If COVID-19 has done nothing else positive in terms of how it has essentially shut down sports, it has truly shown how sports reporters are not really reporters in the classic sense but gossips who rely on whispers from insiders before writing what they’ve “learned.”

This is not a hit piece against individuals, but a rebuke of the supposed journalists who are covering sports. Specifically Major League Baseball amid its ongoing dispute regarding the proposed parameters of a 2020 season.

How many more stories will be released regarding player pay, number of games, structure of playoffs, where the games will be played, rules of play, protections in case there is an industry-wide breakout of coronavirus and anything else related to attempts to start the season? And how many have proven to be accurate in the fluctuating reality currently in place?

Journalism has changed substantively from what it once was when pitching expansive stories to editors, working the phones, running from one place to another, digging through records, and cultivating – even coercing – sources was critical to unearthing the necessary information to learn the truth. Its changes are not for the better. It’s easier to use; easier to access; it comes out quicker, but that does not necessarily make it good.

Social media and the rush to get a story “first” whether the information within that story is accurate or not has not only watered down journalism, but degraded it. Pointing out every example of reporting that has been retrospectively wrong would take 10,000 words. Just this week, however, Jon Heyman essentially said that the agreement between players and owners was imminent with the following tweet:

Breaking: MLB and players union are closing in on an agreement to play the 2020 season, via players. Deal expected to be for prorated pay and include expanded playoffs.

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) June 17, 2020

That was met with other supposed insiders saying no deal was imminent and that owners and players were not on the same page, again.

Was this intentional? It’s not a conspiracy theory to say it might have been. Or it might be ineptitude and clinging to the objective of angering no one and maintaining a level of communication to make it easier to put forth the charade of breaking stories when the stories “broken” are crafted as the sources want it to be crafted.

There’s a difference between researching a story and getting it wrong and being told information that is clearly premature or likely to be wrong and running with it anyway to adhere to the mutual interests of the reporter and source.

Nick Francona, who has been out front with consternation at owner behavior and media complicity, tweeted the following:

?‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/7mDtMRPSE2

— Nick Francona (@NickFrancona) June 21, 2020

The incompetence is astounding.

Given the current political climate, such previous scandals as Watergate are referenced in nostalgic terms not because it led to the downfall of a corrupt president and his henchmen, but because people with legitimate knowledge commented on it with a foundation for their perspective. This is true if they supported President Richard M. Nixon or not. There wasn’t an endless stream of propaganda and ignorant support from either side based on nothing more than partisanship. That’s what has happened with social media and it has infected true journalists from doing their jobs even if they want to because their corporate heads focus on profit over truth. If that means blatant sleight of hand, it’s the price of doing business. That it’s costing news entities their integrity and depriving readers of an accurate and aboveboard report as to what’s happening is irrelevant.

Sports reporting and reporting in general is too often based on how much web traffic the links will get. The titles reflect attempts to accrue clicks independent of the person clicking on the link intending to read or having the ability to comprehend the story itself. The reaction is the key. If it goes viral and people discuss it even if they scoff – without knowing what it says – it’s serving the purposes of the entity.

When was the last time there were objective, journalistic stories about sports? It has happened with Lance Armstrong, BALCO, the myriad improprieties of the New England Patriots, and FIFA corruption. Still, the daily routine is one of whispers, leaks, rumors, explanations, vacillations, self-interest and filling one another’s needs.

Often, the breaking of scandals only happens after years of speculation, a whistleblower or evidence so clear that there’s no choice but to investigate it.

The stories listed above surfaced after years and years of enabling when members of the media knew that athletes were using performance-enhancing drugs and, rather than publish what they knew or search for evidence for what they suspected, preferred to create preposterous “feel good” stories about Armstrong’s recovery from cancer and rise to the pinnacle of his profession; to join fans in “oohing” and “ahhing” at the exploits of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds; to laud the genius of the Patriots without considering that they might be bending or outright breaking the rules; to give the public what it wanted in validating the performance instead of uncovering how they were capable of achieving what no one had previously achieved.

Think about the concept of leaks to begin with. Today, there is no “Deep Throat” and an insider giving information to reporters that should not be given and is doing so under the cover of secrecy and anonymity. The job has evolved (or declined) into agenda-based quid pro quo from both sides. Any reporter who betrays the understanding between source and endgame will no longer get such easy information leaving him or her out and making it impossible to fulfill the job description as it currently stands.

The relationship is supposed to be adversarial. Unfortunately, it’s not and it harms independence, accountability and oversight.

This is evident in the “reporting” about the negotiations between MLB itself and the MLB Players Association.

The term “MLB Insider” should now be taken literally. It speaks to the utter clumsiness of the likes of Joel Sherman that he gets inside information from people who whisper it to him because they want it out there and he still manages to get it wrong. He’d have a better win-loss record in his stories if he simply guessed and hoped he was right. As bad as Sherman is at times, he’s not alone.

Writing stories based on search engines, trending topics on Twitter and what is more likely to be shared on Facebook is not journalism in the truest sense of the word. It’s selling a product. With MLB reporting, it is increasingly an empty product churned out in factories using labor that adheres to its operating procedure without deviating from it to repeat the same thing, over and over. That may be a positive to suit their ends, but it’s a negative to the fans who are pawns in the game that will continue to be played regardless of whether the actual game of baseball is not.

Historically, Major League Baseball owners have overplayed their hands to an astonishing degree and caused themselves far more pain than they otherwise would have endured had they been upfront and fair with the players and fans to start with.

In recent history, that includes:

• The dive into stat-based theory at the expense of the fundamental joy and diversity of the game
• Performance-enhancing drugs and the tacit approval of their use
• The 1994 strike costing the World Series
• Collusion in 1986-87

That’s in the past 35 years.

Now, with COVID-19, the dispute between the owners and the players has reached a level of toxicity where there may or may not be a season in 2020 and, if there is, it will be drastically shortened with many of the biggest stars potentially opting out of playing.

The engaging storylines from spring training are gone. No longer does the discussion center on the Houston Astros’ cheating and the number of beanballs and brawls they were set to face; whether Gerrit Cole was the final piece to the New York Yankees’ championship puzzle; if the Los Angeles Dodgers’ acquisition of Mookie Betts would get them over the World Series hump; or which side in the Chicago Cubs’ divorce with Joe Maddon would come out looking better. Again, labor difficulties have come to the forefront and it’s exacerbated with an ongoing pandemic.

The financial details and origins of the dispute can be found anywhere through a simple web search or by checking social media, so it makes little sense to rehash them here. What it boils down to is that the owners are showing where their true interests lie – where their true interests always lie: maximizing profits by any means necessary. The rare owner who put winning and fan demands above all else is gone. It died with George Steinbrenner and Mike Ilitch. Today, most clubs are owned by corporations who couldn’t care less about baseball in any context other than how they can benefit from their investment or individuals who see it as a business venture in their diverse portfolios.

There is immense risk in again alienating fans by canceling the season through greed, but they’ve done it before.

For many, this level of risk-taking and tolerance for ambiguity is how they accrued the cash and the credit to buy a franchise in the first place. For others, they inherited the money and bought their way out of whatever mistakes they made by equating being born on third base with hitting a triple.

They don’t care about the fans in any way other than as customers. If the profit for opening the “store” –  i.e. playing baseball and paying the players a wage that the players find acceptable even with salaries prorated and providing protections if they happen to get sick with COVID-19-related illnesses – is not worth it in a business sense, then they won’t open it.

The easy solution until now has been to blame Commissioner Rob Manfred for the lack of decisiveness and comprehensive planning to have baseball and keep players safe from potential infection. Rather than negotiate in good faith, MLB has set the terms for negotiating by drawing a line and not deviating from it at all.

The owners are often accused of chopping off their noses to spite their faces. That may be partially true. More likely, they use these concerns as an opportunity to serve as a hedge maneuver and they’re exploiting the pandemic to implement a long-range plan to cut into salaries and damage the union. Already, they’re eliminating minor league affiliates and slashing the number of rounds in the draft, all in the interest of saving a few bucks. These were long-held goals they’re finally putting into action. Why not go all out as labor difficulties are on the horizon with a year-and-a-half remaining in the collective bargaining agreement? Essentially, they’ve started the predicted labor strife early and added to the animosity not just with their treatment of MLB players and dismissal of the reasonable MLBPA proposals to get back on the field, but with how they’re treating the minor leaguers.

Blaming Manfred is exactly what the owners want. He’s a stooge. MLB has not had a strong commissioner who was willing to buck ownership demands to try and do what was in his view right for the game since Fay Vincent. Vincent was forced to resign after a no-confidence vote from two-thirds of the owners based on his independence, disciplinary procedures and attempts at realignment. Right there, the owners’ cover was blown and the concept of an independent entity overseeing the game for the interests of the clubs and the players was torn off like a calcified scab.

The owners did not even bother with pretense in selecting Vincent’s replacement when they chose Bud Selig, who was an owner himself. It was supposed to be an interim appointment, but Selig just kept the job. Manfred succeeded Selig because he happened to be there and was a sufficiently vanilla automaton who’d do what he was told as a willing target of scorn and ridicule in exchange for the perks of the job. In other words, his secret to success was just showing up.

The owners are truly pushing to see what they can get away with. Only due to public outrage did clubs decide to pay many of their employees and to compensate their minor leaguers during the nationwide shutdown and they did it grudgingly. The amount of money clubs pay for these services is minuscule in the grand scheme, but they don’t care. Every 10 to 15 years, MLB’s overlords try these tactics to try and get a handle on payroll all while clubs in “small” markets like Kansas City are sold for a billion dollars. Former owner David Glass bought the club for less than $100 million just 20 years ago.

Who really believes these cries of poverty when they refuse to open the books to prove their financial situation is as dire as they say?

Some have suggested that MLB needs to take the lead of the NBA and anoint a strong-handed commissioner who will “keep the owners in line.” David Stern did that and now Adam Silver is also doing it. What is missed is that Stern and Silver have the support of the cabal of owners – within reason – and they accept a “strong” hand for the benefit of the business. There’s also a hard salary cap and cost control in the NBA that does not generally exist in baseball. Any limitation on MLB salaries is based on owners seeking ways to keep them down by using a different form of legal collusion and “valuing” players based on advanced metrics. If everyone is using the same advanced metrics, then players will be paid within a bracket where the richer teams won’t go utterly insane in collecting players and bloating their payroll to $300 million, $400 million or more even if they can afford it. This is how the Dodgers went from $300 million for their 40-man roster in 2015 to $200 million in 2020.

Calling for Manfred to be fired is meaningless. Could the owners throw him overboard to quell the simmering anger of players and fans? Might they install a commissioner who would be a commissioner and not a figurehead? It’s certainly possible, but it’s important to remember that the commissioner of baseball was only created when the game was in legitimate jeopardy of complete collapse after the 1919 Black Sox scandal and the veracity of the competition itself was called into question. Naming Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was a desperate attempt to bring integrity back to the game. That “integrity”, of course, included keeping black players out of the majors. Landis was given extraordinary powers because he demanded it and the owners, confronted with the destruction of the sport, felt they had no alternative.

Would they do the same thing now as the game is again in jeopardy?

Does it matter?

This is all tied in together. It’s no conspiracy theory. It’s a cartel. And they’re functioning in plain sight with no one to stop them.