Jon Heyman, bad writer

Jon Heyman is like the douchebag of sports writing: he's got the access, so he gets used, but really all he does fuck up the ecosystem.  In some reporting on the Selena Roberts book about Alex Rodriguez, otherwise known as A-Rod Kicks Puppies, Heyman writes: 

I congratulate my esteemed colleague Roberts for coming up with this tasty morsel (and seemingly everything else A-Rod has allegedly done wrong in his fascinating life). She's about the best reporter I've ever worked with, and she's certainly risen to the top of Rodriguez's "hates to face'' list. But unlike last time, A-Rod isn't going to have to jet off to some island to mull his choices about how to handle things, and there isn't going to be a staged national interview or press conference. This time, it looks like A-Rod will survive.

But, at least according to a few other folks, Selena Roberts isn't that great of a reporter, and should probably be critiqued rather heavily given its reliance on unnamed sources and her past attempted take-downs of Alex Rodriguez.

And, my estimation of Heyman's abilities was reaffirmed when I read this passage:

There are also speculative quotes in the book from Canseco regarding Rodriguez's alleged high school steroid use. And while Canseco's steroid batting average is pretty good, let's not give him too much credit. Canseco did sign a false sworn federal affidavit that Clemens wasn't at a party at Canseco's house (that was a key detail in trainer Brian McNamee's story of Clemens' steroid use) and Canseco did shake down people for cash not to appear in his book (I know a few who were shaken down).

Oh, John. If they're speculative passages, and Canseco has been known to shake down people for money to avoid mention in a steroid tell-all "memoir", while also having been known to commit perjury, perhaps you might use that point as a criticism of Roberts for including shit like that in her book. There doesn't seem to be a point to this particular passage in Heyman's piece other than to get as many allegations out there, whatever the cost. He does try to cover his ass by noting the problems with the source, but he just comes across as a lazy journalist to me.

There's a reasonable article in the NY Times about Justice Souter and looking for a replacement. However, there's this great section in the middle of the article about Obama's expressed desire to find someone that actually understands the world:

If he feels it necessary to put someone with “real world” experience on a court now heavy with former appellate judges, President Obama may turn to someone with political, rather than judicial, experience — or someone who has both. A dozen or more names were floated as possible candidates on Friday, including black women, and some had appealing, up-from-the-bootstraps personal histories.

I love the implication that someone that is a politician is more connected to the people than a judge. Because we know how many non-white, non-rich, salt of the earth politicians there are, right? They obviously exist, but being a politician certainly doesn't make you a down to earth, connected to the little people type. 

Is it really the collective wisdom that being a politician automatically means you are more directly connected to the people? Ugh.