This is what Brad Lester allegedly said yesterday, although the original link to where he said these things appears to be broken (and would be behind a paywall anyway):
"It’s a disappointing season, but we feel like we can make up for our season by winning these last two," Lester said. "If we win these last two games, it won’t be as bad ... I have no doubt in my mind," Lester said. "We should beat both teams by a good amount of points. I feel real good about it."Now, assuming Lester is being quoted accurately, is this a level of confidence bordering on capital-C Cocky? Yep. Is expressing this level of confidence to the media the wisest of ideas? No. Will "a good amount of points" and "I have no doubt" show up on bulletin boards in T-town and Athens within the week? Probably.
But is this a prediction, a guarantee, or any kind of promise? No, it is not. If we win, Lester says. We should beat both teams, he claims. If and should do not mean the same thing as when and will.
Unfortunately, this didn't keep Paul Westerdawg (a blogger I have and will continue to have a tremendous amount of respect for) from curiously titling his post in response
Auburn's Lester Predicts AU to beat UGA and BamaPWD is right that Lester "(t)alks a lot for a team that's 5-5, and on a two game losing streak against the Bulldogs." But it's not a prediction. And it's sure as hell not a guarantee, as it's portrayed to be at the Fanhouse ("It's never a good idea to guarantee victory ... Apparently Auburn running back Brad Lester didn't get the memo") by a certain pro-'Bama blogger whose identity you'll never guess.
Two things, gentlemen:
1. It's the mainstream media's job to take athletes' quotes and stretch their meanings beyond the breaking point of truth in the exalted holy name of Hype. I suggest you let them handle it.
2. Not that you should necessarily be faulted for this--this is, likewise, my job rather than yours--but neither of you note that as loudmouthed, overconfident, and possibly even delusional as this quote makes Lester out to be, it's exactly the sort of attitude that Auburn needs right now. Any rational analysis has to conclude that Georgia and Alabama will both, very likely, blow our Tigers clean off the field. But as that conclusion isn't going to lend itself to either a productive week of practice or an energetic performance on Saturday, rationality has no place here. Auburn needs overconfidence. It needs delusion. If Auburn doesn't believe that a combination of intense preparation and perfect execution will lead to not only victory but a potentially decisive one, hell, they've lost already.
So, no I'm not angry to hear Lester say he "has no doubt" Auburn should win these next two games. I'd be a lot more upset to hear him say he did.
11 comments:
My Response.
You are an idiot....making a big deal out of nothing!!!!!!
Cry more.
Sounds like somebody put on their sensitive pants today.
I also love the irony in your suggestion that only the more ethically-minded, publicly-accountable journalist should take athletes' words and twist them, meanwhile bloggers, who are not obligated to follow any ethical canon and have no obligation to remain even the least bit quasi-objective, should be the bastion of responsibility and moderation in the world of print.
Think about that for a minute. Please.
Paul Westerdawg RULES!
JG, just because bloggers admit their biases doesn't mean they shouldn't have standards. MSM writers have to chase readers for their livelihood and exaggerate because they have to. Bloggers should strive to be more levelheaded and more rational than the press--and the best ones (PWD usually included) are.
Get a life, and a real job...wait a minute, "if" you get a job, then you "should" have a life.
Jerry,
I wholly disagree. I worked for five years as a journalist, and objectivity and neutrality are at the forefront of what a great journalist strives for everyday. A blogger, on the other hand, while still some form of a journalist, is not necessarily committed to these ideals. Bloggers can promote their own interests without any sort of conflict. They can refuse to be objective or neutral, and no issues arise from that. PWD's interpretation of Brad Lester's comments (which, for the record, is consistent with mine) is totally acceptable in the blog world. Read PWD's blog -- while it does contain a great deal of honest, even-handed analysis, it is nonetheless a pro-UGA blog. Calling him out for writing in a manner consistent with his blog is inconsistent with some of the basic principles of blogging.
Guess what, JG? I was a journalist for the last three years as well. I suppose I should differentiate between straight news-writing rather than column-writing, which is a lot closer to blogging than beat stuff and is where I'm going with my comparison. But the best bloggers, as I said, take much more care than most column-writers or, say, various media talking heads.
As for PWD's take on Lester, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's unnecessarily inflammatory regardless of his affiliation and think the Dawg fans here would probably not take too kindly to me having made the same stretch if a Dawg had made those statements about Auburn. (Could I have been a little strenuous in discussing my opinion? Probably.) You don't think that. So it goes.
The gist of what I'm getting at is that each blogger holds himself to a standard that he personally chooses. While there is a clear ethical standard for traditional, mainstream journalism, such clearly does not exist for bloggers. You're clearly applying the standard which you've set for your own blog to PWD's blog. That, in my mind, is out of order.
Criticizing another blogger for "twisting" the words of an athlete is akin to admonishing a filmmaker for taking too many liberties with a "based on a true story" movie. You might be able to justify the argument in your own mind, but no more so than the filmmaker can justify his own actions in his mind.
Post a Comment