And check out this sweet ESPN investigation from April on Dykstra, which portrayed him as unstable and reported that he had been sued twenty-four times in the last two years—meaning at least one of those happened before Real Sports’s report. Indeed, some dude on the Internet who wrote a review of the program at the time noted that Goldberg “surprisingly” didn’t mention a recent $111,097 suit against Dykstra for failing to pay his bills (I’ll note that the New Yorker didn’t mention it either. That might have muddled Goldberg’s piece, but it would have given it some cover for what was to come. Here’s ESPN:
And after thumbing through a series of lawsuits that stretches from coast to coast and chatting up his business associates, you wonder if this aspiring financial Pied Piper is, indeed, living in a fantasyland. You wonder if the dream, built on glitz and greed in a time of economic uncertainty, is a teetering house of cards. You wonder if anyone this side of Bernie Madoff has ticked off more people — business partners and family, alike — than Lenny K. Dykstra.
The lawsuits suggest that one of two things is going on here: Either Lenny hates to pay his bills, or he’s a financial train wreck.
As Coughlin’s piece, ESPN’s, and all the lawsuits make clear, Dykstra either had no clue about finances, or was something worse. Which makes the idea that he was ever a financial guru a farce.
Unfortunately, Lenny Dykstra as Investment Guru was one of those stories that was too good to check.
- 1
- 2
I saw Goldberg's original report and found it to be cloyingly fond of Dykstra--with a slightly sickening the schlub-does-well tone. The whole thing felt, even at the time, to be an unquestioningly simple-minded look at how anyone with a little gumption can strike it rich in America. It's a common theme among conservatives seeking to explain away poverty--if only they tried, they could have a big piece of the pie--look at Lenny! It refused to take any sort of critical look at the man and felt very ideologically motivated, which sadly seems to be a recurring issue for many conservative journalists (see: Fox News etc.). Hopefully, Goldberg learned something about reporting. I doubt it.
Posted by Trip on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 06:36 PM
I wonder how well Dykstra's portfolio actually did. Note that he entered the investing game sometime in 1996. A basic index fund investment made in mid-'96 would have gained 120-150% by late '07 (the peak). I think this story is a pretty good example of how boom times can make foolish people think they're geniuses.
But that index fund would still be showing about a 50% gain today, while Lenny Dykstra is bankrupt.
Posted by D. B. on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:29 PM
I couldn't help notice the simple-minded comment from "Trip", and realize how perfectly it matched the mindset of this horrific piece of...ahem....journalism.
First, Bernie Goldberg did not do the intro. As you should be aware, those pieces are often done by producers or someone else. Unless you know that Goldberg is responsible for it, you have no business trying to pin it on him. But you don'r have much of a story without that intro, do you ?
Now let's address your so-called journalistic standards....
In the report, Goldberg says...
"Now the guy who probably couldn’t spell “financial guru” in his playing days has become one."
Goldberg also has this exchange:
GOLDBERG: You don’t read books because they might hurt your batting eye?
DYKSTRA: Yeah. Them little words? Plus it makes you think too much. It’s too confusing. I just don’t like to read.
And what follows is your absurd comment..
"You’d think that would give a reporter, um, pause."
No. That should give the viewer pause. Goldberg has done his job, pointing out that Dykstra was not thought to be very bright in his baseball career, and in Dykstra's own words, Goldberg got him to admit he does not like to read.
That is a reasonable amount of skepticism. If any viewer saw that and did not question Dykstra's financial acumen, whose fault is that ? It is not Goldberg's job to "take down" Lenny Dykstra in the manner that liberal reporters try to take down any and every conservative, facts be damned.
But here is yet one more asinine, completely biased comment by the author of this sophomoric article...
"And check out this sweet ESPN investigation from April on Dykstra, which portrayed him as unstable and reported that he had been sued twenty-four times in the last two years—meaning at least one of those happened before Real Sports’s report. Indeed, some dude on the Internet who wrote a review of the program at the time noted that Goldberg “surprisingly” didn’t mention a recent $111,097 suit against Dykstra for failing to pay his bills"
So, "at least one" lawsuit had been filed against Dykstra. Yet, this so-called journalistic piece has no more info on when the others were filed-- and this is long after the Dykstra HBO segment. You try to suggest Goldberg was negligent by mentioning 24 lawsuits, I suppose to muddy the truth, even though you are reporting that "one" was filed that Goldberg was supposed to know about. And, as we all know, one lawsuit should have given Goldberg "pause". Yet you have not lifted a finger to see if there might have been more. Nice effort. One lawsuit is not damning, but 24 might be, so I understand why you try to cloud the facts a bit.
Dykstra may have been worthy of more investigation (You could have done it yourselves, even) at the time, but not every story has to be an attempt to destroy a person, as we are used to from biased liberal stories about Palin, Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney and anyone else whose politics you disagree with.
Goldberg, from what you yourselves have presented, did his job. But since he regularly criticizes liberal fools, you used a very broad brush to try to smear him a bit.
Your graduates will be very much at home when they join the mainstream media.
Posted by benjamin k. on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 05:33 PM
Yes, benjamin k., Goldberg did his job: setting up Dykstra to be some kind of idiot savant. 'Come one, come all! See the dummy pick great stocks! It's a miracle!'
The pitch pivots on Dykstra's imbecility. May I suggest you look up the word 'credulous'?
Posted by knowbuddhau on Sun 19 Jul 2009 at 10:28 AM