Is AJ's Act Getting Old? No, But the Tribune's Is.

Wouldn't it be lovely if Chicago could read a newspaper feeling confident that the stories it tells are fairly and accurately reported? Instead, we have a big daily that tries to build audience by fomenting controversy, sometimes — as we've seen before — regardless of the truth.

How many Chicagoans reading Paul Sullivan's story about A.J. Pierzynski today feel confident the story is true? We thought we would compare Paul Sullivan's packaging of the controversy to the actual evidence his story presents. In the quotes below, we reversed the order, putting the evidence (Mark Buehrle's quotes) above the spin (Paul Sullivan's setup of the quotes). First you'll read what Mark Buehrle said, then you'll see how Sullivan spun it for Tribune readers:

BUEHRLE: "I think it is disrespecting Toby," Buehrle said before Sunday's game. "It's kind of saying: 'You can't do your job.' I don't see where he has to be in there just because it's a big rivalry. That doesn't matter. He needs a day off. Whether it's against the Cubs or anyone else, he needs a day off."

SULLIVAN: While Guillen and Pierzynski eventually hugged it out, and Pierzynski added to his growing legend with a grand slam on Sunday, it appears some of Pierzynski's teammates are tired of his act.

Some of Pierzynski's teammates? Only one is quoted. Where are the many to justify the plural? Buehrle clearly seems to be criticizing AJ here, and deservedly so, but is the criticism as hot as Sullivan makes it out to be, or is Sullivan trying to make it bigger than it is? The false plural suggests the latter.

BUEHRLE: "It's just A.J.," Buehrle said. "Everything I keep hearing is 'Oh, A.J. is not in the lineup. He's a big part of this team and with the big rivalry, and with him being such a part of it because Cubs fans don't like him … ' We don't look at it that way. And I'm sure Cubs fans don't care if he plays."

SULLIVAN: Buehrle was not surprised that Pierzynski was putting himself ahead of his team with his public griping, putting Guillen in a tough spot.

When Buehrle refers to "Everything I keep hearing," he's clearly referring to everything he's hearing in the media, not everything he's hearing from AJ. He says "we don't look at it" the way you guys portray it. It makes you wonder how much of Buehrle's criticism is actually directed at the media coverage of AJ Pierzynski rather than at AJ himself. But Sullivan spins the quote into an accusation of AJ "putting himself ahead of his team." Notice Mark Buehrle does not utter those words. Sullivan does.

BUEHRLE: "I think some of the stuff he does during the course of the season he could not do, to kind of clear his name up a little," Buehrle said. "He likes to be that [villain]. He likes to see his name in the paper. He likes to, well, not to be in the middle of controversy—I don't think he purposely tries to cause some of it—but he just speaks his mind and pretty much causes controversy."

SULLIVAN: Buehrle believes Pierzynski enjoys playing the role of the villain at Wrigley Field because he craves the attention.

First, notice this little piece of artifice: [villain]. Sullivan changed an important word in Buehrle's quote, and now it matches the word he uses setting up the quote. What did Mark actually say? Did he say, "He likes to be that guy?" If so, doesn't it change the tenor of the quote? Did he say, "He likes to be that &%$#@&?" Because that would change the tenor, too.

Next, notice that Buehrle does not actually say AJ craves attention. After saying AJ likes seeing his name in the paper, Buehrle moderates his statement by saying AJ does not like being in the center of controversy — he just speaks his mind. In this case, the thrust of Buehrle's quote points away from AJ craving attention, but Sullivan spins the quote in the most ungenerous light.

Reporters will defend themselves from this kind of analysis by pointing out that the quote is right there for the reader to look at. But the sentences that frame a quote, particularly before it appears, certainly influence how readers absorb it. Otherwise, you could just give us the quotes and leave the reporter out altogether. Hey, there's an idea.

Brett Ballantini and Lone Ranger contributed to this entry.

11 p.m. UPDATE: Just got home from the game to find that Buehrle confirmed our take on Sullivan's work with these comments, published tonight on MLB.com:

On Monday afternoon, Buehrle said he had talked to Pierzynski, and there was no animosity between the two, adding that his comments were not taken in the spirit he intended.

"It has kind of been blown out of proportion, and it's kind of a story being made up out of nothing," Buehrle said. "Everything is good. We're good.

"I'm not trying to defend anyone or stick up for anyone," added Buehrle, when asked about the point he was trying to make with his Sunday statement. "I don't think it came across the right way. Like I said, it's just a story that someone was trying to take and run with it. Obviously, they did a good job at it."

So, to repeat: Wouldn't it be lovely if Chicago could read a newspaper feeling confident that the stories it tells are fairly and accurately reported?