[Michael.S.Participant]

In case you hadn’t heard, everybody hates LeBron James these days. My brother compared it to the ending of the Watchmen movie: James, through one great cataclysmic move, has managed to unite the entire world. Except, like the omnipotent Dr. Manhattan, he has done so not through his past heroism, but by becoming a universal villain everyone could agree on. Brilliant marketing, if you ask me.

Between all the Hall of Famers announcing that they would never unman themselves like James has, there’s been the lasting cry that conspiracy, foul play, and all manner of trickery were at play in the formation of the Uber-Heat. Adrian Wojnarowski landed one of the most devastating blows on this front, with an expansive piece following James (and the other principals) from 2004 up through The Decision.

Woj’s piece was unique in that it didn’t simply cast the Heat as nefarious, but made LeBron out to be an unforgivable jerk at every turn. Brilliant, history-making stuff. Except there’s one complaint, or at least a concern: Like so much journalism, sports or otherwise, Woj’s epic relies largely on unnamed sources and shadowy allusion.

Share Ethan Strauss of the TrueHoop network took the trouble to run through the piece, line-by-line, and point out all the times he as a reader (and editor) was left with questions. The larger issue, though, is that in the increasingly moralistic climate surrounding James, it’s now acceptable to let these sources, and their incomplete revelations, heavy-lift a narrative along for several thousand words.

I know that anonymous sources are part of the game. Deep Throat is a national hero, as are Woodward and Bernstein. However, this kind of journalism is closer to what Seymour Hersch does in The New Yorker — where, because he’s Sy Hersh, we take seriously far-fetched scenarios supported only by loose-lipped sources at the highest levels. Woj’s track record makes us inclined to accept his story. But apart from his reputation, the article is a house of cards, if not a tautology.

Why is it true? The sources said so. Why do we trust the stories? They make sense of the story. Factor in the muddy details, and it’s even harder to come away completely convinced.

And with that, we’re back to the old Socratic question: it is true because Adrian Wojnarowski said so, or did Adrian Wojnarowski say it’s true? Or, to push this one step further, do we believe because of Woj, or does Woj tells us what we want to believe? I suspect that, if anyone dared craft a pro-LeBron narrative this extensive, the burden of proof would be much, much higher.

[BuzzyParticipant]

LOVE the comparison to watchmen!

[OhCanada-Participant]

Its not that I hate him now, Ive just always disliked him. he should never have been the one to pretend he is the next MJ and should have been modest throughout his career. If he has a major major injury tommorow, he is just as good as Grant Hill IMO.

[TRC1991Participant]

uhm ohcanada, lebron has 2 mvp’s…grant hill does not…james is 25 and has been on 6 all-star teams…grant hill has been on 7 in 15 years

comparing the two puts both you and grant hill in an awkward position…you just came across as naive and sort of crazy and i guarantee grant hill wouldnt agree on being as good as lebron

[esperanzafleet69Participant]

taylor… look at grant hills stats before his injury and you will see what he means…

grant hill has averaged 21pts 9reb and 7 ast in a season before… its a pretty solid comparison..

[omphalosParticipant]

I have always hated him, but not because he was trying to be the next MJ. It was the false modesty that got me. Michael was lots of things, but false modesty wasn’t his philosophy. Also, he did seem to have his fame and name handed to him on a plate, whereas Mike had to earn it in the L. This move had made the hate go supernova though.

[Author]

Posts