Berrios vs Parker

[Mike Sixel]

 

I really like twitter. If you manage it well enough can be a great source of information, with both quick hits and links to longer stories.

 

Agreed. Just don't follow people that frustrate you.

[Doomtints]

I have found that Twitter is the one place to keep up with the resistance.

 

Parker added another tweet later saying that he looked at more footage and Berrios has always been adjusting his cap this way before stepping on the mound.  

 

To me it makes a lot of sense that a pitcher who rubs his hands in the dirt and then touches his cap in a ritual manner in the same place each time is going to end up with a dirty cap, but perhaps to other people this is less obvious.  

[Craig Arko]

Agreed. Just don't follow people that frustrate you.

That's a good life strategy in general.

[TheLeviathan]

Sometimes the people that frustrate us are the ones we learn the most from. Now stupidity is another thing and twitter is rife with that.  I ignore the site altogether.

 

But for this?  "Why so serious?" comes to mind.  Lighten up, Parker isn't calling for the kid's head or anything.

[Craig Arko]

Cool thread.

At least they spell your name correctly.

[Mr. Brooks]

That would also be libel. What Parker did could be construed that way too. In this age of electronic, instant media, the line between journalist and "internet wannabe" can be blurry. The difference with Reusse and Souhan of course is that they are employed by huge media conglomerates. Point being in civil law you go after someone who has deep pockets.

No, it wouldn't be libel.

For one, the statement has to be clearly claimed as fact, not as an opinion or framed as a question.

So, it's already not libel on that count.

Second, there has to be proof of ACTUAL damages inflicted. A columnist writing something like that would not inflict any actual damages. And certainly not any that could be proven.

[DaveW]

yeah lol its not even close to libel, nor would anyone try to claim that

[HitInAPinch]

 

Cool thread.

[yarnivek1972]

No, it wouldn't be libel.

For one, the statement has to be clearly claimed as fact, not as an opinion or framed as a question.

So, it's already not libel on that count.

Second, there has to be proof of ACTUAL damages inflicted. A columnist writing something like that would not inflict any actual damages. And certainly not any that could be proven.

I could post the entire write up about the legal definition, but the crux is that it is libel if a jury says it is.

[DaveW]

I could post the entire write up about the legal definition, but the crux is that it is libel if a jury says it is.

I'd suggest you post the important parts then.

 

I disagree 100% that it would be considered libel (and I have dealt with libel acquisitions leveled against employees of mine in the past)

[70charger]

 

I could post the entire write up about the legal definition, but the crux is that it is libel if a jury says it is.

 

Look, coming from a lawyer, nonsense like this just needs to stop. That's a definition without substance.

 

This isn't a case of libel, and only the sleaziest ambulance chaser would take it on - hourly.

[DJSim22]

Cool thread indeed.  We found out what the Berrio mob is up to now that he is in the bigs again.  We learned a new definition of libel.  And we learned we only hate Parker 3/50th's of Spewhan or Fatrick.

[Pardon My Dinger]

Cool thread indeed. We found out what the Berrio mob is up to now that he is in the bigs again. We learned a new definition of libel. And we learned we only hate Parker 3/50th's of Spewhan or Fatrick.

No, we don't hate Parker at all. At least I don't. People are allowed to make observations.

[Trevor0333]

 

No clue why a guy who has worked so hard to be a trusted Twins source would do this. And yeah, it's an accusation.

Maybe he was having a bad day. Maybe his blood sugar was low. Maybe he needed more coffee. Maybe he just doesn't like Berrios. Who the hell knows.  Until he speaks up this is just guessing, and he has not spoken up in spite of surely reading this thread.

 

Whatever the case, without evidence this was the wrong thing to do. We all make mistakes, it's OK to own up to them.

 

 

 

He pointed out something he noticed, he didn't say it was an illegal substance.

 

[edited by glunn to delete bickering]

[Craig Arko]

How does one spell Bull **** around here without *s ?

This entire thread serves as a fine example.

[DaveW]

You are all posting in an epic thread, and don't even know it yet. Just have faith. This is bigger then Parker, Berrios and us all to be honest.

 

#faith

[DJSim22]

 

No, we don't hate Parker at all. At least I don't. People are allowed to make observations.

 

 

Nor do I, but follow along man.  3 pages.

[glunn]

Moderator warning - way too much bickering and trolling in this thread.

 

If someone wants to debate what constitutes libel then please take it to the sports bar forum.

 

As for foreign substances, every team facing the Twins has professional scouts and slow motion videos. Parker made some observations which might form a basis for further examination, but at this point all that we can do is speculate, and what I am seeing in this thread is some fairly pointless bickering.

 

 

[DaveW]

I'd reccomend two sets of people take the following advice:

 

"You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em!"

 

Parker, in all seriousness I think you should issue an apology to Berrios

 

Also people claiming this is libel, it's not libel, let's move on back to the topic at hand.

[Steve Lein]

So Parker made an observation, of which he DID NOT make any accusations of anything beyond it being "weird."

 

Then, the actual media (Berardino, among others) turned that observation INTO an accusation. I think they should be apologizing to Parker, not Parker apologizing for what he thought was interesting.

 

I find it really bad media practice, when in an interview Berrios says "I don't care what he says..." 

 

That implies that an accusation was made, but in this case that would have been the interviewer (Berardino) making it into such a thing.

 

I didn't read any accusation, so I'm just adding this to my list of reasons why Berardino is...not a good reporter. 

 

 

[DaveW]

If an accusation wasn't made, it was heavily implied....

[VirginSturgeon]

The whole accusation is overblown and Parker should not have to explain himself about a couple Twitter posts. People are barking up a tree for no reason.

 

Bernadino on the other hand is a complete drama queen. Always looking to stir the pot on stories that have no basis. He knows how to piss off a whole organization that is for sure.

[DaveW]

Counterpoint: I think Bernandino is awesome. 3rd best media member in MSP IMO, right behind Russo (who might be top 5 nation wide) and the Common Man.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I haven't weighed in on this - quite intentionally - but here's my take on it.

 

The tweets were badly worded, as are many tweets when 140 characters are the limitation on a conversation. It's one of the reasons I generally dislike Twitter. Good for snapshots and link-sharing, bad for nuanced conversation and topics... Hell, not even bad.  Twitter is absolutely terrible at nuance.

 

Ignoring what I know from internal conversations, I will not try to glean Parker's intent from those tweets. It could have been an observation, it could have been a bit more nefarious than that.

 

BUT, Parker later said he wasn't trying to suggest that Berrios was doing something wrong. So I'll take him at his word on that.

 

That should end the conversation, IMO.

 

Where this all went wrong is Berardino's article. Notice the quote of "pine tar" by Santana. Where the hell did that come from? Parker never said anything of the sort. He never mentioned anything other than a "dark spot".

 

I believe this was an ill-advised tweet from Parker. He should have been more clear from the beginning if observation was his goal.

 

But I feel the real problem here is Berardino. Did he contact Parker and attempt to clarify the tweet? No. He ran into the Twins clubhouse and started escalating the situation. A dark spot becomes cheating. Cheating becomes pine tar. Now, Parker is doing everything but accusing Berrios of going all Joe Niekro out on the mound, throwing a file as an umpire approaches him.

 

So who here was trying to "raise their profile"? It sure doesn't seem like Parker to me. He made a mistake, IMO, the scale of which is certainly debatable. But he's not the one who transformed this into a full-blown cluster****.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I'd reccomend two sets of people take the following advice:

"You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em!"

Parker, in all seriousness I think you should issue an apology to Berrios

Also people claiming this is libel, it's not libel, let's move on back to the topic at hand.

Which is what again, exactly?

[DaveW]

Which is what again, exactly?

Mark DeRosa

[twinsnorth49]

 

Mark DeRosa

That's what I thought.

 

Carry on.

[Steve Lein]

 

[...]

 

Where this all went wrong is Berardino's article. 

 

[...]

 

But I feel the real problem here is Berardino. Did he contact Parker and attempt to clarify the tweet? No. He ran into the Twins clubhouse and started escalating the situation. A dark spot becomes cheating. Cheating becomes pine tar. Now, Parker is doing everything but accusing Berrios of going all Joe Niekro out on the mound, throwing a file as an umpire approaches him.

 

So who here was trying to "raise their profile"? It sure doesn't seem like Parker to me. He made a mistake, IMO, the scale of which is certainly debatable. But he's not the one who transformed this into a full-blown cluster****.

 

Yup. Berardino has done this type of thing several times. 

 

We agree on what happened here.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

I think Berardino is a damn fine beat writer.  I also think he went a bit overboard on this.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Yup. Berardino has done this type of thing several times. 

 

We agree on what happened here.

What "type of thing" did Berardino do, exactly? Shouldn't he follow up on potential stories?