Ken Burns Baseball on...

[mintacular]

Just wanted to let you know the Ken Burns Baseball movie is on MLB Network and is currently featuring some pre-war stuff...What do you think of his movie?

[PolarBear]

Very good overall. He lets his liberal political bias show a few too many times though.

[joeadcock]

It is a great movie.

F.L.

[E93]

It's great! I don't know about liberal politics, but most of his documentaries have a sub-text of race in America.
JimB

[ethicsprof]

top drawer!!!

best,
barry

[D. Broughman]

I have the Ken Burns DVD baseball collection and have watched it several times and find something new each time. Is the movie the same thing? D.

[nebboy]

Last nights segment had interviews of Buck Oneil. One of baseball greats story tellers. He had such a great canter to his voice and a smile that never stopped! I glad that Kens series in on MLB TV so we can see how much some of these guy spent there lives to making baseball the best sport of all.
I was luck enough to be a game in KC, when Buck was on field to through out the first pitch. Then retired to his seat behind home plate. I when down to say "HI" and tell him how much I enjoyed is Nigro League Musium in KC. Also asked for an Auto, which he was happy to do.
Now for the great part. As I asked him a couple of leading question to see if he was in the story telling mood, and oh ya he was. He started in with one after another, after another. 20 mintues later he said in mid story said that the chair next to him is not being used that night and I could "rest here for the game". The only time he stopped talking all night was when he was singing (anthem and take me out). He talked about the past, his playing days, guys he played with, traveling in the south, buses, air plains, finding players and signing them to MLB contracts, players on the field that night, everything they did right and wrong (always a scout). See I ramble also. It was an amazing night of just listen, and watching the game with one of lthe games best ambassadors. This was me best baseball memory by far - by far.

Buck for all he did for baseball, he should get some more interest from the Hall of Fame, he already one to me.

[donmuth]

that was published along with the documentary movie. It's a good read and I am almost done with it now. After this I will probably take a short break from baseball reading before I read The Glory Of Their Times next.

[Brian-Chidester]

Loved it, and glad for the liberal bias. With the Great Depression all but forgotten now, it's refreshing to see a documentary about America touting unionization as heroic. These last 40 years have broken down the infrastructure of the New Deal to the point where our new diety, the Market, has damaged every piece of industry in this country, including baseball and baseball cards.

Ken Burns is a welcome voice, in my humble opinion.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

Loved it, and glad for the liberal bias. With the Great Depression all but forgotten now, it's refreshing to see a documentary about America touting unionization as heroic. These last 40 years have broken down the infrastructure of the New Deal to the point where our new diety, the Market, has damaged every piece of industry in this country, including baseball and baseball cards.

Ken Burns is a welcome voice, in my humble opinion.

Yes... unions will solve the problems caused by the Market. Got it.


Didn't you cause enough trouble yesterday? (LOL)

[Rob D.]

Why do I think that by the end of the day we'll be aching for yet more discussion about an obviously fake T206 Wagner?

[barrysloate]

Brian- you haven't been on the board that long but in the past, when we've had discussions about the state of the country, this community has generally blown a gasket. So we try to avoid any incendiary comments about unions, about liberals, etc. Those kind of threads never end well. Just a little pointer for future reference.

[Brian-Chidester]

I bow to your condescending wisdom.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Brian- you haven't been on the board that long but in the past, when we've had discussions about the state of the country, this community has generally blown a gasket. So we try to avoid any incendiary comments about unions, about liberals, etc. Those kind of threads never end well. Just a little pointer for future reference.

It's as if I started the rhetoric? C'mon, Barry. If someone is going to knock the film for its "obvious liberal bias," why can't someone come in a defend the film too? Oh, wait, I forgot... I'm new to the board. That's right. Lack of tenure.

Yes, Ken Burns's series had a bias towards labor and civil rights. Big deal. If protecting the working-class and the minority is a bias, then I'll take that bias, thank you very much.

[barrysloate]

No condescension intended...I often found myself right in the middle of all the political discussions, and usually regretted doing so. Imagine a group of liberals and a group of conservatives simultaneously banging their heads against a brick wall, and that's pretty much they way things went.

[barrysloate]

Brian- you are free to express any opinion you want around here...just be prepared for the fallout.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

Yes... unions will solve the problems caused by the Market. Got it.


Didn't you cause enough trouble yesterday? (LOL)

Actually, labor rights and the New Deal DID solve the problems caused by the Markets.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

No condescension intended...I often found myself right in the middle of all the political discussions, and usually regretted doing so. Imagine a group of liberals and a group of conservatives simultaneously banging their heads against a brick wall, and that's pretty much they way things went.

I wan't saying you were condescending, Barry. Just the two that commented on me causing trouble and being blind to an obvious T206 fake.

Agreed about political arguments. Just thought someone should posit an antidote opinion to the one which claimed Burns's liberal bias brought the series down.

[Rob D.]

My comment wasn't so much directed at you being blind to an obvious fake as it was to given a choice between dredging up discourse on the Cobb/Edwards Wagner or having another liberal-vs.-conservative train wreck on a board dedicated to baseball cards, I'd choose the former.

[slidekellyslide]

Let's keep all political talk off the main board...there is a watercooler area for general sports talk that I suppose if anyone wants to use it to argue about politics they can take it there. Not here.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

My comment wasn't so much directed at you being blind to an obvious fake as it was to given a choice between dredging up discourse on the Cobb/Edwards Wagner or having another liberal-vs.-conservative train wreck on a board dedicated to baseball cards, I'd choose the former.

Rob... first off, I wasn't dredging up anything on the Cobb/Edwards card. The thread was started by someone else two days ago. And I told everyone quite clearly that [1] I was not a part of the older thread and [2] I had never seen the card. I was interested more in seeing if we could identify exactly what reprint the card came from, as it looked fake to me from first glance. But having not seen it before that day, nor having been a part of the old conversation, I thought I'd give it the old one-time to see if it held up on any level whatsoever. Alas, it did not, and everyone was right. But I enjoyed the conversation.

As to a liberal-vs.-conservative discussion here... this had nothing to do with political parties. It was said that the Burns series had a "liberal bias," of which I could only see that being from the POV of labor rights and civil rights. In my response to that, I made making no statement about congress or political parties or anything. Just trying to say, when it comes to blacks in baseball and the reserve clause in baseball... if THOSE issues are the so-called "liberal bias," then give me the liberal bias.

I never even said I WAS a liberal.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

Actually, labor rights and the New Deal DID solve the problems caused by the Markets.

Brian,

I wasn't being condescending, at all. I am only condescending to one single person on this board and "they" all graduated, Magna Cum Laude, from a top notch Ivy League school. Since you aren't "them", you're in the clear.

The point I was trying to make, with humor, is that it can be argued that just as you claim, that labor rights, the New Deal, and unions, solved problems caused by markets, the other side of the argument is equally valid. Markets, even Market collapses, solve problems caused by some entitlement programs and some unions.

Our auto industry didn't collapse because Americans like foreign cars. It's in collapse because union contracts rendered the US automakers non-competitive v. foreign makers.

About once a year, you read an article about some proposal to import some foreign insect that will solve a problem caused by some other pest. It never seems to work out quite like it's planned.


Edited to add: Here's the latest example. This just sounds like a bad idea to me.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119787&page=1

[Brian-Chidester]

Jim,

I disagree that the market is the ultimate arbiter of democracy, but I think we should take this off-board, if you want to continue it. PM me.

Again, my only point way at the beginning of this thread was that, if blacks in baseball and the reserve clause were considered the liberal bias, then that is a bias I will proudly applaud. Because other than those two issues, I can't see what other liberal bias there might have been in the Burns series.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

It's as if I started the rhetoric? C'mon, Barry. If someone is going to knock the film for its "obvious liberal bias," why can't someone come in a defend the film too? Oh, wait, I forgot... I'm new to the board. That's right. Lack of tenure.

Yes, Ken Burns's series had a bias towards labor and civil rights. Big deal. If protecting the working-class and the minority is a bias, then I'll take that bias, thank you very much.

It's supposed to be a baseball documentary. I was just pointing out that it sometimes has a biased view of baseball. I didn't say that was bad or good, only that it exists so that anyone unfamiliar with the documentary will know what it's about.

Funny you took that as an "attack" that needed "defended".

Lighten up Francis.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

Jim,

I disagree that the market is the ultimate arbiter of democracy...

If only someone had said that, your disagreement would be valid.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

It's supposed to be a baseball documentary. I was just pointing out that it sometimes has a biased view of baseball. I didn't say that was bad or good, only that it exists so that anyone unfamiliar with the documentary will know what it's about.

Funny you took that as an "attack" that needed "defended".

Lighten up Francis.

Yes, and professional baseball is a business. It's easy to say, "Hey, man, it's just baseball. Lighten up. Stop trying to intellectualize everything." But the story of baseball is a serious story, and a reflection of our values as a nation.

Again, it wasn't some heavy thing to me. Just pointing out that this so-called liberal bias should be explained before people reading your post take your word at it. In this case, Ken Burns's "liberal bias" was the covering of blacks in baseball extensively, as well as the reserve clause and labor rights.

[teetwoohsix]

Brian-Chidester="He Who Stirreth The Pot With Very Big Stick"
(it's a joke Brian,don't spiral on me)

[Chris-Counts]

I'll stay out of the political debate, but I will confess I'm in the minority in that I have very mixed feelings about the Ken Burns baseball series. First of all, there is way too much camera time alloted to people like Doris Kearns Goodwin, Stephen Jay Gould and Donald Hall, who as far as I'm concerned, have nothing to do with baseball's history ... they would have been better off filling up the screen with old ballplayers or simply putting all the voices in the background and show baseball clips when people are talking. And the series is undeniably slanted toward the New York teams, especially during the parts on the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s (my favorite eras). It's makes me wonder how much Burns really understands baseball history. There were 16 teams in the majors during these eras, but Burns focuses mostly on just three of them.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

Yes, and professional baseball is a business. It's easy to say, "Hey, man, it's just baseball. Lighten up. Stop trying to intellectualize everything." But the story of baseball is a serious story, and a reflection of our values as a nation.

Again, it wasn't some heavy thing to me. Just pointing out that this so-called liberal bias should be explained before people reading your post take your word at it. In this case, Ken Burns's "liberal bias" was the covering of blacks in baseball extensively, as well as the reserve clause and labor rights.

Thanks for explaining what I meant, considering you couldn't have possibly known.

My reason for stating it has a liberal bias was actually directed at his interviewee list, not his positions on integration or labor.

Nice to watch an interview with Bill Lee about baseball while wearing a CCCP cap. And Mario Cuomo was the best they could come up with to comment on 50's baseball? Apparently Castro wasn't available.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Thanks for explaining what I meant, considering you couldn't have possibly known.

My reason for stating it has a liberal bias was actually directed at his interviewee list, not his positions on integration or labor.

Nice to watch an interview with Bill Lee about baseball while wearing a CCCP cap. And Mario Cuomo was the best they could come up with to comment on 50's baseball? Apparently Castro wasn't available.

Now you've got me spooked, what with the Cold War rhetoric and all. Whooooo.........

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

And the series is undeniably slanted toward the New York teams, especially during the parts on the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s (my favorite eras). It's makes me wonder how much Burns really understands baseball history. There were 16 teams in the majors during these eras, but Burns focuses mostly on just three of them.

Chris is right. I would add that he also got the 1900's wrong. The Cubs were the best team, the Pirates 2nd, the Giants 3rd. You would never know that from Burns' film.

[ErikV]

I too have seen the Ken Burns Baseball Documentary. I seemed to
think the documentary started off excellent and ended mediocre.
Race was definitely talked about. (As I recall the later videos were
about Dominican players.) Overall I like Burns storytelling technique -
keeping his viewers interested throughout the entire story.

I recently watched his documentary on Mark Twain and just yesterday
purchased "Unforgivable Blackness: The Jack Johnson Story."

This leads me to my question: There have been countless outstanding
black athletes throught the past century. Of them who do you
consider the best all around? And who paid the biggest price socially?
Athletes such as Jack Johnson, Josh Gibson, Jesse Owens and Jackie
Robinson all come to mind.

[deadballera]

I keep the Ken Burns on the Ipod Video....

Great documentary !!

[Anthony S.]

The Seattle Pilots definitely got short shrift.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

First of all, there is way too much camera time alloted to people like Doris Kearns Goodwin, Stephen Jay Gould and Donald Hall, who as far as I'm concerned, have nothing to do with baseball's history ... they would have been better off filling up the screen with old ballplayers or simply putting all the voices in the background and show baseball clips when people are talking.

I totally agree with Chris. Hearing those guys talk about how they reacted to a certain World Series outcome and so on and so forth got a little tiring. I'd rather hear more from the likes of Buck O'Neil, Bob Feller, etc...

[Brian-Chidester]

I liked hearing from the fans, the sportswriters and the poets. If it was just professional baseball players, you wouldn't have gotten the voice of the people who filled the seats and made the players heroes.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

I liked hearing from the fans, the sportswriters and the poets. If it was just professional baseball players, you wouldn't have gotten the voice of the people who filled the seats and made the players heroes.

The bias comes in because they're all of a particular political stripe, and not only that, but many are activists.

Probably the only reason he let George Will on the program is because he agreed to describe himself as a bitter conservative.

I'm sure you'd be less than impressed with Burns historical objectivity if his interviewee list included Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley among other conservatives, then allowed Doris Goodwin on as long as she described herself as a bitter liberal.

[mintacular]

The bias comes in because they're all of a particular political stripe, and not only that, but many are activists.

Probably the only reason he let George Will on the program is because he agreed to describe himself as a bitter conservative.

I'm sure you'd be less than impressed with Burns historical objectivity if his interviewee list included Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley among other conservatives, then allowed Doris Goodwin on as long as she described herself as a bitter liberal.

I think you are overplaying the "liberal bias" just a bit. Most of the movie avoids politicking and there are some great interviews and raw footage. In terms of the issue race, while it may have been a bit over the top, racism in baseball is a legitimate and important topic to delve into--better that than be glossed over IMO.

Racism is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. My parents are die-hard conservative Evangelical Republicans yet serve as missionaries in Africa. Abe Lincoln after all was a Republican. So drop the b.s. "liberal" posturing...

[E93]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

My reason for stating it has a liberal bias was actually directed at his interviewee list, not his positions on integration or labor.

George F. Will ??

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by mintacular

[I] So drop the b.s. "liberal" posturing...

I agree with you on the race issue not necessarily being a liberal/conservative thing.

As far as pointing out who Ken Burns is, and the fact that his political views bleed over into his his documentaries at times, it is what it is.

If you don't want to know what people think about a topic, then you probably shouldn't start threads asking for opinions.

[E93]

Sorry, I did not read beyond the quote above once I saw it.
JimB

[E93]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Probably the only reason he let George Will on the program is because he agreed to describe himself as a bitter conservative.

My guess is he interviewed him because he knows a ton about baseball.
JimB

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by E93

My guess is he interviewed him because he knows a ton about baseball.
JimB

I don't really doubt that, but it's funny that the only conservative interviewee describes himself as a bitter conservative and all his friends as happy liberals.

It was played tongue-in-cheek, and you probably wouldn't think much about it unless you notice, as I did, his other interviewees we're mostly activist liberals. I don't recall Mario Cuomo saying he became a bitter liberal when he failed at baseball.

Look, it not a big deal, and I like the documentary overall, and in fact, I think Burns Civil War documentary is one of the best ever, but the fact remains, Burns does let his political bias bleed into his documentaries, and it's not over the top or unreasonable to point that out.

[E93]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I don't really doubt that, but it's funny that the only conservative interviewee describes himself as a bitter conservative and all his friends as happy liberals.

It was played tongue-in-cheek, and you probably wouldn't think much about it unless you notice, as I did, his other interviewees we're mostly activist liberals. I don't recall Mario Cuomo saying he became a bitter liberal when he failed at baseball.

Look, it not a big deal, and I like the documentary overall, and in fact, I think Burns Civil War documentary is one of the best ever, but the fact remains, Burns does let his political bias bleed into his documentaries, and it's not over the top or unreasonable to point that out.

I agree. And in Brian's defense, he noticed your perspective in a seemingly innocuous comment. We all have our perspectives and issues for which we are particularly sensitive.
Have a good weekend.
JimB

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by E93

I agree. And in Brian's defense, he noticed your perspective in a seemingly innocuous comment. We all have our perspectives and issues for which we are particularly sensitive.
Have a good weekend.
JimB

Thanks, and it was meant as an innocuous comment. I felt I had to defend it however after Brian went rabid.

No harm though. Have a good weekend as well!

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

The bias comes in because they're all of a particular political stripe, and not only that, but many are activists.

Probably the only reason he let George Will on the program is because he agreed to describe himself as a bitter conservative.

I'm sure you'd be less than impressed with Burns historical objectivity if his interviewee list included Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley among other conservatives, then allowed Doris Goodwin on as long as she described herself as a bitter liberal.

Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley... both of them I respect, even if I disagreed with much of their politics. I don't personally care for much of anything from Buchanan politically, but I have no idea how he feels about baseball. And since most of the people in Burns's documentary talked exclusively about baseball, to me that was all that mattered.

[FrankWakefield]

.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

The quoting, and the bickering, sure managed to detract from a nice start for a thread... golly, maybe folks who quote so much do so because they think no one reading at the end read what went before... and why would they think that, because they themselves didn't read it. I know quoting was discussed a bit some time ago. Seems to me that there's no need to quote something unless it was in some OTHER thread. Otherwise, do completely away with threads and let's just have a mass of posts.

Thank you for trying to get the thread back on track.

[FrankWakefield]

.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I obviously didn't, from looking at your post.

Nevertheless, the effort was appreciated.