It has become more or less an accepted NBA fact that, when it comes to dealing with the media, the Blazers are right up there among the most difficult teams in the league. Suspicion, tension, recorded conversations, disputed quotes, press releases denouncing coverage... even the Commissioner has made fun at the suspicious and often bitter way the team treats the press. (By the way, I really like Chad Ford's take on this in his monologue at the end of his discussion with Kevin Pritchard.)
How terrible the Blazers are to cover has become a recurring factor in Blazer coverage--at least from some journalists.
But I got an interesting take on the events from two former Oregonian basketball writers, both of whom make convincing cases that it's not so bad these days.
And, full disclosure, both of them work for the Oregonian's competition, the Portland Tribune.
The gist is this: the Blazers may be difficult at times these days. But their current sins in handling the media pale in comparison to some of the things that happened routinely at other times.
Kerry Eggers wrote about the Blazers as a beat writer and then a columnist for many years. In January 1997, when he wrote a column covering the entire NBA, he was hoping to get some insight for a preview of the upcoming draft. At that point, according to several accounts, the team was in the habit of referring practically every meaningful personnel question to Bob Whitsitt, who in turn was seldom available to respond.
In this instance, Eggers managed to get on the phone with Mark Warkentien, who now helps to run the Nuggets but was then Portland's director of player personnel. Eggers felt that Warkentien would be a good source of unbiased views on top picks--as Portland was an excellent team (remember those days?) that would not be a factor high in the draft. The team, in essence, had nothing to lose by talking.
But once Eggers got into his questions, Warkentien referred him to Whitsitt. Eggers recounts what happened next: "I was annoyed. I said 'Ah, bowing down to the Almighty Whitsitt again, eh?' And he just went ballistic. He cussed, and he said there would be repurcussions."
Remember that the Blazers are a big deal in Portland--especially when they're good. Not only are they a big driver of newspaper readers, but they are also massive advertisers, contributing mightily to the newspaper's bottom line. It's a wicked conflict of interest.
Anyway, as it happened, Eggers explains that he was asked to come to a meeting with then Managing Editor Peter Bhatia and then Sports Editor Dennis Peck. Eggers says Bhatia told him that his conduct had been unprofessional and he was no longer allowed to keep his NBA beat--which included very little mention of the Blazers anyway. Eggers went on to cover minor league hockey, the Forest Dragons (whatever sport that was), and then Major League Baseball and the NFL.
I have talked to two other people who worked at the Oregonian at the time and confirm the basics--that Eggers and Warkentien had an argument after which Eggers was quickly banned from writing about the Blazers.
This raises all kinds of issues. For one, ever wonder why your local beat writer writes so few negative stories about the team? Stories like this--which sportswriters are fond of relaying to each other--could be part of the reason.
But in the context of the Blazers, the message here is: sure, the Blazers might express a little naked animosity for John Canzano and the like (especially that "Peeping Tom" Jason Quick) but they evidently talk to both writers, and they haven't used their pull to get either of them transferred to the Forest Dragon beat (no word, however, on whether or not they have tried--I wouldn't bet against it). Being suspicious and weird is not good for the team, the city, or the fans, but it's surely better than profoundly messing with people's careers.
Just imagine the hissy fit that would result if Eggers had had Canzano's sensibility. Somehow or another, via one of Canzano's blogs, his radio show, or his column, we'd all know all about it. Which may be correct. I can't say I'd take it quietly either. But it was surely a different time, and it may be that the biggest change has been not in the team's behavior but in the flavor of the coverage.
Steve Brandon covered the Blazers for nine years. He has dozens of amusing stories of the kinds of nightmares the team put him through. For instance, one time he was told to wait outside a particular door during the closed portion of a practice. We're talking about someone who has traveled thousands of miles just to get a few post-practice quotes from the team. He waited, and the door wasn't opened for quite some time. By the time it was opened, the Blazers had left the building.
Another time he was told practice was at a time that was several hours too late. Another wasted trip.
There were beliggerent tirades from Bob Whitsitt. There were terse interviews with players, that were made even more awkward by PR staffers monitoring every word, and cutting off conversation on certain topics.
Brandon was given all kinds of directions from the team, for instance not to make a big deal about the fact that Bob Whitsitt lived and worked in Seattle while he ran the Blazers. Brandon was even called dirty names by players.
Brandon says reporting on the team was made especially tough because at various times almost nobody in the whole franchise would talk. (They have league policies against some of that...) Not the assistant coaches, not the trainers, not the owner, and not a good chunk of the players. "Now," he points out, "everybody talks. John Nash was very available. Steve Patterson talks. Kevin Pritchard talks, the assistant coaches talk, the players talk. Even Paul Allen is talking to some extent... there were some games when Damon Stoudamire and Greg Anthony were essentially the only people who would talk. I used a lot of Damon and Greg quotes. And Greg wasn't even a major player at that time. If you tracked points scored per quote in the paper, Greg Anthony would have been the league leader."
But Brandon just never saw fit to write about any of that. "I had the old philosophy, that as the journalist you shouldn't be the story. I also was writing about the team at a time when the games meant more, because the team was so competitive. There was a lot of demand for articles about how the team would defend Shaq, who would play in the fourth quarter, or what offense they would run."
Translation: when you're covering a mediocre team like John Canzano and Jason Quick have been doing, as a writer, you need to look around a little harder for interesting stuff to talk about.
"It does seem very personal now" says Brandon, who is now the sports editor at the Tribune. "It's a lot of 'he said, she said.' The coverage is very different. What happens for 48 minutes is hardly mentioned. Everyone's worried about being correctly quoted and all that. I don't remember that being such an issue before. On the outside looking in, it's a little hard to understand the animosity of both sides. Over the last few years, I have thought many times that it is a much better team to cover now."
Originally
from True Hoop
by Henry Abbott
reBlogged
on Jan 3, 2007, 10:06AM
A new season of the BBC radio programme 
This is my favorite picture of myself in 2006. We had climbed