Bonds and Propaganda

One thing I've never really enjoyed about working in groups at school (I mean, besides my distaste for working in groups in general) is that I sometimes find myself arguing positions I don't believe in. Such was the case with the final project for my class in Public Opinion, Propaganda and the Mass Media. My group, and by extension I, had to argue that the media's portrayal of the Barry Bonds steroids issue rises to such odious means as to be considered propaganda. Something I don't believe is true.

From the looks of things, Bonds really was on steroids, and maybe still is. I acknowledge that nothing has been definitively proven and that most of the allegations come from a single source, but that single source is meticulously researched and seems to be beyond reproach. Now if it turns out the book was wrong I will of course, retract my position. But it is the media's right, perhaps even its duty, to give credible accusations like this one publicity. I admit I'm woefully unknowledgable about the whole affair and that most of what I now know is the product of a few days research for a class presentation. I don't even give a shit about sports 99.5% of the time.

That's not to say I don't think the sports media have done a crappy job covering the issue. Of the thousands and thousands of published articles you'd be hard pressed to find one that is not sensationalistic in nature and designed to destroy the career and reputation of Bonds before he's been proven guilty. But that doesn't mean that he's innocent. And these are allegations that, if true, should rightly tarnish his image. It just means, like usual, that the media sucks.