Amid myriad variables, choosing what goes into a story is a never-ending series of judgment calls for a journalist. Fritz Peterson's recent death sparks memories of how I navigated the issue with him.
As you say, definitely a grey area, like most things, but if Peterson didn't make that a condition for continuing the interview, I would have advocated for a mention of the "wife swapping" at SOME point in the story -- a mere mention. That is what he was known for, after all. It's just IDing him. It's the journalistic presentation. But if, according to your read, the thing had been belabored and you wanted to make a statement that at some point, it must be allowed to let go, however, then I would support "no mention."
I would have totally supported the other article about the wife swapping and how it counterintuitively worked out, how it ultimately largely worked for him and his family, by the way. I actually am aware of one couple from private life who did the same thing, with similar success. (I do thing you would struggle to do a "study," getting together dozens of couples and seeing how they did, but who knows. And an initiative to recruit volunteers to do this, another possibility, although not for a quick journalistic article, seems to exceed even the moral tolerance for reality television.)
We talk about the item that will be in the first line of one's obituary, and that is indeed what transpired with the NYTimes obit of Peterson. And there, there IS a right and a wrong, I would say, and they got it right. No one would question that that is the most famous thing about him. The interesting question is when and how often does your obit item need to be mentioned in every story about you.
Audience, audience, audience is the name of the game, and what we always keep in front of us. The audience for the obit takes a wider view. Presumably, many people are reading that story who don't know who Peterson was. A 1975 report of some random game Peterson pitched has an audience who already knows it. Plus, I guess, just the whole task of that story is limited and just has to do with things relevant to that game.
My first link to Peterson was Jim Bouton, so I was interested, first, to see that Peterson swapped AFTER Ball Four had come out, and second to get some of the story of their relationship from the NYTimes obit. I read "Ball Four" when I was about 18, but it didn't make a big impression on me. My vague memory now is that he had come across as a guy who might do what he later did. I also vaguely thought it was a fond portrayal. So, as Peterson evidenly thought Bouton had crossed a line with "Ball Four," maybe Peterson was consistent in his sensitivity.
I read Ball Four for the first time only about five years ago --- stunning that it took me that long. Sort of akin to not seeing the movie Hoosiers until I was well into my adult years. Strange gaps in my consumption of these seminal pieces. It was interesting to see that Fritz's death was kept under wraps for nearly six months before the news leaked out over a week ago. That is pretty extraordinary. For someone whose life was on such public display at a certain time, it certainly receded into the background there.
Huh, just skimming the obituary, I had missed that he actually died six months ago. I did think I had already heard about his death, but maybe that's because it seems so many of his old teammates (Pepitone, Horace Clarke, Bouton, for instance) have also recently died.
His Yankee teams are often painted as being so miserable, but clicking in Baseball Reference on Peterson's one 20-win season, I was surprised to see so much to enjoy in the 1970 Yankees. 93-69 in the second Yankee tenure of Ralph Houk, with their top six players in WAR Roy White, Thurman Munson, Peterson, Mel Stottlemyre, Bobby Murcer, and Lindy McDaniel. None of those are Hall of Famers, but for players just a tier below at their peak, that's quite a group. The problem was the Orioles won 108 games.
For teams better than the '69-'71 Orioles, it has to be a short list. 109 regular season wins in '69, and, I believe, a run differential not matched subsequently; 108 regular seaons wins in '70, and the World Series; 101 wins in '71, the pennant, and the four 20-game winners.
It also seems just last month or so that Phil Linz of the harmonica died; it turns out it was December, 2020. Linz is connected to Pepitone, and Pepitone and Peterson to Bouton, but Linz and Peterson don't appear to actually ever have been teammates, Linz leaving the Yankees after '65, and Peterson debuting in '66.
The Mets did decide they needed Linz in '68; he took up 275 plate appearances for them, posting a .479 OPS and a -1.1 WAR. Funny to see him close to being on their famous '69 team, since one associates him so strongly with the Yankees.
Linz journey reminds me of the second DH in Yankee history -- the first was Ron Blomberg, as you well know. Do you know who was the second? Another Ron, mostly associated with his years as a Metropolitan.
The Mets Ron I can think of from that time was Swoboda. There was Ron Hunt; he would seem a trick answer, being a singles-hitting second baseman, and I don't know if he lasted until DHes....
It's odd to me that we New Yorkers hear so much more about Ron Swoboda (.703 career OPS, and .687 in '69), then another platoon outfielder on that team, Art Shamsky (.757 career OPS, and .863 in '69). I suppose, outside of New York, one doesn't hear much about either one!
Wow. $80K in his pitching prime! Today a guy of his caliber - a starter and 20 game winner, even if not a "star" - would be pulling down a minimum of $4M to $5M per yr..Probably much more in fact. Even accounting for inflation that way more than his $80K in the 70s. Sports really are out of control.
In his prime, Fritz would be earning at least $15 M/ year. Looking at Baseball Reference, guys like Madison Bumgarner (2014 World Series hero for the Giants) and Jon Matlack (Mets pitcher in 1970s who was one of the top pitchers in the bigs for about five years) are among those with career stats most similar to Fritz. He wouldn't be working any blackjack table, that's for sure.
Your end note (#2) peeked my interest in a topic about which I have long wondered: authorship. As an academic author myself (almost 100 scientific papers, chapters, and correspondence) I know being a writer - any type of writer is HARD work. Not easy at all. Therefore I always wondered about folks like Peterson - or Clinton or Obama (Mrs.) for that matter - who claim authorship of enormous tomes. Did they really write the books they claim ... or were they all ghost written? Did any famous person actually write the book they claim to have written? And even if ghostwritten, what constitutes authorship anyway?
That's a topic for another day, for sure. I am confident that the level of oversight/engagement/editing of these ghostwritten books can vary quite a bit.
OK. I figured you being an insider (so to speak) would have more insight as to who is and who is not an author ... or how some of these best selling enormous tomes - by various pols and celebrities - are in fact written (manufactured?)
As you say, definitely a grey area, like most things, but if Peterson didn't make that a condition for continuing the interview, I would have advocated for a mention of the "wife swapping" at SOME point in the story -- a mere mention. That is what he was known for, after all. It's just IDing him. It's the journalistic presentation. But if, according to your read, the thing had been belabored and you wanted to make a statement that at some point, it must be allowed to let go, however, then I would support "no mention."
I would have totally supported the other article about the wife swapping and how it counterintuitively worked out, how it ultimately largely worked for him and his family, by the way. I actually am aware of one couple from private life who did the same thing, with similar success. (I do thing you would struggle to do a "study," getting together dozens of couples and seeing how they did, but who knows. And an initiative to recruit volunteers to do this, another possibility, although not for a quick journalistic article, seems to exceed even the moral tolerance for reality television.)
We talk about the item that will be in the first line of one's obituary, and that is indeed what transpired with the NYTimes obit of Peterson. And there, there IS a right and a wrong, I would say, and they got it right. No one would question that that is the most famous thing about him. The interesting question is when and how often does your obit item need to be mentioned in every story about you.
Audience, audience, audience is the name of the game, and what we always keep in front of us. The audience for the obit takes a wider view. Presumably, many people are reading that story who don't know who Peterson was. A 1975 report of some random game Peterson pitched has an audience who already knows it. Plus, I guess, just the whole task of that story is limited and just has to do with things relevant to that game.
My first link to Peterson was Jim Bouton, so I was interested, first, to see that Peterson swapped AFTER Ball Four had come out, and second to get some of the story of their relationship from the NYTimes obit. I read "Ball Four" when I was about 18, but it didn't make a big impression on me. My vague memory now is that he had come across as a guy who might do what he later did. I also vaguely thought it was a fond portrayal. So, as Peterson evidenly thought Bouton had crossed a line with "Ball Four," maybe Peterson was consistent in his sensitivity.
I read Ball Four for the first time only about five years ago --- stunning that it took me that long. Sort of akin to not seeing the movie Hoosiers until I was well into my adult years. Strange gaps in my consumption of these seminal pieces. It was interesting to see that Fritz's death was kept under wraps for nearly six months before the news leaked out over a week ago. That is pretty extraordinary. For someone whose life was on such public display at a certain time, it certainly receded into the background there.
Huh, just skimming the obituary, I had missed that he actually died six months ago. I did think I had already heard about his death, but maybe that's because it seems so many of his old teammates (Pepitone, Horace Clarke, Bouton, for instance) have also recently died.
His Yankee teams are often painted as being so miserable, but clicking in Baseball Reference on Peterson's one 20-win season, I was surprised to see so much to enjoy in the 1970 Yankees. 93-69 in the second Yankee tenure of Ralph Houk, with their top six players in WAR Roy White, Thurman Munson, Peterson, Mel Stottlemyre, Bobby Murcer, and Lindy McDaniel. None of those are Hall of Famers, but for players just a tier below at their peak, that's quite a group. The problem was the Orioles won 108 games.
For teams better than the '69-'71 Orioles, it has to be a short list. 109 regular season wins in '69, and, I believe, a run differential not matched subsequently; 108 regular seaons wins in '70, and the World Series; 101 wins in '71, the pennant, and the four 20-game winners.
It also seems just last month or so that Phil Linz of the harmonica died; it turns out it was December, 2020. Linz is connected to Pepitone, and Pepitone and Peterson to Bouton, but Linz and Peterson don't appear to actually ever have been teammates, Linz leaving the Yankees after '65, and Peterson debuting in '66.
The Mets did decide they needed Linz in '68; he took up 275 plate appearances for them, posting a .479 OPS and a -1.1 WAR. Funny to see him close to being on their famous '69 team, since one associates him so strongly with the Yankees.
Linz journey reminds me of the second DH in Yankee history -- the first was Ron Blomberg, as you well know. Do you know who was the second? Another Ron, mostly associated with his years as a Metropolitan.
The Mets Ron I can think of from that time was Swoboda. There was Ron Hunt; he would seem a trick answer, being a singles-hitting second baseman, and I don't know if he lasted until DHes....
It's odd to me that we New Yorkers hear so much more about Ron Swoboda (.703 career OPS, and .687 in '69), then another platoon outfielder on that team, Art Shamsky (.757 career OPS, and .863 in '69). I suppose, outside of New York, one doesn't hear much about either one!
Wow. $80K in his pitching prime! Today a guy of his caliber - a starter and 20 game winner, even if not a "star" - would be pulling down a minimum of $4M to $5M per yr..Probably much more in fact. Even accounting for inflation that way more than his $80K in the 70s. Sports really are out of control.
In his prime, Fritz would be earning at least $15 M/ year. Looking at Baseball Reference, guys like Madison Bumgarner (2014 World Series hero for the Giants) and Jon Matlack (Mets pitcher in 1970s who was one of the top pitchers in the bigs for about five years) are among those with career stats most similar to Fritz. He wouldn't be working any blackjack table, that's for sure.
Your end note (#2) peeked my interest in a topic about which I have long wondered: authorship. As an academic author myself (almost 100 scientific papers, chapters, and correspondence) I know being a writer - any type of writer is HARD work. Not easy at all. Therefore I always wondered about folks like Peterson - or Clinton or Obama (Mrs.) for that matter - who claim authorship of enormous tomes. Did they really write the books they claim ... or were they all ghost written? Did any famous person actually write the book they claim to have written? And even if ghostwritten, what constitutes authorship anyway?
That's a topic for another day, for sure. I am confident that the level of oversight/engagement/editing of these ghostwritten books can vary quite a bit.
OK. I figured you being an insider (so to speak) would have more insight as to who is and who is not an author ... or how some of these best selling enormous tomes - by various pols and celebrities - are in fact written (manufactured?)