Jon writes:
>.....but blaming the press?  That's much too easy.  In fact, if
>you'd used the more popular and descriptive term "liberal press," you
>could get a job in the White House.
 
Since I've seen it in both the Herald and Globe, it wouldn't be right to
say "liberal press" since it was coming from both sides.  Besides, this is
not a political topic.
 
>The press didn't have to go after the team...they created the headlines
>themselves (how about: "Crooked Swedish Referee Steals US Medal").
>When multiple members of a team question not only the competence
>of a referee, but also his ethics ("the Swede was out to get
>us"), that's news.  No one should allege such scandalous behavior and
>then claim that someone else made too much of it.
 
The press has been going after this team long enough, ever since back in
1988 when Peterson treated them rudely in Calgary.  They were looking for
something to get Team USA on - even members of the media themselves admit
this.
 
It isn't Team USA that's claiming too much was made of it.  It is me and
certain members of the media.  The press doesn't like to be shown up or made
fun of, and with the way they were treated by Peterson in Calgary, this team
was a PR nightmare from the start.  The slightest thing was bound to get a
barrage of negative articles sent their way, and that's what we saw since
August; indeed, ever since Peterson was named coach again.  The image was
created of Peterson as a bad guy and the team as a bunch of stiffs.  I
didn't like Peterson either, but it was because of his coaching.  I don't
know him well enough to say what kind of person he is.
 
>                                                   And Mike, if you
>couldn't let the discussion die, how can you accuse the press of
>prolonging it long after people cared?
 
If I hadn't continued to read about it in the papers or hear it on the
radio, I wouldn't have felt the need to prolong it.  Unfortunately we are
only getting one side of the story from the press.  I decided to give
the other.  Perhaps I was angry enough that I was still listening to this.
 
As for why I brought it up if it wasn't news, it was made news when it
was plastered all over the papers.  If that didn't happen, you wouldn't
have heard me criticizing the way it was reported.  Yes, it deserved to
be mentioned because it did happen.  But no, it didn't deserve to lead the
news ahead of the game or to have more written about it in the papers
than the game itself.
 
>I had tears in my eyes in 1980, but I was just as proud of this team.
>That is, until several members exhibited such terrible sportsmanship.
>Blame it on emotion if you want, but it is still poor sportsmanship.
 
Well, I agree that it was bad sportsmanship and said as much.  But it happens
and people aren't perfect; I tried to look at the big picture and see that
sometimes people can make statements they don't really mean in such
situations.  It's not going to make me any less proud of what the team
accomplished.
 
>To me the only way to make up for it would have been a full public
>apology to the referee in front of the same audience/media channels.  If
>you were accused of misconduct without substantiation would you expect
>anything less?
 
As I had said, I hoped they would in some way make an apology to the
referee, be it private or public.  No use for me to speculate on whether
that was done.  If not, then yes, I would be disappointed that they
didn't take these measures.  But Donatelli still apologized, on his own.
To me, if someone screws up and then makes what I consider to be a sincere
apology, then that's good enough for me.  I don't think he's the kind of
guy to make an insincere apology.  People can disagree if they like, that's
my opinion.
 
 
- mike