Sports Illustrated, how far the mighty have fallen. At one time, SI was the bible of sports. It was respected for its insightful writing, strong journalistic principles and timely perspectives. I remember when it was the first magazine I reached for when I boarded a plane and I eagerly anticipated it arriving at my house. It was a "cover to cover" must read. Writers like Frank Deford, Dan Jenkins and others whose distinguished words once filled SI's pages must be rolling their eyes and canceling their subscriptions when they see today's impostor.

The latest in a long line of embarrassing efforts is Jeff Pearlman's article on Toronto Blue Jays pitcher David Wells. From his opening paragraph calling Wells fat in every way possible, including a tattoo of his family, to his accusation that Wells shows up at Spring Training impersonating a weather balloon, is embarrassing, uncalled for, insensitive and unprofessional. The real sad thing is how many places the finger of blame can be pointed.

First, Pearlman for writing the article the way he did. It shows a total misunderstanding of what today's sports fan wants. No one cares if Wells is fat, which is always subjective anyway. Fans care about performance and Wells performs. Joe Assad, SI's senior P.R. person, says that I and other readers are missing the point. The article, he says, is overwhelmingly positive. The point Pearlman and Assad are missing is fans today get their impression of a story from what they read in the first couple of paragraphs. Everything after that is filler. I suggest that if you asked a hundred people who read Pearlman's article what impression they got or what they remember most about the story, they would say how fat Wells is. No one cares about Wells' weight and for Pearlman to think so shows he has no understanding of sports fans or SI's readers.

A bigger issue is whether Pearlman is guilty of the same insensitivity that John Rocker showed in his comments in SI about New Yorkers. That story was also written by Pearlman. I see no difference between Rocker's name calling and character judging and Pearlman's name calling. In my opinion, both are guilty of insensitive remarks about people. However, in my mind, Pearlman is guiltier. He can think before he writes and those of us in the journalism field have been schooled to be fair, honest and sensitive. Pearlman might have thought he was being cute and cleaver, but ask anyone with a weight problem whether they thought it was. A stereotype is a stereotype, whether it comes out of Rocker's mouth or from Pearlman's computer.

After reading Pearlman's article, another major concern I have is how Pearlman's interview with Rocker was conducted. If Pearlman's style and writing philosophy is to sensationalize his stories with either his words or others, then how he asked Rocker the questions that elicited Rocker's insensitive comments must be questioned. Being a journalist and interviewer myself, I know how you pose a question and the atmosphere the words are posed in determines the tone of the interview and how the comments come out. If say, Rocker was led to believe it was a casual, relaxing, let it all hang out conversation, he may have made those comments not expecting them to be taken as serious interview material. One thing is for sure, Rocker would never have made those comments if it had been a live, on air radio or television interview. SI's Assad took issue with me for connecting the Wells and Rocker stories. I offered to air Pearlman's Rocker interview for the story in it's entirety, but Assad refused, saying "It's not our policy." I'm sure it's not. Who knows, it could be a smoking gun.

Also, a large share of the blame belongs to SI's editors who allowed the Wells article to be written and published. They have the final say in how an article is presented. Assad confirmed SI's editorial philosophy today is more people oriented instead of game or event oriented. Then change the magazine to Sports Illustrated People Magazine. In the past, a reader could tell when an SI article was reporting, commentary or editorializing. It's impossible to tell now. I'm sure the SI editors are under pressure to give the fans what they want. The problem is they apparently don't understand what today's fans want and have gone too far by injecting sensationalism into journalism. They've forgotten the roots and reputation of Sports Illustrated.

Editors are there to help direct, support and mold a writers story. I wonder if they realize, or Pearlman realizes, that with his Rocker and Wells stories, his credibility has been damaged. Athletes, already cautious and hardened toward the media, will put Pearlman and to some extent other SI writers on a persona non grata list. If you were an athlete and Pearlman said "Hey, I'd like to talk to you for a story," would you talk to him, give him insight, be candid with him? I don't think so. Also, it puts other SI writers in an awkward position of choosing sides. Athletes will ask the writers how they feel about the two stories and Pearlman. The writer will have to go against Pearlman in hopes of maintaining access to the athletes or stand with him and hope the athletes don't do a cold shoulder act. The SI editors did Pearlman and all SI writers no favor in letting his story run the way it did.

Finally, you have to wonder about SI's corporate direction. The magazine started changing when it began its swimsuit issues. Now, I have no problem with beautiful women in swimsuits, but I strongly question its place in a serious, sports oriented magazine. It was done for one reason only. M-O-N-E-Y. Business is business and now the SI swimsuit issue has become entrenched and a part of the magazine's culture. However, I think it was also the start of the movement toward SI's "people magazine" approach to sports. Kind of a "dumbing down" of its sports coverage. In the final analysis, sensationalism, profits and slickness seems to be the order of the day at SI.

I guess what hurts the most is another respected, sports journalistic institution has been corrupted and has taken the easy path. Instead of leading, SI is now part of the pack. Instead of setting the standard, SI is now wallowing with the others. It hurts to see that. I sense like others, instead of eagerly looking forward to reading the latest Sports Illustrated, it's now my last thought. It didn't have to be that way and that's sad.

I feel better now.

I'm Ron Barr.

Go to Ron's General Bulletin Board

Read Ron's Archived Commentaries