>>I see. Athletes and others in the public eye have no need to talk to reporters when the matter might be of public interest and might result in headlines. I presume they should only talk with reporters when they have nothing of public interest to say?<<
At the time the controversy about natural growth hormones and creatine broke, McGuire had retired. The press was in a feeding frenzy (after all this kind of "nets" sales paper and air time), and they forgot to mention that baseball players had been tested, against the standards then in effect, during McGuire's active time. I thought it was essentially unfair to try to compare him against a standard not in effect during his playing time, but that became applicable later, I think during the last year or two of his career. His tests indicated no "illegal" activity.
So yes, I don't think McGuire needed to talk with a bunch of reporters who were out to embarass, humiliate, and create a false impression, especially after he had retired. If a retired ball player wants to participate in an interview that is one thing, if he chooses not to, that is another. McGuire chose not to participate in the rape of his own reputation, and that was his decision.
As you know, I am not an admirer of the press. I have been abused by them, and there is essentially no punishment if their editor chooses not to discipline a reporter, even when they have lied, mis stated, or worse. Why? Because shocking headlines sell and make money. And if it sways a population in the direction that the owners of the paper/magazine want, so much the better.
IMHO.
James1
| 
