Padres banned Ken Rosenthal over column

MLB on Fox dugout reporter Ken Rosenthal typically isn’t near the top of the list of personalities you expect athletes to be upset with from that network alone. However, Rosenthal has offered some notably strong takes over the years, especially in his other job as a senior baseball writer for The Athletic.

And that’s now interfered with his work on Fox’s MLB Postseason coverage.

Current San Diego Padres’ players Fernando Tatís Jr. and Manny Machado have been particular targets for Rosenthal at times, especially in his Athletic columns. And they were in his crosshairs again Tuesday ahead of Game 3 of the team’s National League Division Series clash with the Los Angeles Dodgers in San Diego.

And that led to the Padres boycotting interviews with Rosenthal for that game.

First, let’s look at what Rosenthal wrote Tuesday that started this. That came in a column titled “The ‘Sinister Sling’ and the multitudes of Manny Machado.” He started by referencing more positive on-air comments he made about Machado on Fox during Sunday’s Game 2), but saying he was then unaware of the “punkish” response of Machado throwing a ball at the Dodgers’ dugout (the aforementioned “Sinister Sling”) during that game.

Rosenthal then went on to bash Tatís as “a smiling, dancing peacock.” He also called Jurickson Profar “the kid who pulls the fire alarm at school and then asks, ‘Who, me?'” Here are some of the key parts of his piece :

Machado indeed showed leadership in the dugout, draping his arm around catcher Kyle Higashioka and imploring his teammates to maintain their focus. But his punkish response to Dodgers right-hander Jack Flaherty hitting Fernando Tatis Jr. with a 91.7 mph sinker, well, that was Manny being Manny. Again.

Flaherty almost certainly did not hit Tatis intentionally leading off the sixth inning, not with the Dodgers trailing, 3-1. Yet, Machado all but volunteered after the game that his act was retaliatory. When informed that the Dodgers thought he threw the ball hard, he told The Athletic, “Did Flaherty throw the ball hard at our guy?”

Perhaps only Machado could explain how the two acts equate. Yet, livid as the Dodgers were — and are — not even they believe Machado was actually trying to hit Roberts. While Roberts called the third baseman’s act “unsettling and disrespectful,” several Dodgers people said they thought Machado was trying to send their team a message, not cause injury.

Still, Machado’s stunt was inappropriate, and not particularly smart.

…Machado is far from the Padres’ only irritant. Fernando Tatis Jr. is a smiling, dancing peacock. Jurickson Profar is the kid who pulls the fire alarm at school and then asks, “Who, me?”

That created an on-air issue for Game 3. In the MLB playoffs, the sideline reporters can usually provide reports from each dugout during the game, including manager interviews in the third inning. But Game 3 did not have Rosenthal reporting from the Padres dugout. That sparked some discussion that he had been banned, including around his pre-game discussion of the drama here coming from in front of the Padres’ dugout rather than inside it:

Then, San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Kevin Acee confirmed that the Padres did indeed ban Rosenthal from their dugout. He did so in a larger column on the series Wednesday (and also noted that the team will again allow Rosenthal to report from their dugout beginning with Thursday’s Game 4).

Here’s more from that piece :

Let’s briefly discuss one of the big talking points from before yesterday’s game.

That would be a column written by Ken Rosenthal for The Athletic, which is one of his employers. (The other employer is Fox, for which he does sideline reporting in the regular season and during the postseason.) In the column, he used the word “punkish” to describe Machado’s actions and referred to Tatis as a “smiling, dancing peacock.”

The Padres, suffice it to say, were not pleased with Rosenthal’s brand of journalism. The team did not conduct the usual in-game interviews with him on Fox last night. It was a one-game boycott, and those interviews are expected to resume tonight.

It’s also worth noting that Tatis celebrated the Padres’ 6-5 win Tuesday on his Instagram Stories with images of a peacock and a dancing man. Here’s a screenshot of that via RDT of Barstool Sports:

There’s a lot going on here that’s worth further examination.

The first thing is Rosenthal’s particular history with these players. He’s taken many shots at Machado and Tatís over the years, including praising players for sending a “strong message” by not voting the latter to the All-Star team last year in the wake of a performance-enhancing drug suspension. That piece included, “When it comes to Tatis, I can picture players sitting at lockers filling out their ballots and thinking, ‘**** this guy.”

The next thing is the fire that noted journalism critic Rosenthal has taken for his own work, specifically his seemingly differing coverage of white and non-white players. In particular, he got lit up for this in February . There, he praised the Kansas City Royals for signing Bobby Witt Jr. to a long-term extension, but people brought up his past criticisms of similar deals for non-white young players.

In January, Rosenthal spun out a wider column based on Wander Franco being under MLB investigation for a relationship with a 14-year-old girl. That was a take that he only partly apologized for trying to turn into a trend. And in 2021, he had lots to say on if the Padres could afford the long-term deal they signed Tatís to. And the perceived double white/non-white standard there (which, it should be noted, gets brought up with many MLB figures beyond Rosenthal) came up again around this Machado “throw” and around a dugout hat throw from the Dodgers’ Walker Buehler in Game 3:

Beyond all that, though, there’s an interesting discussion about Rosenthal’s writing (in this case, at least) and its impact on his on-air work. He’s discussed how he’s divided his focus in the past , which generally seems to work. He’s not the only on-air personality who is also known for written pieces and that’s impacted others before.

A notable example saw ESPN’s Pete Thamel not on set for College GameDay at Michigan last year after threats over a written ESPN.com piece on Connor Stalions (and receiving perhaps the worst thrown-under-a-bus treatment from a colleague we’ve seen from Desmond Howard ). This has happened elsewhere, too, including with golf analyst Brandel Chamblee . And there certainly shouldn’t be a standard of “on-air personalities should never write anything potentially controversial,” as that would have further negative impacts.

There’s an unusual element here, though, with Rosenthal’s written work from a different company. And that’s about Fox’s bizarre and shortsighted decision ( under Jamie Horowitz in 2017, but it outlasted him , albeit only through 2020 ) to abandon written website content in favor of video. Rosenthal criticized that move at the time , which paved the way for him to go to The Athletic for written work.

Rosenthal’s heading to The Athletic significantly boosted its plans to launch national coverage . And that helped set them on their current path , including their 2022 acquisition by The New York Times ). And it’s certainly worked out for both parties for the most part, with Rosenthal giving that publication a lot of credibility (especially early on) and traction in MLB (where he’s still a leading reporter on many league issues), and with him gaining a high-profile place to put work that doesn’t fit for Fox.

But if Rosenthal is determined to have his writing be this opinionated, controversial, and targeted against particular players, that’s likely to cause issues with his broadcasting. And it certainly did Tuesday night.

It seems highly unlikely Fox will look to intervene here considering everything else from its talent they haven’t intervened in , considering that the controversial work here was not for them, and considering that this “ban” is supposedly set to lift after just one game.  Still, Rosenthal’s writing here certainly impacted the access he could get on the broadcasting side Tuesday, and that was far from ideal for fans watching this game.

The question of whether the Padres’ dugout ban of Rosenthal is acceptable or not is an interesting wider media one. And many people in the media have different positions on it. We’ve seen with Sean Keeler and the Colorado Buffaloes and Christine Brennan and the WNBA that plenty of people are willing to push for unfettered media access regardless of what those media members do with it, while others find the particular behavior of those actors unbecoming of their stated profession.

There’s a media access argument that MLB should tell the Padres they can’t keep Fox’s assigned sideline reporter out of their dugout. But there’s a media standards argument that a sideline reporter shouldn’t be blasting players he’s covering as “punkish,” “peacocks,” or “the kid who pulls the fire alarm at school and then asks, “Who, me?'” And both of those arguments are worth some discussion.

Again, there don’t seem likely to be any actual consequences from this for anyone right now. The Padres seem set to allow Rosenthal to resume his normal dugout reporting Wednesday, and that will likely continue unless he writes something else controversial on them. But if this does flare up again somehow, that will be fascinating to watch: will the Padres try to ban Rosenthal again, will MLB intervene, and will there be wider debates on “You can’t ban a Fox reporter!” versus “You can’t just call players peacocks!”? We’ll find out.

[ The San Diego Union-Tribune ]

The post Padres banned Ken Rosenthal from dugout over ‘peacock’ column appeared first on Awful Announcing .