Bonds on Bonds goes too far

By Adam Bagni
Collegian Staff
April 12, 2006

As I watched the premiere of ESPN’s new show Bonds on Bonds last week, two major thoughts crossed my mind. My opinion of the San Francisco Giants slugger has slightly changed, and ESPN is creating a major conflict of interest by airing this show.

Watching the normally hard-nosed Bonds break down during the show’s premiere, I have to say that I did feel somewhat sorry for the guy. Today, he is clearly the biggest villain in sports, and is receiving treatment as such. Members of the media, demanding comments on the steroid scandal, constantly hound Bonds.

Every time he enters a ballpark, the seven-time MVP is the repeated target of boo-birds and hecklers alike. He has received numerous death threats and a countless amount of racist hate mail. Sadly, Bonds’ family is now also a consistent target of those who despise him.

Anything good Bonds ever did for baseball has now long been forgotten. His legacy is irreversibly destroyed.

I’m among the individuals who are embarrassed to have ever been a fan of Barry Bonds. He tarnished a sacred game – my game – and I’m tremendously outraged about it. However, despite the fact that he brought this all upon himself, Bonds does deserve some degree of sympathy. When I see him in person, I’ll be sure to boo, but my goal is not to make him the social outcast that he has become as a result of the recent events.

Now with this whole Bonds on Bonds show (Tuesdays at 7 p.m.), ESPN is beginning to slide down a dangerous slope. The program features Barry Bonds in private interviews, as well as behind-the-scenes footage. Bonds is rather candid regarding his life away from the field, and he seems anxious to tell “his side of the story.”

An independent production company, not involved with ESPN, produces the show, and ESPN claims that it does not know the contents of the show until it airs. It is important to note too that Bonds is not involved in the show’s editing process.

The two main problems I have here are the fact that Bonds is a regular news item on ESPN, in addition to the fact that he is getting paid for participating in Bonds on Bonds.

As I watched the SportsCenter that aired that night on the ESPN networks, there were multiple news items based upon the Bonds on Bonds program. Any way you look at this thing, ESPN is paying for news. They may not know the content of the show, and they may not produce the show, but ESPN is paying Barry Bonds for insight. What happens if Bonds admits to using steroids on an episode? Is it ethical for ESPN to hold that information until the the time the show airs?

While I have read some scattered criticism on this matter, there doesn’t seem to be the outrage in the journalistic community that I expected here. Can you imagine if a major television network produced a show similar to this, but with a politician? There would undoubtedly be an uproar across America. However, because this situation involves a cable channel and a sports celebrity, the lack of journalistic integrity ESPN is currently displaying seems to have become a non-issue to many.

SportsCenter has already become a haven for promoting sports simply because it airs on ESPN, and not necessarily because the public is interested in the show. But Bonds on Bonds is taking it way too far.

bagnia1@lasalle.edu