A Changed Game?

For as long as baseball has been around, there have been writers reflecting on major league baseball games. It used to be that the way to find out about a baseball game was either to go watch the game or read about in the newspaper. Nowadays, there are numerous ways to learn of the result of a major league baseball game. Going and watching the game, reading about it in the newspaper, and now, the radio, television, and the Internet are all ways to access a baseball game. When the radio starting becoming popular and baseball games were starting to be announced on it, some baseball teams became aggravated. After the radio had been out for a little while, the New York Yankees, Giants, and Brooklyn Dodgers became aggravated that their games were being broadcasted and put a five-year ban on it. In Curt Smiths’, Baseball and mass media, he writes of Barber’s view on why they banned their games on the radio, “They’d thought radio would hurt attendance,” said Barber, “so they banned all coverage” (Smith, 225). Its obvious that yes, they were worried about fans attending less games and losing money due to this, but another worry that could have been felt by the players is how it could change the game of baseball.

Today, baseball games can be accessed through the radio, television, newspapers, magazines, and Internet. Can this have an effect on the players and how the game is played because the ways to view a baseball game are multiplied? Also, can the results of a baseball game and the way it is explained be skewed when compared to the view of a person who was actually part of the audience at the baseball game? The media romanticizes a baseball game, broadcasters add drama to excite listeners, and in doing so, they could possibly change the way people think of baseball games. Broadcasters and writers can “change” what really happened in the game to something different and more interesting. Another change that came with radio coming about is that if fans could listen to a game, they would find no reason to read about it anymore, thus writers, having less of an audience. Smith expressed this view when he stated, “Such bile evinced fear of radio. Why read if you could hear for free? (Smith, 224).

These changes could affect writers such as The Associated Press Sports, in the result of their article being read called Rivera throws perfect inning in spring debut. In this article, The Associated Press Sports reports on how Yankees closer Mariano Rivera threw a perfect inning during his first spring training appearance of the year. If radios can broadcast this baseball game, less people will most likely read this article and read about the game in other articles and newspapers as well. Also, if writers discuss this game in on the Internet, and radios talk about this as well, less people will also actually go see the game. People should be able to view and listen to a discussion of baseball game in any way, be it the newspaper, radio, television, and internet but does this change the game of baseball from what it used to be? Does it change the game to fans, players and or baseball officials? Does it create and romanticize games more than if a person just went to see a baseball game?  It is true that fans will not make it to as many games now, but people should have the right to decide if they would like to go see a baseball game or hear about it another way. It’s interesting whether or not players feel that these electronics have changed the aura that is received by players from fans at major league baseball games. What do you think? If players do believe that these electronics do change the game of baseball for them, what is morally right, their right to the baseball game they want or the right of the fans to be able to watch the game without having to attend?