Ken Rosenthal

According to a large quantity of baseball media, you're either not allowed or it's too far to criticize a female broadcaster for having AI do her job for her. On Thursday, social media blew up after a video of Seattle Mariners broadcaster Angie Mentink went viral. The video, taken by a local Mariners fan, who I will not name because he has now gone private on X seemingly because of the relentless backlash he's recieved, showed Mentink preparing for a postgame interview using Gemini, Google's AI tool.What Mentink typed into the AI text box is what caused the backlash. She asked for "Good questions after a tough loss in baseball."My first reaction was astonishment. It was hard to believe a sports media professional would be using AI to do their job for them. This wasn't asking AI to summarize, or contribute to an existing question(s). It was blatantly asking AI to formulate questions from scratch when she is hired to have the wherewithal and professionalism to create a line of questioning that elevates the broadcast, even after a "tough loss."From the minute this post came across Mariners fans' and sports media member's timelines, and was reshared by Barstool in a now deleted post with the caption, "The future of journalism has arrived", they attacked the fan for recording the broadcaster, making that the main issue, while ignoring the clear issue of how reporters should be properly using AI to do their job.While I'm thrilled to know Mentick has been able to return to her duties after a stroke, I believe that highlights another aspect of this issue that is worth exploring. I'll discuss that in a minute. Host Alanna Rizzo of the podcast "Foul Territory" coined the fan "Dork of The Week" and claimed that nobody has "the right to take a picture or say whatever the heck they want."In Rizzo's lengthy diatribe, she repeatedly defended Mentink as someone who "knows ball", which I would simply reply to saying, "If she knows ball, why does she need AI to generate questions for her?" Mentink is in her 30th year of covering the team. She should know the team and how to do her job better than anyone. Ken Rosenthal, the lead reporter for MLB on FOX, including postseason and World Series coverage over the last two decades now, and maybe best known for knocking over and staring down the Milwaukee Brewers team photographer during a postgame interview celebration, called the actions of the fan, "ridiculous.""What she should be judged on is what she does on camera, not what she does sitting in a camera well getting ready to do a postgame interview," Rosenthal added. In a sense, I can agree with Rosenthal. As a reporter, you should be judged how you do your job while you are in front of the camera, actually conducting interviews. Attempting to frame the criticism as an indictment on her entire, lengthy career is disingenuous and a strawman, in my opinion. We can't ignore the fact that a seasoned MLB broadcaster is asking AI to do what she should be able to do herself and what she's hired for. That's the focus. That's the criticism. Let's put it this way:If Ken Rosenthal was caught in the dugout asking AI to give him "good interview questions after a tough loss in baseball", he’d be incinerated online and his credibility would be in question in that moment. Fans would wonder if he still has what it takes to do his job better than the next man (or women) up. That’s a fact.To make myself crystal clear, I'm not calling now, nor have I ever called for Mentick to be fired. I just believe this is an act of unprofessionalism that should be properly addressed, rather than turned into an "attack on women in sports" or an "attack on a stroke survivor."Mentick's recovery from a stroke is something we all should applaud. I know many who have suffered strokes, and by no means am I making light of that situation. She suffered a stroke in late February and wasted little time before she returned to Mariners' broadcasts about a month later on March 28th. The problem I have is framing this as if criticism is off limits because she's reportedly still recovering. As I said online many times over the last 24 hours, and I will say here, and I mean no disrespect. If Mentick is having to rely on AI to formulate, not perfect or analyze her existing questions, but actually formulate her questions, due to any sort of cognitive issue, she should take more time away from the ballpark to recover. I'm sure the Mariners and their broadcast partner, Root Sports (no relation), would love to help make sure she's taken care of physically and financially, to ensure she can return to perform the duties of her job at a high level like she has for many years. Many other media colleagues came to Mentick's defense. I can appreciate that, in a sense as well, but what I don't stand for is the constant virtue signaling and distraction/deflection techniques used by media to grandstand in the midst and aftermath of what I believe to be fair criticism.Evan Grant, Texas Rangers beat writer for The Dallas Morning News posted about being excited to "see Mariners TV reporter Angie Mentink, who is first-class and an absolute warrior" for tonight's game in Seattle. He also rebuked "people on this hellhole", also known as X, for "trying to drag her down." The post was also retweeted by ESPN's senior writer and baseball analyst, Buster Olney.Is this criticism of Mentick really so unfair that journalists need to call fans and other journalists "dorks" and "fools" for pointing out a sports media professional asking AI to come up with "Good questions after a tough loss in baseball"? Honestly, I think it's laughable and comparative to how media tried claiming the criticism of Dianna Russini was "misogynistic", as if this was an indictment on all female sports media members, which I sarcastically joked about while sharing the video yesterday. Heck, even USA Today's Nancy Armour wrote an opinion piece titled, "Dianna Russini put credibility of all women in sports at risk."Again, it's a disingenuous way to dialogue, resorting to personal attacks rather than properly addressing the issue and the points of criticism.Has Mentick received some nasty comments in the wake of this video? I'm sure she has, and I don't agree with nor do I endorse those comments, but the actual conversation is based on journalistic integrity regarding the use of AI. Posts like Grant's make it seem like Mentick should be immune of criticism, especially when he claims, "There is zero about that picture to criticize."I feel I have to repeat this: The conversation is not whether it's ok to use AI in our profession. It's about HOW we use AI in our profession.AI is a great tool that I, my colleagues, and countless others in sports media have used in the rise of it's reliability, accessibility, and popularity. When it comes to research, developing scripts for social media content, perfecting a line of existing questioning for interviews, developing more succinct points in articles, and more make AI a useful tool in our industry. Emphasis on "tool". It should be a good addition to what we've developed as professionals. If we present ourselves, or give the public any credible reason to assume we as nothing more than presenters of what AI has generated for us, it's a danger for the industry.Mentick light-heartedly responded to the backlash on X stating, "Earlier this season I experimented with AI to see if it had any questions to add to my list for my postgame coverage." What I'd warn Mentick about in this social media and AI-infused world, is be careful that you don't give the public any reason to believe you're taking shortcuts by having AI do your job for you.Imagine if I was caught at my office asking AI, "Write me a good article based on the video of Mariners reporter Angie Mentick using AI prior to postgame interviews." It would rightfully cause credibility issues, show that this job could be done by anyone with the ability to ask AI somewhat coherent questions, and not rely on the thoughtful, unique mind and perspective of the writer/content creator. Instead of grandstanding and claiming this is somehow unfair criticism, sports media should have seized this opportunity to discuss what is the proper uses of AI in the industry. Give examples of how it's used now in broadcasts. Discuss what the lines are to maintain credibility and professionalism. But no, they've used this time to trash a fan, give the impression that female broadcasters and reporters should be coddled, and consider critics of that scum of the earth.Media gonna media.