Bobby Fischer
We've all seen the movie (if you haven't you need to), and seeing as you are reading this blog, you most likely have seen the recent Jeremy Schaap-Fischer fiasco (and then then the in-depth follow-up this week) on Sportscenter. (Or if you aren't a sports fan, you probably follow the news enough to keep up to date on this important traitor/extradition/economic sanctions stuff).
Anyways, I call it a fiasco because that's what it is. I'm not justifying Fischer or any of his views (in particular the letter he kept referencing) -- he's obviously a little unstable. You might could say he doesn't have a "sane bone in his body." But likewise, I think ESPN's role in this whole thing is equally despicable.
WHY do you send a reporter with a personal history -- and a conflicting one at that -- to cover this....nut? That's hugely irresponsible.
Of course, that's exactly why they did it. It's part of the whole sensationalism/entertainment aspect journalism is being corroded by. ESPN sent Schapp to defend his father's honor. Don't fall for this bullshit about him wanting to meet, understand, and know the man his father once befriended. That's all crafted so that you don't call ESPN out for unscrupulous practices, which clearly they employed. But if they send Steve Cyphers (personal hero, GJ represent), where's the story? There is none. Shame on you, ESPN.
Somehow, IN THIS EPISODE ONLY, I find my sympathy resting with Bobby Fischer, despite his indefensible views on the world. Still, I wish the greatest chess player in this country's history -- and perhaps of all time -- was a little bit less of a recluse/maniac and had a little less hatred for things American or Semitic. Why does genius so often correlate with eccentricity?
posted by dantheheel at 3:40 PM
5 Comments:
I can see how you would make a case for such shady journalism by ESPN, but I think it makes sense. To me, they really make no effort to try to hide the reason Schaap went over there. It was a news story that really didn't fall into the realm of ESPN coverage, yet it was obviously something that was of great importance to Schaap. You could argue the merits of his using ESPN as his outlet to cover this story, but to me it was fascinating to watch him go over there and really call Fischer into question (he asked some legit stuff there at the beginning) before they really started into their little spat. To me, the angle was such that it gave the viewer the chance to really see a personal angle of how crazy Fischer's bones really are. We've all heard and read stories about what he's said, but to see him engage with an ESPN reporter and to see his craziness at work was pretty interesting in itself. I know it may be questionable to send a reporter with his own personal agenda, but as you said, ESPN wasn't there to cover the story itself and instead found a way to show me, the viewer, just what Fischer truly is all about.
4:41 PM
The point is it's just shitty journalism. If Schaap wanted to make it his own personal crusade, that's fine. But there's no need to bring cameras.
and it could have been done so much more discreetly. If it wasn't MEANT to be a show.
and the second the media ENTERS the news, it stops reporting and starts creating. Ethically, that is pretty questionable IMO.
not saying it isn't a good story, but I just would have sent somebody else to cover it. But then we wouldn't be talking about it.
1:36 AM
I'm kind of torn here. I mean, I understand what you are talking about and agree that it's questionable, so this is the only consolation I could think of:
ESPN should have sent someone along WITH Schaap (I like Cyphers, and the GJ shout-out is always a plus as well) to cover the Fischer story. Because I think THAT would have had some sort of merit to it. True, it still would have been borderline sketchy because Schaap works for ESPN, but by having him be a third party to this and not the primary reporter in the story, it would have made it a little more objective.
I mean, I see how it was way subjective, but I guess I just still found it interesting and captivating nonetheless. I guess I just would have found a way to be a little more professional but still tell Schaap's story.
3:10 AM
yeah, there's just no way you can defend the motives of ESPN, in my opinion, despite the story they ended up getting/creating.
I mean, give John Stewart a mic and he COULD go get in a verbal shouting match with George Bush and insult him with or without cause, but it's just not right.
7:39 PM
Good call. I guess it would have been more appropriate to have said that in spite of the fact that it was bad (your points are all valid), I still found myself interested and watching the piece and follow-up nonetheless.
3:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home