Stung by anti-war criticism, Hall cancels `Bull Durham' festivities

[Baseball Guru]

By BEN WALKER, AP Baseball Writer
April 10, 2003
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Hall of Fame president, a former official in the Reagan administration, canceled a 15th anniversary celebration of ``Bull Durham'' because of anti-war criticism by co-stars Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.

Dale Petroskey sent a letter to Robbins and Sarandon this week, telling them the festivities April 26-27 at Cooperstown, N.Y., had been called off.

Recent comments by the actors ``ultimately could put our troops in even more danger,'' said Petroskey, a former White House assistant press secretary under President Reagan.

Reached Wednesday night, Robbins said he was ``dismayed'' by the decision. He responded with a letter he planned to send to Petroskey, telling him: ``You belong with the cowards and ideologues in a hall of infamy and shame.''

The weekend affair, planned months ago, also was to feature ``Bull Durham'' actor Robert Wuhl and Ron Shelton, who wrote and directed the 1988 film.

Instead of commemorating the movie, the Hall canceled the celebration in a letter Tuesday sent to the scheduled participants.

``In a free country such as ours, every American has the right to his or her own opinions, and to express them. Public figures, such as you, have platforms much larger than the average American's, which provides you an extraordinary opportunity to have your views heard -- and an equally large obligation to act and speak responsibly,'' Petroskey wrote.

``We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict.''

Robbins and Sarandon, his longtime partner, have been active in peace rallies to protest the war in Iraq.

In his letter, Robbins said he'd been looking forward to ``a weekend away from politics and war.'' He said he remained ``skeptical'' of the war plans and told Petroskey he did not realize baseball was ``a Republican sport.''

``I am sorry that you have chosen to use baseball and your position at the Hall of Fame to make a political statement,'' Robbins wrote. ``I know there are many baseball fans that disagree with you, and even more that will react with disgust to realize baseball is being politicized.

``To suggest that my criticism of the president put the troops in danger is absurd. ... I wish you had, in your letter, saved me the rhetoric and talked honestly about your ties to the Bush and Reagan administrations.

``You invoke patriotism and use words like 'freedom' in an attempt to intimidate and bully. In doing so, you dishonor the words 'patriotism' and 'freedom' and dishonor the men and women who have fought wars to keep this nation a place where one can freely express their opinions without fear of reprisal or punishment.''

Robbins signed his letter with a reference to an old World Series champion.

``Long live democracy, free speech and the '69 Mets -- all improbable, glorious miracles that I have always believed in,'' he wrote.

[PopTop]

I just saw this Guru, and was getting ready to post it ... I should know better than to possibly stir up any ill feelings by responding to the article at all, but it's really getting to me, all these little childish antics between adults who do not know how to control their mouths or their power.

It is a shame that it came to this type of action; it will only polarize people with different opinions in the long run ... I'm all for EVERYONE having the right to express their views, and being an information and exchange of information junkie like I am, I actually expect people to tell me how they feel, we spar for a minute if we disagree, then we respect the difference and move on.

Only I must primarily criticize Tim Robbins in this case because he is the spoiled one, expecting to have his cake and eat it too, huh?

How dare him criticize Dale Petroskey for doing the very same thing Robbins, his gal pal Susan Sarandon and many others (i.e., Natalie Maines, Barbra Striesand, Martin Sheen, et al) have done, not only with regards to the recent war issue, but politics in general ... They are all entitled to their opinions, and I'll defend them to the death for their right to express them.

BUT, and this is a big BUT, you have to be willing to accept and live with the consequences or you're just a weenie in my book ... Robbins is a complete buffoon if he thinks he can sit there and pull on the lion's tail and never worry about the lion eating him ... Actors are getting a bad name over this, at least I think so because they aren't the only celebrities voicing their opinions on the war or any other subject ... It's just that their comments, because of their huge fan base and the media that constantly follows them, are more quickly and widely broadcast.

But I do like the line: In his letter, Robbins said he'd been looking forward to "a weekend away from politics and war.'' ... I'd say the Hall of Fame just made sure the weekend remains just that, "a weekend away from politics and war." ... Until Robbins and others proves they can step in front of a microphone without thinking it to be their platform to get their views heard, screw 'em ... You have a cause you believe in, fine, work hard and long to see it achieved ... But not every event is your mic to advertise it.

And the same goes for the Hall of Fame here ... Creeps! They cancel the whole damn thing, and I think the movie Bull Durham should be honored, just because they're afraid some Hollywood goof might say something they don't like or they don't think is "in the best interests" of their patrons ... I understand they just don't want any controversy, but say that if that's the real reason, or work things out beforehand so that nobody crosses Line X.

What Robbins and the rest are asking would be like me posting anti-Mets stuff, mean-nasty-trash stuff in the wonderful Mets Forum, and then being miffed when Guru, Rockin R, Misha, Met31, Magic and the rest tell me they'd rather I took my act down the road ... Bunch of babies on both sides of this issue.

Whew! I feel better getting that off my chest, hope it doesn't p!ss anyone off too much around here.

[SlushyBOB]

Well-spoken!!!!!!!!!!

[Trots]

PT, that may be the best analysis I have ever read on any message board about any subject.

[rockin500]

yep, good analysis PT! :)

[Calder]

The problem for the Hall of Fame is that you can't control these celebrities. Therefore, no matter what their views are, if the Hall of Fame thinks there's going to be an inkling of controversy, then they have every right to rescind the invitation, because it will reflect on them. These celebs has proven that they can't control themselves in front of a microphone. Learn the concept of "there's a time and a place...." and maybe they'd let you back in. By the way, the Hall of Fame isn't only instituion to can these clowns. I know United Way canned Sarandon too, and others.

[PopTop]

Originally posted by Trots
PT, that may be the best analysis I have ever read on any message board about any subject.

Thanks, Trots ... And Calder brought up a good point about the same thing happening at other event or venues, a very dangerous trend but also understandable in many ways.

[Rockin Robin]

[quote]These celebs has proven that they can't control themselves in front of a microphone. Learn the concept of "there's a time and a place...." and maybe they'd let you back in.[/quote
Petroskey never even asked them if they could keep their mouths shut. He just went ahead and cancelled the event.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/sports/baseball/12fame.html

Baseball Hall of Fame President Acknowledges Mistake
By IRA BERKOW


In hindsight, Dale Petroskey, the president of the Baseball Hall of Fame said yesterday, "I would have handled it differently."

Petroskey was referring to his decision earlier this week to cancel the 15th-anniversary celebration of the baseball movie "Bull Durham" at the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., because Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, two stars of the film who planned to take part in the event, have been outspoken in their opposition to the war in Iraq.

Petroskey's decision, which he appeared to make on his own, created a stir around the country, with a spokesman for the Hall of Fame saying yesterday that some 5,000 phone calls and e-mail messages, both pro and con, had been received by the Hall.

Yesterday, in interviews with both The Associated Press and Chris Russo of WFAN's "Mike and the Mad Dog'' radio show, Petroskey tried to explain his action and, to a certain extent, admitted he erred.

In both interviews, Petroskey said he was concerned that Robbins and Sarandon would have used the Hall of Fame event as an opportunity to publicize their antiwar views. "As much as the Hall of Fame honors our armed forces, this institution should never be used as a platform for public pro-war sentiments, nor public antiwar sentiments,'' Petroskey told The Associated Press.

But in the radio interview, when Russo asked Petroskey if he knew for a fact that Robbins and Sarandon would have used the Hall of Fame as a platform for antiwar statements, he admitted that he did not.

Asked if he simply could have called Robbins and Sarandon to get an assurance that they would keep politics out of the event, Petroskey agreed he could have done that.

"If I had to do it over again, I probably would have picked up the phone and called them,'' he said.

"That's an admission of making a mistake,'' Russo said.

Petroskey, a former White House assistant press secretary under President Reagan, said, "Well, I make mistakes, you know.''

Robbins, when asked in a telephone interview to respond to Petroskey's statements, said, "I don't buy his backpedaling on this issue.'' He noted that the Hall of Fame had invited the current White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, to speak at the Hall a year ago and that the news release announcing Fleischer's appearance quoted Petroskey as saying the Hall would hear Fleischer's "perspective on life in the White House and the current political scene, which of course includes the war on terrorism.''

In that instance, Robbins said, "Where was the discussion about baseball?''

And what would Robbins and Sarandon have done if Petroskey had called them and asked them to refrain from political comments while they were in Cooperstown?

"I don't know,'' Robbins said. "If someone had asked us a direct question, I might have said: 'This isn't the time or place. We can't talk about it.' But I might also have answered a direct question with a direct answer. This is, after all, America. But, look, I'm a big baseball fan. I would have found it a ridiculous assumption to think I was going to Cooperstown to make a political speech. Some of us can separate our political views from our social life."

[PopTop]

Originally posted by Rockin Robin
And what would Robbins and Sarandon have done if Petroskey had called them and asked them to refrain from political comments while they were in Cooperstown?

"I don't know,'' Robbins said. "If someone had asked us a direct question, I might have said: 'This isn't the time or place. We can't talk about it.' But I might also have answered a direct question with a direct answer. This is, after all, America. But, look, I'm a big baseball fan. I would have found it a ridiculous assumption to think I was going to Cooperstown to make a political speech. Some of us can separate our political views from our social life."

I think that pretty much says it all, even Robbins admits he's not sure he could keep the event just about baseball ... Like I said to begin with, it's a shame this wasn't worked out in some other manner, and at least Petroskey admits his error in that ... Robbins, on the other hand, continues to play it up as if he and his vocal views didn't play a part in it, and I still say he's an arrogant person with no real grasp for reality if he thinks he can just say whatever he wants whenever he wants and not expect some possible backlash.

[Calder]

I had thought about that, about whether Petroskey could have asked them not to speak about their "no-war" flatform. But you know what, that probably would have alientated them and they might have gone ahead and backed out themselves anyways. As for Fleisher speaking about life in the White House, and the current political scene, do you think for a minute that he would use that platform to, for instance, rip Democrats or say something innappropriate? Obviously Petroskey had the confidence that he wouldn't. And obviously he didn't have the same feelings towards Robbins and Sarandon.

Some of the wording in Petroskey's letter was a little puzzling to me, but his overall point was "You guys don't know when to shut your mouths." It's his call to make. I also believe that there were plenty of veterans who are IN the Hall of Fame who may have voiced their objections about those two coming aboard, especially at a time when our nation IS at war.

[Big Dawg]

Robbins and Sarandon were presenters at the Oscars. They like all presenters were told beforehand "no political statements" and they made none.

I think we all know that if they were equally vocal in support of the war they would not have been cancelled. This is not about taking politics out of the Hall; it's about punishing dissent...which last time I looked in my history books is what this country was founded on--the right to dissent.

I am offended by this pre-emptive act of censorship. Is THAT what this war is really about? I will have to give serious thought about going back to Cooperstown while this man and his Thought Police are in charge of the Hall.

[Trots]

While I still think PT nailed this issue on the head in his first post, let me add my two cents. Petroskey's letter was straight out of the Hootie Johnson Guide to Public Relations Manual. Even if he disagrees with the anti-war factions, dislikes Robbins and Sarandon's political views and feared they would use this event to further their cause, he should have politely penned a letter saying "in the current climate we feel this celebratory event should be postponned" and left it without adding any of his own political commentary. By doing so, he just made the situation political and eliminated any chance of holding this event later.

By drawing his sword first, Petroskey looks like the political bully here and does exactly what he fears Robbins and Sarandon will do: He puts the Hall in the middle of a political debate. It's not like he should resign, but he needs to keep his politics as much out of Cooperstown as possible.

As for calling the celebs to ask them to turn off the rhetoric, Calder is correct. I suspect that would have caused just as big a stir. Petroskey would have been labeled, probably as an exteme right-winger, for trying to limit Robbins' right to free speech. (Note Robbins' "This is America" comment.) Robbins probably would have spent the entire time on the anti-war kick just out of spite.

Even if Petroskey had gotten an agreement, when both Hollywood stars have such strong views on the issue, what would keep them from saying something anyway? Robbins can't even turn down, not off, down, the rhetoric when Petroskey admits to making an error. Does anyone really believe Robbins can turn the mute button on and off when he feels like it?

Big Dawg makes a fine point about the Oscars, but when your "friends" ask you to keep your mouth shut, you might honor that request. However, Robbins is well aware of Petroskey's Republican background and probably would have viewed any attempt to keep his opinions in check as censorship.

Both Robbins and Sarandon already view their celebrity as a platform to voice their views, what would keep them from using another moment in the spotlight to rant on about whatever political issue they opposed? It isn't like they have to worry about consequences. If they voice opposition at the Oscars, the tv network can head to commerical, what would Petroskey do if they went off? Never extend them another invitation to upstate NY? Take them off the Veterans Committee ballot?

As for the White House Press Secretary coming to the Hall, what do you expect him to talk about? Baseball movies? The guy works in the government of this nation, directly with the President. Frankly, his title is the ONLY reason he got an invitation to speak. I expect him to have some political commentary, although I would hope it to be brief and void of as much pro-Republican, anti-Democratic rhetoric as possible.

About the only thing we've learned is that the HOF president and a couple of movie stars are more concerned about politics than their jobs or acting like mature adults. I think the Hall itself actually may have won out by keeping these parties apart altogether.

Besides, what's a Bull Durham reunion without Costner, anyway?

[PopTop]

Originally posted by Trots
Petroskey's letter was straight out of the Hootie Johnson Guide to Public Relations Manual.

Besides, what's a Bull Durham reunion without Costner, anyway?

:lmao: "Hootie Johnson Guide To Public Relations"

Good points about drawing his sword first and Costner not being there.:clap2:

[Big Dawg]

Originally posted by Trots
Big Dawg makes a fine point about the Oscars, but when your "friends" ask you to keep your mouth shut, you might honor that request. However, Robbins is well aware of Petroskey's Republican background and probably would have viewed any attempt to keep his opinions in check as censorship.


Apparently you know very little about the upper echelon of AMPAS, the organization that awards the Oscars. They're more Right than Reagan. The request Robbins & Sarandon honored wasn't from their "friends" by any stretch of the imagination. They showed respect for the occasion by not making any statements.

They have made numerous appearances during which their political beliefs never came up--unfortunately that's not "news" so the media doesn't give it any press.

Did you hear Robbins this week on Dan Patrick or Outside the Lines, talking about what his intentions had been about the event? Did you hear him passionately urge people not to hold this against the Hall and keep supporting it as it's "the collest Hall of Fame out there?" My guess is you didn't. But I guess that's just as well since you wouldn't have believed him anyway; your mind is already closed.

And again I say if they were planning on making a long political statement in favor of the war and condeming as anti-American anyone who disagreed, the Hall would welcome them with open arms.

By the way, I'm opposed to the war too--so I assume if Addicts chooses to ban me for my "anti-American" sentiments you'd support that as well?

[Big Dawg]

PS--Robbins has been a major contributor to the Hall for years; shouldn't they return his money if they find him that offensive a human being?

[PopTop]

Originally posted by Big Dawg
Did you hear Robbins this week on Dan Patrick or Outside the Lines, talking about what his intentions had been about the event?

Dawg, Robbins himself admitted he could not promise he wouldn't drag the war or other political issues into the mix if the questions were asked ... This has already been covered in this thread.

As for Robbins being a major contributor to the HOF, I'm very interested in knowing just how much he has contributed that makes him a "major contributor?" ... Where does one go to get a list of all major contributors and the amounts they donated?

[Big Dawg]

the operative words ther are "if the questions are asked"...we're now to blame him for the media's questioning him...not to mention he didn't say uncategorically what he would do if he were asked.

And no one has answered my assertion that it's not about keeping politics out of the Hall, it's keeping ROBBINS' politics out.

As far as Robbins being a contributor, that was well-established in media articles covering this act of MCarthyism. I'll see if I can find a link for you.

[Big Dawg]

well we can start with this from the Hall's own website:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/whats%5Fnew/press%5Freleases/1999/pr1999%5F06%5F21.htm

Press Release — June 21, 1999
Tim Robbins Donates 'Bull Durham' Uniform to the Hall of Fame
Internationally Renowned Film Star Visits Museum, Donates Uniform

(COOPERSTOWN, NY) — The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum announced today that it has acquired the baseball uniform worn by internationally recognized film actor and director Tim Robbins in the 1988 baseball film classic, Bull Durham. The jersey, pants and stirrups were placed on permanent display in the Hall of Fame's exhibit, Baseball at the Movies, on May 28th.

Robbins, who played the part of Bulls' pitcher Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh in the film, visited the National Baseball Hall of Fame with his son Jack during the summer of 1997, and again in 1999 with his son Miles. After touring the Museum and the Baseball at the Movies exhibit, Robbins donated his uniform to the Hall of Fame. The donation represents the only artifacts from the classic film on display in the exhibit.

"After visiting the Baseball Hall of Fame and seeing its world-class exhibits, I felt that donating my Bull Durham uniform to the Museum would allow visitors to have a first-hand remembrance of that great Baseball movie," said Robbins. "Not only are my sons and I big baseball fans, but we enjoyed the Museum tremendously and are honored to have our family represented with this donation. Since Bull Durham is where our family started, it is only fitting."

"We are delighted that Tim Robbins has made this significant donation to the Museum," said Hall of Fame Chairman Edward W. Stack. "Tim is a world-class actor whose performance in Bull Durham helped to establish that film as one of the all-time Baseball classics. In making this donation, Baseball fans of this and future generations will be able to recount first-hand his star performance as Nuke LaLoosh. It also permanently perpetuates his legacy as a baseball film star."

[Calder]

Originally posted by Big Dawg
Did you hear Robbins this week on Dan Patrick or Outside the Lines, talking about what his intentions had been about the event? Did you hear him passionately urge people not to hold this against the Hall and keep supporting it as it's "the collest Hall of Fame out there?" My guess is you didn't. But I guess that's just as well since you wouldn't have believed him anyway; your mind is already closed.


Yeah, I heard him on the Dan Patrick Show this week. He whined the entire time, it was really unbelievable. And Dan, as he usually does when celebs are on his program, sucked up to him big time(think he might have burped him and rubbed his tummy too, but it's on radio, so I couldn't have seen it). Talk about your all-time one-sided interviews. :barf:

[Big Dawg]

how toleramnt of you...Robbins was right, Patrick was supporting him against this outrage, and you call it "suck-up".

I do notice you didn't contradict my account of what Robbins had to say though.

I am really ASTONISHED by all of you...I thought this was still America.

[pinstripes]

Originally posted by Big Dawg

I am offended by this pre-emptive act of censorship.

Dawg, the word "censorship" is misused. The Hall of Fame is a private organization. They can ban whoever they like from speaking for any reason..... but that isn't "censorship".

If the government prevents free speech it is censorship..... In this case, the Hall of Fame is exerting their right to not be associated with a political activist.

As a baseball fan, I don't want spoiled celebrities using the Hall of Fame as a podium to whine about the war..... and I would also be against any right-wing speakers like Rush Limbaugh doing the same.

Let's keep politics out of baseball! :)

[Big Dawg]

Originally posted by pinstripes
Dawg, the word "censorship" is misused. The Hall of Fame is a private organization. They can ban whoever they like from speaking for any reason..... but that isn't "censorship".

If the government prevents free speech it is censorship..... In this case, the Hall of Fame is exerting their right to not be associated with a political activist.


According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, censor is defined as: "to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." There's nothing there about it being governmental in nature.

And again, this action was not designed to "keep politics out of baseball"...in point of fact, this action has INJECTED politics into baseball. Petroskey could have informed the couple that if they said anything about the war their mikes would be turned off but instead he made the presumption of what they were going to say and preemptively censored it. this in spite of the fact I mentioned earlier--there have been numerous public appearances by Robbins or Sarandon where politics was never mentioned. I saw them at a AFI function for Dead Man Walking and guess what? They talked about Dead Man Walking. Not a word about the various political causes they support.

And at this very same baseball Hall Of Fame, on the occasion of Robbins' donation of his Bull Durham uniform documented above, there was no mention of their political activities.

I could name many more but obviously you all know exactly what was in their minds and what they were going to say so why bother....I'm clearly :banghead here against people who think Free Speech only applies to those they agree with...and since people who I know for a fact at the site agree with me and are keeping silent I guess they are just as afraid of being seen as "anti-Americans."

How sad.

[PopTop]

Hold on there, Dawg ... Talk about your grand and glorious presumptions, have you talked to all these people who agree with you and they have told you they are remaining silent for that very reason? ... Or did your powers as a mindreader just take over and figure all that out on your own?

You are the one choosing to attack the views of individuals here at this board, not the rest of the posters in this thread ... You are the one who is choosing to attack our intelligence and our right to those views, however misinformed or unreasonable as they may be, just because those views don't fall in line with your ideas and ideals ... And none of that makes any of us more or less red-white-&-blue than the next person.

You were right with your definition of censorship, only you forgot to mention that, in this country at least, private groups censoring another isn't illegal or unconstitutional ... But you were wrong about your definition of a "major contributor" ... I've donated a few clothes to various charitable groups as Robbins did, and none of them list me as a "major contributor"

:Peace:

[Calder]

Originally posted by Big Dawg
how toleramnt of you...Robbins was right, Patrick was supporting him against this outrage, and you call it "suck-up".

I do notice you didn't contradict my account of what Robbins had to say though.

I am really ASTONISHED by all of you...I thought this was still America.

Dan Patrick is a journalist, and should conduct his interviews as such. As a journalist, you're not supposed to be so one-sided in your interview (unless your name is Katie Couric). :clap2: If you want to find an interview that was more "down-the"middle" try listening to ESPN RADIO's Chuck Wilson's interview with Petroskey. Chuck Wilson is a journalist. Dan Patrick is a suck-up to any celeb he feels he can be "buds" with.

[Big Dawg]

Originally posted by PopTop
Hold on there, Dawg ... Talk about your grand and glorious presumptions, have you talked to all these people who agree with you and they have told you they are remaining silent for that very reason? ... Or did your powers as a mindreader just take over and figure all that out on your own?

You are the one choosing to attack the views of individuals here at this board, not the rest of the posters in this thread ... You are the one who is choosing to attack our intelligence and our right to those views, however misinformed or unreasonable as they may be, just because those views don't fall in line with your ideas and ideals ... And none of that makes any of us more or less red-white-&-blue than the next person.

You were right with your definition of censorship, only you forgot to mention that, in this country at least, private groups censoring another isn't illegal or unconstitutional ... But you were wrong about your definition of a "major contributor" ... I've donated a few clothes to various charitable groups as Robbins did, and none of them list me as a "major contributor"

:Peace:

I have been told by two people who agree with me that they won't post to this thread because they "don't need the aggravation."

And the uniform thing is not Robbins' only contribution to the HoF, it's just the only one i can find documentation of on the web. as I said, when this story broke there was considerable attention paid to the fact that he has been a financial supporter of the HoF for many years--support he is now considering discontinuing.

And yes I will attack the "values" of any person who believes that any American institution has the right to penalize another American for the crime of stating his views.

[Baseball Guru]

Well nice to see this topic has gotten out of hand.....


I see this thread has outlasted any usefullness it may have once had...

So before things get totally out of control I am closing it.....