Ken Burns Baseball on...

[D. Broughman]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

What Burns DID do with Baseball, is to get a bit of interest rekindled in the minds of some folks. Whether they watched it because of the history of the game, because of the interviewees, because of the examination of the racial barrier... whatever the reason, folks who watched that saw video of Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe D, Ted W, Stan M.... it revived interest in the history of the game, it started interest anew in some who watched the series. We may well have a few more collectors of the old stuff because of what Burns did.

I think Frank hit it right on the head. Burns revived interest in baseball.

[Brian-Chidester]

Burns's documentary also came out the year of the Players' Strike, and may very well have given all the people who were pissed at the players something to think about. Burns's film does not portray the owners in very good light. Even up through the late 1980s. "Collusion" was a great section of the final film.

[FrankWakefield]

.

[Brian-Chidester]

The film series said a lot about the business of baseball that might have been right in front of my face, but I'd never personally considered before. Things such as official MLB being an organization of the owners, and by extension, the commisioner(s) and even the Hall of Fame. I mean, a man like Kenesaw Mountain Landis, to me, is an utter disgrace to the Hall of Fame. Yeah, yeah, he might have cleaned up baseball after its worse scandal, but if for no other reason than his outward prejudice towards blacks (which in effect WAS the thing that kept them out of MLB until his death), and his anti-labor decision to not bring a verdict down with regards to the Federal League... I personally think he poses the greatest case for one being REMOVED from the Hall of Fame. But, of course, he championed the owners.

Do the owners or the commisioner's office care in the least about a lowly player like Joe Jackson? No, they don't. That would be like someone from the Milam or Bryant family coming out and expressing guilt and remorse for what happened to Emmett Till. The commissioner's office would have to publically apologize for allowing what happened to Joe Jackson to stand for as long as it has. In my estimation, that is the only justice that will suffice.

[bmarlowe1]

Brian-Chidester says re Landis:
"...but if for no other reason than his outward prejudice towards blacks (which in effect WAS the thing that kept them out of MLB until his death)"

This contention is very well discredited. For starters, I would refer you to 4 articles in the Summer 2009 Baseball Research Journal beginning on page 26.

Did Landis fail to show leadership on this issue and just float along with the status-quo? That seems to be the consensus. Should that keep him out of the HoF? Perhaps, but we should at least be accurate as to the reason.

[Brian-Chidester]

So the quote in Ken Burns's film where Landis writes, "The answer is no"... that was made up by Burns?

[howard38]

Brian-Childester,

I understand the point you were trying to make but I'd advise against using Emmett Till in any kind of analogy involving Joe Jackson. It will seem to some that you are saying what "happened" to Jackson is comparable to what happened to Till and hyperbole like that will not win you any arguments.

Howard

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Brian-Chidester

So the quote in Ken Burns's film where Landis writes, "The answer is no"... that was made up by Burns?

I don't know whether he made it up or not . What I do know is that Burns is very good at presentating broad sweeps of history - not so good at the scholarly part of getting all the details right - that is true not only in Baseball but in his WWII series. In some discussion with experts that advised him in Baseball - it is clear he is often more interested in effect than detailed accuracy. Quoting Landis in this manner may be very effective - but it may not be true.

I can tell you that in my specific area of expertise he went against solid advice and presented mis-identified images. The photo of Candy Cummings he used is extremely compelling - but it is not Candy Cummings and he was told by experts that it wasn't - but he used it anyway. He was also mis-leading at times in his image presentation in The Civil War.

You ought to see what other researchers have to say. If you are that interested, the articles I cited are a good starting point - they present a variety of views. Burns made a nice contribution in some respects - but his is not the Bible of Baseball History.

If you like - I'll quote Burns, page 284:
"Judge Landis's replacement as baseball commisioner was....Albert Benjamin "Happy" Chandler....Chandler told his visitors, "If a black boy can make it on Okinawa or Guadalcanal, hell, he can make it in baseball." Still a secret vote was said to have shown that 15 out of 16 club owners opposed integration."

[ChiefBenderForever]

I thought it was a wonderful work of art and he did a great job considering he had very little time to cover each era. Of course New York would get a lot of coverage considering their history and fan base. It would be cool to see nine innings on each era so more could be covered. For the average fan of baseball who only knows about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb it is a great introduction to the history of the game.