A card that is all too often INITIATED, played up and overhyped by the media, NOT the athletes/manager/coaches.
As I pointed out in Rieber's blog yesterday, Randolph's comment/response was neither Lincolnesque not Sharpton in nature.
All he said WHEN ASKED whether his treatment by the media was "racially motivated" was..... "It smells like it".
Almost immediately, a firestorm of self-conscious, self defending "NOT ME'S" erupted from every form of the predominantly anglo NY Media, all hell bent on demonstrating that they are socially acceptable of the black race and that Mr. Randolph was way out of line to "respond" with "race card" implications.
All I can say is...."As you sow, so shall ye reap".
and "guilty conscience needs no accuser".
The questions in my mind are..
"Why did Mr. O'Connor feel the need to ask that question?"
"What kind of response was he expecting?"
Or better yet...."What kind of response was he HOPING for?"
After reading the article a couple of things need to be kept in perspective.
The "race card issue" was a very small part of, and not even the main point of the article.
The "race card issue" WAS INITIATED by the interviewer...NOT the interviewee.
A few months back Mark Herrmann of Newsday (A reporter I have always had a tremendous amount of respect for) conducted the 1st interview of Islander Rookie Kyle Okposo.
What was the "crux" of that interview?
Not whether Okposo was an up and coming star, not whether he felt he could lead the Isles out of their misery, but whether he encountered any "racism" growing up as a half-NIGERIAN (my word choice) in predominantly white Minnesota.
I lambasted Mr. Herrman in the comments section for that line of questioning... I.E. what the hell did that have to do with the introduction of a Number Draft Pick to the NY Public?
As long as you "guys" (I should use the word "honkies"-okay, there I did), in the MEDIA continue to INITIATE the "race card" issue you are gonna continue to stir the pot of animosity and anger between the races.
GROW THE HELL UP, IT'S 2008 FER CHRISSAKES.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The rest of the news media is now mangling what Willie said. People now think he accused Fred Wilpon and SNY of being racists. Willie was talking about overall perception of black coaches/managers. His criticism of SNY had more to do with the way the network produces in-game about how they make him look like a self-percieved zombie out there.
Ian O'Connor is a helmet-head jerk. Look at the stuff he writes about Mangini or TC or even how he talked to a senile George Steinbrenner about the situation with his manager. He's the type who looks for trouble with his line of questions.
At some point in time, the ENTIRE NY media needs to jump into the 21st Century and realize that Jackie Robinson is D-E-A-D.
His legacy needs to be remembered....not replayed.
It's long overdue for the media in the leading city of the world to be LEADERS instead of RETROS.
Again...just my opinion.
Lee also added, "But, if the Mets need a new manager, they have my number."
Willie brought up the race angle unsolicited, not Ian.
Sorry Neil,
I just re-read the article..... I don't "read that" perspective.
From the article....
"Is it racial?" Randolph asked. "Huh? It smells a little bit".
Take out the strategically placed "Randolph asked" and it looks to me, because of the word "Huh?", he was responding to a question by asking the same question back rhetorically to O'Connor.
I.E. not asking O' Connor for his opinion but simply repeating what O'Connor asked.
Or, on the other hand, maybe Willie was ACTUALLY asking someone he considered a friend and confidant his opinion on the matter? (based on the strategic placement of the phrase
"Randolph asked")--but then why would he follow it up with his own opinion before getting O'Connor's response and take on the matter after he said "HUH?
If that's the case, Willie made a huge mistake in picking his friends in the industry, and O'Connor NEVER should have printed that conversation.
Willie Randolph has been a class individual in the world of baseball for over 30 years.
What you guys are doing to him is disgusting.
All boils down to semantics, Neil, and you guys are the kings of it.
It's unfortunate when semantics are used as weapons.
Things tend to fall out of context.
I suppose the next thing I read will be an explanation that 19 year old Kyle Okposo WANTED Mark Herrmann to ask him whether he ever encountered racism while growing up playing hockey in Minnesota (Mark has apparently never heard about or encountered the concept of "Minnesota Nice").
Just my opinion.
Willie brought up the question himself and then answered it. He was not repeating a question from Ian.
This is per Willie?