It's hard to believe that the re-launched a-league.com will be one-year old on January 15. Not only is it exciting because of the birthday, but because it's already a big source, if not the major source, for news and information about the A-League. That being said, there's still a period of growth and learning that comes with operating, and for writing, in this medium.
In my last column (which can be found here), I tried a new style for myself, satire. And you may have heard the term, biting satire. But what you haven't heard is that biting satire also bites back.
The league felt that I was taking a shot at their scheduling process, and I can answer the leagues concern by saying that yes, indeed, the piece was directed at the scheduling process. For those who are unaware, for another year, Rochester have, in exchange for money, been able to buy a road game from another team, and have it played at Frontier Field. I groused about this last year, in public; and am happy to say that others joined me this year. So, using a standard comic technique, I took an existing situation, and exaggerated it to its logical conclusion: Rochester buying everybody's home game against them!
This, apparently, touched some nerves.
I took great care in making it look as realistic as possible. I looked at the format of Rochester's press releases, and imitated it. I took the existing A-League teams, and plugged them into a 2004 calendar. I made sure the days of the week in that 2004 calendar were actually correct. From my limited understanding of comedy, an effective satire looks like the real thing, even if what is being presented is absurd. And finally, to make absolutely sure that it came across as a work of fiction, I post-dated the release to January 10, 2004, and assumed people didn't think I was clairvoyant.
Still, some people are not amused.
This brings me to a question-and-answer session I've had with myself, and my family, over what responsibilities a writer has. And, basically, we've come out with this:
1. One must truly care about what you're writing about.
I hope the USL and the Rhinos don't think I'm merely out to trash them. I've said in the past, and I'll say it again, that Rochester is a class act, and they're the USL's marquee franchise because it is run so well. And while I've remarked on some of the things I don't care about in the USL, I've also talked about what's good about it, what needs defending, what's not their fault, and made some suggestions on how to improve. I think the difference here is that I'm pointing at a specific area that I think has been done poorly, which is a whole lot different than spouting off on the entire league.
2. One must write with all the information reasonably available.
This ones a little tricky, because there's grey area. I'm a fan, a-league.com does not (not should) provide any compensation for my columns. Indeed, the reason I have the word columnist tacked on after my name, is because I choose to send these pieces in on a somewhat regular basis. My frame of information is pretty much what the rest of you have: postings on the USL Discussion Zone, Internetsoccer.com, BigSoccer.com, and a-league.com for press-releases, news and all the other information I can gobble up.
After the press release came out, it was learned that Rochester did not seek out the game, but Long Island offered it up. Does that invalidate my piece? In my opinion, no. As I mentioned earlier, people have complained about the practice since last season, but neither the league, nor Rochester, nor Long Island, nor Lehigh Valley, bothered to clarify the situation. It came out after the satire.
And is it a whole lot different since that revelation? OK, so Long Island may have been the instigator, but if there's a seller, there's also a buyer. Had this information gone public, I may have changed the pieces tone from Rochester actively buying the games, to the rest of the league begging to sell.
3. Has the writer been fair to the parties he wrote about?
I think the answer to this, is also, yes. The point of the piece was, sorry USL, to complain about the scheduling process. Rochester, because of their existing history, was the focus of the piece. Keep in mind that satire is not reporting, but exaggeration. That being said, I never alluded to them doing something they don't already do - the buying and selling of home games. There were no personal attacks, no references to cannibalism.
I have to give this to Rochester - being so successful, they get more than their share of grief, from myself and other fans. But, being so successful, they also have more responsibility (fair or not), to uphold the image of the league. Had Long Island went to Connecticut and offered up the game, would there have been as much of a fuss? The answer is no. Would there have still been a fuss? I think yes. Had they sold their game to another team, I believe the questions would have been along the lines of Long Islands financial stability, the leagues scheduling problems, as well as the fairness of extra home games. Had the USL decided to make all the details public, we may have seen an entirely legitimate reason for the sale. The USL does not have to do that, and if they choose to, that's their prerogative. But likewise, we the fans, can only work with what we're presented.
Again, finally, for the record. Long live the A-League, United Soccer Leagues, Rochester Raging Rhinos, and all of professional soccer in North America. I love you guys, and wouldn't do this if I didn't care.
A discussions of this is already underway at the USL Discussion Zone. Click here to join in.
