All's Not O-Kay with ESPN Radio

SVP Plays Hardball

I'm a huge Scott Van Pelt fan--he's on my all-time semi-famous dudes I'd love to hang out with list. Unfortunately, Deadspin reports that last week he was suspended for going off on baseball commissioner Bud Selig's $18.5 million salary.

Van Pelt declined to comment on the incident, passing it along to ESPN media relations, who "do not comment about personnel decisions." The story, passed along through several people, was that Van Pelt's rant about Selig was "too personal" for some of the ESPN bosses — comments about his slovenly appearance, something about a "pimp cup" — which led to the suspension. Van Pelt, reportedly on his own volition, called Selig to apologize and was in agreement that his statements were a little harsh.

Even before pitchers and catchers report this year--and mostly thanks to A-Rod, with more than an assist from Joe Torre--baseball's earned some dubious headlines, especially in the New York press (see NY Post's creative headline):


I want to be a headline writer

Speaking of the New York media and ESPN Radio, I'm curious as to why SVP gets a timeout for having an opinion while Michael Kay of New York's ESPN 1050 and his litany of conflicts of interests and axes to grind apparently don't matter to the Worldwide Leader.

- Kay is an employee of the New York Yankees (He works for the YES Network as the lead play-by-play man in the booth), a team he covers on his program.

- He openly dislikes Joe Torre on a personal level--a fact he's recently discussed on his program with Bob Costas in light of Torre's recent book release. (Adding insult to injury, Torre also snubbed Kay on the book's media blitz)

- And we're four years past it, but Kay was on A-Rod's payroll at a December, 2004 event at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square for a signing event (oh by the way, Barry Bonds was also there). Shortly thereafter, Phil Mushnick of the New York Post had some choice words about the event, which I was thankfully able to uncover:

In December (04), you might recall, Kay, on his ESPN Radio show, advertised and endorsed an autograph session that would star Alex Rodriguez and that paramount of baseball virtue, Barry Bonds. Kay also seemed mighty proud of the fact that he had been selected — hired — to host that session. And the cost of admission was only $7,500 per person.

And when Kay took heat in this column for lending (leasing) his name, presence and reputation to such a pig roast, he didn’t take it well. He hollered that he was comfortable with his decision and loudly rationalized that the Rodriguez/Bonds gig would pay him more for one night’s work than sportswriters “make in a week!

We made the point then; we’ll make it again. You can’t hop on the greed train, then make believe it was an accident, that you tripped and fell up a flight of stairs.

When Kay accepted that ugly gig — and he had enthusiastically voiced commercials for high-priced autographed stuff prior to that — he painted himself in. For whatever his financial take, it wasn’t worth it; there would be too many times when he’d either have to ignore the tidal wave of greed — and no credible sports commentator would do that — or grow inured to his hypocrisy.

It would be hard enough to believe that Kay was unbiased when discussing Torre and A-Rod considering his role as Yankees announcer. Knowing that in 2004, Kay made more in a night that most sportswriters make in a week thanks to A-Rod, how can listeners be totally assured that Kay's opinions regarding the tainted slugger are not prejudiced(Hint--they are)?

I would imagine that the two arguments ESPN would present in support of Kay would be:

- Kay's paid for his opinion, or
- Kay's local (as opposed to SVP's national show), so it's different

I know that life's not fair, but these cases strike me as particularly egregious. For starters, Van Peezy's also paid for his opinion, and I know I'm out of uniform, but I still despise the different spanks for different ranks argument.

I should point out that I really like Kay, and think he calls a terrific game. I also enjoy his radio program and subscribe to his Podcast. Truth be told, I don't mind that he has an opinion.

The fact of the matter is ESPN is locked in an 8-year, $2.4 billion deal with Major League Baseball, so attacking MLB's chief executive on ESPN airwaves presents a conflict of interest. Ergo, the suspension.

So all things considered, I guess I'm late to the party. Consider me the billionth observer to come to the realization that when it comes to journalistic integrity, ESPN can not be viewed as a reputable outlet.

Free SVP!