Well, it happened (video). I watched it live, and I really didn't know what to think- I found the whole thing somewhat surreal. The Aaron video response was nice, as was the absence of Allan (quick side note- could Selig have possibly come out of this looking worse? The low point was clearly 755, both his reaction and the press release. Thankfully he wasn't there for 756.).
I thought I'd now take a minute to look back at how the public perception has gotten to its current point with the new HR king, concentrating on the seemingly contrasing perceptions of the average fan and the media.
The thing that got me to thinking about this was a recent ESPN.com poll asking what your reaction would be when Bonds breaks the record. I can't find the link, but I was caught by surprise when the results were split pretty much evenly between the three options ("Boo", "Cheer", "No Reaction"). This clearly clashes with the media coverage of Bonds, which I would estimate as being about 80% "Boo" and 20% "Cheer" (I doubt there are any media members who would fall into the "No Reaction" category). So why the disparity? Let's break it down.
The Factors
- The Personality
I think how Bonds treats people has a much bigger effect on his media perception than the average fan, as us fans aren't in the locker room attempting to interview Bonds. It's really hard to ignore stories like this one (from Deadspin's interview with Jeff Pearlman)...
"I still often think of Dan Peltier, the former Giant backup who brought his young son to the team's Family Day. When Bonds asked the kid to name his favorite ballplayer, he said, 'My dad!' To which Bonds replied, 'Why? He never plays.'"
...but has the general public really allowed Bonds' "aloof" personality shape their opinion of him? I seriously doubt that. The split between Bonds' perception in the eyes of media and fans begins with his personality, an issue that arose years before anyone knew about this guy.
- Race
You may have noticed- Barry Bonds is black. I have no idea what effect it has had on the perception of Bonds. But it's certainly there, and I have no doubt that it has had *some* significant effect, and this list would be incomplete if this aspect was ignored.
- The Literature
Well, neither of the two books have been terribly complimentary. I think it would be very interesting if someone did one of these public perception polls and divided it between people who have read Game of Shadows and people who haven't. Part of me thinks that a higher percentage of media members have read it than fans, and that might be playing a big role here. Another part of me thinks that if you've read Game of Shadows, you probably weren't a huge Bonds fan in the first place, and in that sense it doesn't really alter his perception; the people who like Bonds ignored it, and the people against Bonds probably came to dislike him more, but no opinions were swayed one way or the other.
Then there's the "No Reaction" group, which apparently makes up about one third of the public. If you clicked that bubble in the ESPN poll, I think it's pretty likely you're only a casual fan, and EXTREMELY unlikely that you've read Game of Shadows.
- The Body
Well, there's the visual evidence. There's also the hard evidence of the growth of his body (size 42 jersey to size 52), feet (size 10.5 cleats to size 13 cleats), and head (size 7 1/8 to size 7 1/2). Although that evidence has been somewhat disputed in the past few days, let's be serious...- Steroids
...Barry Bonds did steroids. A lot of them. I think the most interesting part of my proposed poll that would split the response between people who have and have not read Game of Shadows would be the response to the first question in this poll ("Do you believe Barry Bonds knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs?"). Of the 80,138 respondents, 85.7% answered "Yes". I defy an unbiased observer to read the book, and honestly answer "No" to that question- I really don't think it's possible.
But regardless, the people who answered the "Would you cheer?" poll are the same people who responded to this one (as both were on the ESPN website). The interesting thing coming from this is that we now have this one group in which 85% of people think Bonds knowingly did steroids, but only 33% of people will boo when he breaks the record.
The Results
Two things stick out to me. The first is that Bonds was obviously disliked by the media long before OBPs were literally off the charts. I think there would be a lot of negative reactions to Bonds breaking the record from the media without the steroid suspicion, and I think the fans' backlash against Bonds without steroids would be slim to none. So there's our first divide.
The second, obviously, is steroids. For the purpose of this exercise, let's ignore the 15% of the general population that doesn't think Bonds did steroids- it's a small fraction, and I don't think they're particularly close to the situation.
The fans just don't care about the steroids accusations as much as the media does. The average person has a lot more things to worry about than if a baseball player cheated. That's not to say that fan's don't care- that's very clearly not the case. But I just think that the public never cared as much as the media, and the recent constant coverage has numbed even more of the general population regarding this issue.
Also, fans form opinions at their leisure; it's the media's job to form opinions. I would imagine that there are some in the media who aren't as turned off by Bonds as you might think, but that's the better story, so that's what they write.
In the end, I think this breaks down to two issues. The first is pretty clear cut- the media hated Bonds before any steroids talk, simply because he's a jerk.
The second isn't nearly as clear cut, but what I think it generally breaks down to is this- the closer you are to the situation, the more turned off you are by Barry Bonds. From a distance, he's obviously not the greatest guy in the world, but what he's accomplished is amazing, and that's what sticks out to people. But the more you know- the more you read the books, the more you hear the stories, the more you lose focus of the accomplishments, and can't get past the ugliness of the whole situation (not that you should). And if that's what ends up forming your opinion, that opinion is obviously not going to be positive. In the end, I think this is where the big difference is- if your occupation involves forming an opinion on something, you're going to spend a lot more time on it, take the whole situation a lot more seriously, and be much more affected by details that others may ignore. Does all this bring you to a correct conclusion? I honestly don't know, but it certainly brings you to a more pointed conclusion than one who is more removed from all of this.
1 comments:
He's a jerk only to the "media".
Post a Comment