No one into Hall Again
The Houston Chronicle reported that for the third straight election, the Veterans Committee admitted no new members for the baseball Hall of Fame.
The committee didn't want to lower its standards and be pressured into chosing someone. In 2001, the committee was reorganized because of charges of cronyism. THe new committee votes every other year for players and ever four years for the others. Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark is dissappointed that no one has been elected in the past three voting cycles.
The reporter used many quotes from both sides of this problem to show how each side feels. The article was very balanced because of the fairness given to both sides. "We're being blamed because something hasn't happened," Hall member and vice chairman Joe Morgan said. "If you're asking me, 'Do we lower our standards to get more people in?' my answer would be no." This quote was from the side of the committee showing why they didn't vote anyone in.
This quote shows the other side: "We are disappointed that no one has been elected in the three voting cycles," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said. "We will be evaluating this process and its trends at our next meeting, which is March 13, and discussing whether there should be any changes."
The reporter also gave many names of people that have been on the ballots and why there should be voted in. This was a little biased because it showed that there were deserving people on the ballots.
Time magazine also reported on this problem. The reporter mentioned that Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn were were elected to the Hall by the Baseball Writers' Association of America in January. One side of this problem was quoted "The process was not designed with the goal to necessarily elect someone," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said." There wasn't a quote from the other side.
I think that the Houston Chronicle's report was better because it gave a clear picture of both sides of the arguement. Both sides were represented and quoted, that way the journalist stayed unbiased, but the reader got both sides of the story.