ShareThis Page
Tim Benz: With tweet, Steelers’ Antonio Brown fuels player-media fire |
Breakfast With Benz

Tim Benz: With tweet, Steelers’ Antonio Brown fuels player-media fire

Tim Benz
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Steelers receiver Antonio Brown is back to work during practice Aug. 7, 2018 at Saint Vincent College.

Antonio Brown’s latest social media controversy involved a member of the Steelers media contingent.

He called Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer Ed Bouchette a “clown” on Twitter. This incident occurred Monday after Bouchette reported that Brown had limped off the field at one point during practice.

This incident is one of many this offseason illustrating how bad things have gotten between NFL players and the media members that cover them.

• Jacksonville’s Jalen Ramsey got suspended for verbally (and digitally) confronting a reporter who reported on a fight between two teammates. A fight that actually happened.

• Mychal Kendricks popped off at’s Ian Rapoport for reporting that he was about to sign with the Browns. Which he eventually did.

• Marquette King needed to be separated from a reporter who was critical of how he handled himself during an interview. Which he deserved.

• Plus, there was Brown’s minicamp lecture against the media for paying too much attention to him. Which was rendered moot when he arrived at training camp in a helicopter.

Aside from that, things have been great.

Gee. For a bunch of guys who claim to hate President Donald Trump so much, they really do love to play the #FakeNews card, don’t they?

Blame Twitter.

There’s a trend here. Across the board, these are examples of players being upset over news getting to the public that they didn’t want to be known.

Brown didn’t want it to be known he might have been limping. Kendricks didn’t want it known he was about to sign before a late offer could have arrived. Ramsey didn’t want it known his teammates were fighting. King didn’t want it known he was a jerk during an interview he probably hoped would never air.

So the strategy is to use your own social media platform to discredit the source of the information, even if the facts are correct.

Sound familiar? #FakeNews!

For instance, last season on Twitter, a Steelers player denied a quote he gave me.

The tweet denying the quote hit social media … while the audio of the quote was actually playing on the radio.

The player’s tweet was later deleted after some listeners made it clear they heard the audio.

So #FakeNews fails again.

Look. I get it. People hate “the media.” “The media” is probably the most unpopular entity in the world.

People sure do use it a lot though, don’t they? Saying “I hate the media” often happens while people are reading a news story on a phone, streaming a radio station and watching TV, with a newspaper on an coffee table.

It’s like saying, “I hate the airlines. I’ll never fly again” as you’re booking a flight on Expedia.

The sentiment exists. And players are capitalizing on the disdain for the media by making themselves look like victims of it.

But this #FakeNews mentality needs to stop.

“I don’t like how this looks” and “I don’t agree with this opinion” isn’t equal to “fake,” or “phony,” or “illegitimate.”

The problem is the Twitter accounts of these players are primarily populated with sycophants desperately hoping to be acknowledged with a “like” or a retweet from the player they worship.

So they tell the players: “You’re right! Forget those guys! They are just trying to tear you down!”

And within their echo chamber, the players feel justified in their denials.

Want #FakeNews? Follow some of the Twitter accounts of these players I mentioned above. You’ll get it in heaping spoonfuls.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.