Ken Burns Baseball on...

[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

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by 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

I'm not comparing what happened to these men... I'm comparing the justice system. Nothing more. In the case of Till's murder, it was a corrupt Southern court system. In the case of Jackson, it was a corrupt commissioners office.

[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."

[tedzan]

Burns had an "agenda" in his BB documentary which resulted in quite a few "hyperboles" (as Howard and BMarlowe have alluded to).

Burns did similar things in his Jazz documentary....like not crediting great artists in Jazz such as Hoagy Carmichael, Lionel Hampton, etc.
that didn't fit his agenda.
There are other glaring omissions; however, these two Jazz greats immediately come to mind.

After a while, I just couldn't continue to watch the BB documentary for these reasons. I did not think it was worth watching his Jazz
documentary at all. But, I did read the book.

[slidekellyslide]

Outside of the few glaring errors that only baseball historians will notice I watched Burns baseball and thought it was great. Although I can watch Innings 1-4 over and over, I have little interest after that point. Every filmmaker has a point of view and that's what you're going to get. I don't think Burns has ever declared his documentary to be the authoritative history of the game. He gave his point of view, I'm not so sure that it was as important to him that we got an actual photo of Candy Cummings as it was to tell his story.

With that said...I like accuracy and I'd like to know who it was that told Burns it wasn't Cummings and when he told him.

[Brian-Chidester]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Burns had an "agenda" in his BB documentary which resulted in quite a few "hyperboles" (as Howard and BMarlowe have alluded to).

Burns did similar things in his Jazz documentary....like not crediting great artists in Jazz such as Hoagy Carmichael, Lionel Hampton, etc.
that didn't fit his agenda.
There are other glaring omissions; however, these two Jazz greats immediately come to mind.

After a while, I just couldn't continue to watch the BB documentary for these reasons. I did not think it was worth watching his Jazz
documentary at all. But, I did read the book.

Completely agree about the ommission of Hoagy Carmichael. In the same respect, I thought Gerry Mulligan played a much bigger role in the creation of Modern jazz than Burns afforded him. But then again West Coast jazz was erased from the series almost entirely.

[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.