Blog vs. blog

So by now you've likely seen the weekly snippets of Pete Arbogast's blog from WeAreSC.com (haven't I promoted that site enough over the last few months?) For the most part, we still run them because it's like that proverbial accident on the other side of 405 while you're driving through the Sepulveda Pass. We're in somewhat amazement that he a) continues his undignified begging for fulltime work, b) gives backhanded compliments to fellow workers (including referring to Rory Markas as one of his great friends in the business while he openly campaigns to do USC basketball broadcasts) or c) rehashes the life and times with his current girlfriend and her kids. But that's how he's decided to fill the space. Bless him for that.

(And as far as that picture of him and Paul McDonald we found on valleytrojan.com ... not sure where it came from, but it looks like some high school production of "Guys and Dolls.")

Anyway, his blog posting from Sunday deserves a little more direct response.

Fifth paragraph:

Years ago, a local writer wrote some pretty awful things about Fred, and then called me a week later to ask if I would help him with an interview to fill up his column on how I (and UCLA’s Chris Roberts) went about preparing for the big game. He had already interviewed Chris, and now wanted to talk to me, but I told him I was in no way interested in helping him after the yellow-journalistic hatchet job he done to this fine man and outstanding professional broadcaster. The writer seemed taken aback by my strong dedication to my partner and friend. He apparently continues to be hurt by this perceived “snub� on my part. This writer has never spoken to me again. I am still waiting for an apology from him to Fred.

Now, let's deal with the facts.
When I called Pete to do a phone interview way back when about how he and Chris Roberts prepare for their week of the USC-UCLA game, Pete in no way, shape or form said he was upset about something I wrote about Fred Gallagher the week before. He simply said: "I"m not interested." And sure, I was taken aback. Why? Because he gave no explanation. He just said again, "I'm not interested." OK, fine.
I had done a few interviews with Pete in the past, so this caught me off guard. I remember once I wrote that before a USC football game up at Washington, viewers would be wise to turn down the sound on the ABC telecast and listen to Pete do the call on the radio. And during that radio broadcast, Pete even gave me a pop for saying that. That was kinda cool, but I appreciated it.

But because of the fact he clammed up this time, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This happens from time to time with other radio or TV personalities I deal with. It's simply part of the stuff that comes with writing the media column now at the Daily News since 1992, and for five years before that the Daily Breeze in Torrance.
Unless you completely water things down and try to be nice in your criticism of everyone in return for favors, you just end up like .... never mind.

Anyway, I took that conversation for what it was. Today, this honestly is the first time I've heard Pete's reasoning for not wanting to be interviewed. I've heard rumors of the fact, but it didn't make any sense to me. And when guys don't want to be interviewed, I generally leave them alone. Why aggitate the situation more? There are many on that list at this point in my career -- guys (and girls) who I don't bother to talk to any longer because of something from the past that still has their panties in a bunch. Some come around and we end up talking out what's been going on. Others ... that's how it goes.

So if truth be told, I'm not at all hurt by this "snub." And, as I've come to learn from others who have had to deal with Pete on a more regular basis, this is pretty much the way he operates: never confrontational, just a passive-aggressive method of getting his point across, whether it's mailing letters to the editor under an assumed name, or having a go-between deliver his message. If that's his character flaw, I'm fine with it.

So should I apologize to Fred and end this whole thing? I'm not even sure what I'd be apologizing for. If I had to write something now about Fred, who then was a sports anchor at KNX-AM (710), I'd have to say that I thought that with USC's rich football history, the school could have found an ex-player who could probably do a better job at explaining what was going on down on the field rather than someone trained to be a news deliverer. I knew Fred did his homework and was a good reporter. But he just wasn't the right fit for that job. Is that a harsh yellow-journalism slam?
(The irony is, now that Paul McDonald has had the seat for awhile, I'd probably wish they'd go back to using Fred. At least he wouldn't just cackle away like Ed McMahon at all of Arbogast's jingoistic calls).

I'm only sorry I hadn't heard this explanation before until now. I guess it now makes sense. I admire Pete's loyalty to his partner. I just, as usual, don't agree with Pete's methods.

And as long as he uses his blog to try to further twist the arms of USC fans to help him gain employment opportunities -- especially with this latest campaign for a job that he has yet to even apply for at 710-AM, co-hosting with D'Marco Farr) -- I'll continue to pass it on here on the blog and in my Friday media column.

It just seems like you give Pete enough blogspace, and he'll continue to make himself look foolish. Even when he gets the story wrong. And for what it's worth, I'll email this blog entry directly to Pete. I won't expect a direct answer, of course, but it'll be interesting to see what alias he uses next.