Tit for tat

In several decades of being a sportswriter - particularly a sportswriter in this sports-crazy state - I offended a few people.

Rarely, if ever, was it intentional. But inevitably if you do your job right, you write some things that make a coach or administrator or player mad, or that a fan just didn't think was fair. Sometimes, it wasn't justified (like the nice lady who thought I was being sacrilegious for, in a story about Notre Dame football, referring to "Touchdown Jesus"). Sometimes it was fair. Sometimes it was just a matter of interpretation.

Was I offended by criticism of what I wrote? Absolutely.

Did I want to respond? You better believe it.

Did I respond? Well, I would have, except for a wise man in the business who told me, "Ray, you took your shot at them. Now, they get a free shot back at you." And I learned that when I was criticized, to let it go. Don't respond. Move on to the next thing.

What I didn't find out until much later was that getting into a verbal war of insults with prominent people was great for readership and ratings. TV and radio people understood that.

Which brings me to the current president, Donald J. Trump, and media like CNN and the hosts of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC.

Nobody is right in this on-going war of words. I wish the media was a little more careful with its words. I wish the president wasn't so reactionary that he couldn't let some of this stuff go. And I wish the media who become the target of the president's attack would simply say, "We took our shot, he's taking his, now let's move on."

My guess is that such a reaction would cause the whole story to go away pretty quickly.

But then, that's not really what either side wants. I know media loves the victim, either it's reporting on one or being one itself. Maybe it's just a part of society today that we all seek victim status.

Years ago, I remember an occasion where a sportswriter I worked with got into a verbal altercation with an administrator of a team we were covering. We all on an elevator together when, in the heat of the moment, the front-office guy let my friend know he didn't like what was said, even going so far as to say, "You better watch yourself. You might find yourself getting your a** kicked." It really wasn't much of a threat. Personally, I'd been threatened much more seriously. But when we got off the elevator, my friend said to me, "Did you hear that? He threatened me!" I said I didn't really think it was much of a threat, more of just an angry exchange of words. "No,'' my friend said. "That was a threat. They can't get away with that."

I didn't think anything of it until later, back in the newspaper office. The editor called me in and asked me what happened on the elevator, that this other guy had reported he'd had his life threatened by this guy from the team. I laughed and told the editor, "Do you know how many times people in the news room have said they were going to kick your butt? It was about the same thing; just a guy blowing off steam."

I thought it was over, but my buddy turned it into a big deal. He got a lot of mileage out of being "threatened." And he used things like that to go on to the big-time.

In today's media, ratings - and readers, if there are any still left - are everything. And nothing gets a media person noticed more than supposedly being "threatened" for "just doing his job." We're the fourth estate, you know; protected by the First Amendment, the watchdogs of government and a check on those in power.

All of which is true. I absolutely believe that a free press, or free media, is essential to a free society and to keeping tyrants in check.

But I also know sometimes folks in the media (and I used to be one) can let their ego get as big as the people they are taking on, whether they are presidents or coaches or preachers or CEOs. What the media does is important, but sometimes we in the media know that we're reporting on the really important things that other people are doing, and if we're honest with ourselves we can feel a little inferior (which is why sportswriters get accused of having never played the game, or political reporters are derided with being called "professional second-guessers."). So maybe we feel a little 'tougher' when we're drawn into the fray.

My own approach was always to hear people out when they didn't like what I'd said or written, tell them I appreciated their opinion, but that I had another story to work on so thanks for their time. As a result, I didn't get involved in too many high-profile spats with authority figures.

Now, I'm not saying the conflict between a college football coach in Alabama and a sportswriter are as big as between the President of the United States and a TV anchor couple. (In Alabama, it's bigger!).

But I am saying that sometimes you just move on. If you're convinced you are right, then let that stand for itself.

As I always tell my children, "living well is the best revenge."

However, I have learned that things like "revenge" and an extended "war of words" are very good for ratings.

The media is right in that the President is acting rather childishly and churlishly. Trump is right that the media coverage seems more focused on hysteria and fear-mongering. Again, saying 'X' can kill you gets a lot more attention that saying 'X' is probably safe. It means the same thing, but one gets your attention a lot more than the other. And, once again, attention translates into ratings and/or votes (or all-important contributions).

The media is wrong, however, to act as if they are under some kind of uncharted new assault on their First Amendment territory. While Trump screams about "fake news,'' the Obama administration stonewalled Freedom of Information requests, retaliated against media by going after phone records of AP reporters, targeting James Rosen in particular. According to a report in Accuracy in Media, "Leonard Downie Jr., long time executive editor of The Washington Post, was the author of the Committee to Protect Journalists October 2013 report titled “The Obama Administration and the Press.” The report said that of the 11 total prosecutions of leakers by the U.S. government using the Espionage Act, eight have occurred during the Obama administration, including six government employees and two contractors, one of whom was Snowden. Downie said that “The [Obama] administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate.” David Sanger of The New York Times said of the Obama administration, “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.” And just last week, New York Times reporter James Risen argued that the Obama administration has been “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”

This isn't my own version of tit-for-tat by trying to say "Obama was worse!" Although I think the former presidents assault on media was more sinister because it was far more subtle than the current president. I'd rather have a guy come at me with a baseball bat where I can see him than one sneak up behind me when I'm not looking.

Trump is wrong in constantly playing to the public with cries of "fake news" and "fake media," at a time when trust in the media is about as low as trust in Government itself.

But Trump can't let any slight, real or perceived, pass; and the media loves using this for ratings, particularly on cable news channels where nothing sells like a crisis, so if there isn't one the smart thing to do is create one.

Truthfully? I think both the president and the media are addicted to each other in a "I just can't quit you" sort of way.

It's like we're a nation of first-graders, justifying our actions by yelling "He started it!"

Maybe it's time for a little first-grade discipline - put them all in 'time out.'