Pretty normal if you ask me.

Dominguez comes off as someone trying to stir the pot. I’m gonna be watching Bradley close this season, but I wonder how many of his interviews have gone like this. He might not deserve all the criticism he gets. He still definitely deserves SOME, mind you.

The media should be kept away from Bradley during ST. There are a lot of national media floating around in AZ right now with little real news to right about. Bradley is thus a target for these people, and the M’s should have protected him better from interviews like this. If this would have been managed better an M’s press officer would have been in the back butting in when the interview turned aggressive, getting them to move onto a different subject. I think Griffey did this very well when Ichiro turned up for camp in 2009 and the media ambushed him about the clubhouse in 2008, and Griffey protected Ichiro from their questions. I would have like to have seen Bradley protected from this line of questioning.

Nothing was going to be gained from doing an interview like this IMO. There are no M’s related questions, it’s all about 2009. Drayer has indicated that Wak has made the decision to let Bradley get on with it and not ban him from speaking to the media … I respect Wak’s decision because I think he is a good manager. However, personally I would have told Bradley to keep quiet until April, when the national media would have buggered off back East and this would have blown over.

The interviewer comes over as aggressive, but to be honest what else would you expect from an ESPN interview with Bradley? It’s obvious that the national media sees him as an easy story, and the easy story is going to be easier to coax out of him with an aggressive approach rather than the soft approach.

I don’t think much ultimately will come from this. I wish he hadn’t done the interview as it has not been a positive thing for the player of for the ballclub. But once the season starts Seattle will be left alone again by the national media, along [hopefully] with Bradley.

This was clearly a hardball interview that Bradley agreed to do. Asking prying questions should be allowed in this case. She is not a reporter trying to catch Bradley at his locker to get him to say crazy things. This appears to be an attempt to lay everything out in the open and close the book on the ordeal.

I think Bradley handled the interview well and Colleen Dominguez did her job in an appropriate setting. I commend them both.

Bradley came off quite well, IMO, giving me more reason to pull for him.

Colleen Dominguez came off like one those reporters that are constantly trying to get a story out of Bradley. I didn’t think much of it because I was a) Tired and b) focusing more on Bradley’s response. I must say that Colleen hammering the question about whether the hate mail was delivered by someone within the Cubs organization definitely rubbed me the wrong way. Bradley was clearly not trying to throw the Cubs org under the bus but Colleen wanted Bradley to throw the Cubs org under the bus.

And honestly, ever since Bradley arrived in Seattle I’ve had a much stronger opinion of the response by Cubs nation and the national media in general.

Bitch

An interviewer is supposed to ask questions not attempt to force in answers. Also, a good interviewer is supposed to listen. The best questions are the results of listening to what the person is saying and continue on threads that they are telling instead of forcing ones that the “journalist” had previously written down. It’s upsetting that Dominguez and Katie Couric are doing their best to be the absolute worst interviewers on the planet and set women back in the field.

I’m going to back off previous remarks about Dominguez and say that, while I found sections of her questioning to be obnoxious, she did her job, and the problems I had with her earlier today are just problems I have with the media and interviews in general.

However, Dominguez isn’t the story here, and she never was the story. The story is that Bradley comes off a lot better in the interview than many have given him credit for, especially those who’ve just read the text. I’m with Drayer when she suggests that maybe Bradley shouldn’t be so accommodating with interview requests, but he did this one, and given the line of questioning, he was composed and thoughtful.

From what I understand, athletes in the U.K. are much more guarded from the media — at least while they’re at work. The regular access to the locker room that American reporters all enjoy doesn’t exist in the Premier League, for example. The managers are usually the only ones talking to the cameras after a game.

The British media in particular can be pretty brutal, but it seems aimed at managers a lot more than the players. Does the limited access to players lead to more fair treatment of them, or does it lead to more baseless conjecture, rumor-mongering, etc. because reporters can’t get answers so they make shit up?

In America, if Bradley starts declining every interview request, the treatment he receives from the press is unlikely to improve. You either play ball or get ripped by reporters who resent you for being “unaccountable” or whatever. So the only real option is to do the interviews, but be so boring that they don’t ask you to do any more. (Maybe that’s what Bradley’s figuring out!)

I think there’s a question in here somewhere. Basically asking some of our U.K. friends what they see.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/mariners/2010/03/10/the-milton-bradley-interview-and-the-fallout/