I thought this comment was particularly insightful:

The Milton Bradley story reminds me of Don Henley’s great little shot at newspaper writers, “Dirty Laundry.” “Kick em when they’re up, kick em when their down.”A moody and petulant sports star like Milton Bradley who is having a bad year and works for a dysfunctional organization that has no clue how to deal with either his funk or his slump is an easy target for today’s sports journalists.

No matter what question is asked in the locker room, it’s probably a losing proposition for Bradley. If he says “no comment,” he’s lambasted for being uncooperative and unfriendly. If he tells the truth as he sees it, which in this case reeks of the chip on his shoulder, he’s lambasted in the press and suspended by his general manager. Bradley is just not a happy guy, even when he’s playing well, so why expect him to be anything different than what he is, an overpaid man playing a kids game having an embarrassing season. And he knows that journalists are not friends or trusted confidantes; just hired guns who have stories to write that entertain the masses who live otherwise dull or problem-ridden lives and welcome reading about the dumb things that millionaire ballplayers say or do.

Plus, he’s a nice fellow.

Bound to be read, not inserted by force, not making himself a story. Although I’m happy reporters like Selena Roberts did their job well enough to get us information we “needed”, I couldn’t stand to see her being interviewed about her story over and over and over again.

For some reason it irritates the holy hell out of me to see reporters interviewed about their reporting.

I agree with Drew that this seems a bit “incestuous”, but I also don’t see any harm in it. As Dan said, it was very much like an ombudsman piece… albeit a very concise and limited one. If nothing else, there is nothing wrong with a boss giving his employee a public pat on the back.

<devil’s advocate, slightly tongue in cheek>Though I DO enjoy the irony of a piece written about a reporter not making himself the news by doing it the right way ;) </devil’s advocate, slightly tongue in cheek>

Fire away!

was absolutely necessary.

Remember, Hendry pointed to this story as the final straw for suspending Bradley.

One of the only Bradley defenses that has held water in the last few days has been that Bradley was suspended (or at least, finally suspended) for comments made to the media That IS fairly rare.

It also puts a spotlight on Miles and the Daily Herald. Fans, players, managers, sponsors, advertisers, subscribers all could look at Miles and say, “Wow, you did that?”

I think an official word from the newspaper defending their guy is appropriate.

As for drew, he has entered the Shrill Drew Zone, where he will defend a position no matter how ludicrous it is. I have some experience with this guy and it’s best just to let him flounder.

piece offensive. Mind-blowing. All season long, people here are carping about this Chicago announcer, that Chicago columnist, that Chicago writer, this Chicago talkshow host — and the comments are generally negative. Many times, the opinion is justified.

So, here’s one Chicago writer that breaks a story with the utmost in professionalism — a quality, that many here don’t seem to be able to find in Chicago sports journalism, whether it be TV, newspapers, or talk shows….

And Bruce Miles and his editor get ripped? I give up. There’s no hope.

He has no axe to grind and just wants to be a good old fashioned beat reporter. As a matter of full disclosure. he once told me a great Maddux story when I met him in Spring Training. It was nothing private or off the record just one you would not likely know if Bruce had not been kind enough to share. Alas these days just being a “reporter” and not offering wacky opinions and inside dirt seems to no longer be of interest to many papers ( and I guess readers). That may be why his editor wanted to give him kudos for his work.