The following is an experiment in “Internet Community Journalism Participation” where we are looking at a recent sports media occurrence and checking the ‘pulse’ of some ordinary people who saw it. The procedure is simple: By taking a sampling from several viewers of the ‘event’, we get a complete, un-edited voice from the average fan.

It’s not scientific nor foolproof, but it is a bit more balanced and informative than solely wayward ramblings from Shots. My thoughts and some background lead it off and three unedited readers’ comments are below my missive. Thanks to all who wrote in both ‘on the record’ and ‘off’.

It was occurring opposite the NBA Finals’ best game of a five-game-old series. In overtime, no-less, with Don’t Call Me Bob Horry playing the role of Mr. Amazing (what a freakin’ dunk).

So, the chances that more than a handful of fully awake, cognizant and discerning eyeballs were actually engaged, are slim. At best.

Still NBC7’s usually average Sports Xtra with Joe Amorosino, Caucasian, managed to crawl up to “slightly more than average” with a closing segment exchange between former Globe teammates, Dan Shaughnessy, Caucasian and Michael Holley, African American.

The background goes something like this: Holley, the writer turned author turned TV personality turned sports talk radio guy (and sure to turn further), took issue with Shaughnessy’s inclusion of a David Halberstam, Caucasian, quote in Shaughnessy’s column from last week (‘This year, it appears to be a whole new ball game’). Halberstam’s quote appeared late in the piece in this context:

“Asked to speculate on life after winning, the estimable David Halberstam, a baseball guy and a foot soldier in the civil rights movement, predicted, “It will certainly change things. It will fragment. With the civil rights movement, all these great black leaders were pulled together and were loyal to each other as they were ascending, struggling against the white supremacists. The moment they won, everything fragmented because it went on to individual ambition. There’s always a difference in a revolution. When you finally get it, the strength that bonds you together changes and you put private ambition over group ambition, and that’s something the Red Sox will have to think about. Will success and winning spoil the unique sense of community and passion and this mystique of being close but never quite getting there?””

At the time the column ran, last Thursday, Holley expressed his uneasiness with the quote on-air at WEEI 850-AM, on the grounds that Halberstam (and, in his view, Shaughnessy) were comparing the civil rights movement to the Sox World Series win. Holley, according to several ‘EEI listeners, went so far as to demand the Globe issue an apology.

But the “issue” seemed to have been a one-day, one-hour story.

Until Sunday night when Holley, appearing as he often has, in-studio with Shaughnessy and Amorosino, again expressed his displeasure with last week’s column.

The issue was brought up – confession time here: because of the NBA game, I missed how the topic was broached, but did see a large book (by Halberstam) resting under Shaughnessy’s hands as a prop. So it would appear he wanted to, at the least, pursue the matter with Holley. But it takes two to tango, as we know.)

(One more interruption to the sequence of events: How dim must Amateurino be that he allowed the debate to wait until the show’s final few minutes? If you see Shaughnessy holding the book when he comes on set, you’ve got to start thinking (in light of the mini-controversy form last week): “Hmmmmm, this could be good.” You maybe even ask Dan what he’s planning on doing with the book, why he’s toting it along. You most certainly make sure Holley is aware of the book’s presence and take his temperature on the subject. In newspapering, they call that type of misjudgment ‘burying the lead’. In TV, they call it inexcusable and Channel 7 management should take a serious look at the catastrophe that is the directionless Sports Director, Amateurino, as a studio show host.)

So the discussion headed down the predictable route where Shaughnessy felt offended (he’s a bit sensitive if you hadn’t heard) and Holley felt empowered to defend his ancestors.

But then came the strangest – and potentially the most combustible – comment of the exchange. Shaughnessy invoked the name of his very own long-time nemesis, Carl Everett, African American, and seemed to infer that Holley might be on the verge of head-butting or getting violent with him as Everett had with Ron Kulpa back in the day.

Holley’s few remaining neck hair stood on edge as he lashed back “What does Carl Everett have to do with this?”

Good point. And one Shaughnessy needs to explain.

Okay, another confession: I, Caucasian, could be particularly sensitive to these matters of race, especially after reading over the note I recently received in reference to a Boston Sports Review magazine column where I made the claim that Boston, Sports City USA has taken remarkable steps forward in terms of racial diversity. That writer, while missing some of my point, was clearly onto something when you think of the ticket and gear-buying demographics of our local Big 4.

The thoughtful and earnest writer called me out for being blind to the blatant disparity in the minority fan composition at the region’s sporting events. And while the writer agreed that athletes are now more welcomed by the average fan, that average fan is still very white. And those who cover our local teams are also predominantly white and WASP-centric.

Which brings us to Holley himself. The early reviews on his merger with Dale Arnold as the Bob Neumeier replacement have been neither glowing nor gruesome. He’s capable of keeping topics lively, uses his TV experience well and has the ability to enrage a listener or two. But he might be pushing the “opposite” role to an extreme at times. It’s okay to agree with your co-host or a caller – just as long as you’re consistent and compelling.

Above all, Holley’s been a good little soldier in keeping the racial stuff out of the New Balance building at a time when wounds are just healing over the Dennis and Callahan/METCO fiasco.

Until now, that is. Now Hurricane Holley is taking on the city’s most controversial sports columnist and he’s brought his message outside of the radio studios, into the TV studio and onto a potentially bigger, wider stage.

If it seems a little suspect that all of this would be happening during a traditionally slow sports period, than you’re more into conspiracy theories than we are. But we’re willing to listen, nonetheless. There’s no single issue than can enrage so many as race relations. (It’s exactly for that reason that we decided to take the “pulse” of some site visitors for this topic. Maybe we, the Boston sports society, NEED to discuss these things more in the mainstream and less in blogs and on message boards.)

If Holley really and truly believes the Globe owes its readers an apology, he needs to offer up better reasons than he has thus far. Columnists have more latitude than beat or even feature writers (as he should know) and the inclusion of a quote within a column is NOT an implicit endorsement of that quote. Could Shaughnessy have handled it differently all together? Certainly. (We even suggested on Friday that he might have led with that Halby’s quote and delved down into what exactly Halberstam was saying.)

Better yet – and this was something Shaughnessy was suggesting on Sunday night – Holley can get in touch with Halberstam and maybe even invite him on for a couple of segments. I’d listen to that even if WUMB was doing a live at noon with my new favorite folkie chick, Jess Klein.

Fact is, Holley and Shaughnessy have brought this issue to the fore and the longer it remains at simmer, the closer it comes to boiling.

For the sake of everyone, let’s talk it out in the open and then let it rest. And let’s not leave that type of open discourse in the hands of someone as incapable of Amateurino, your local friendly, smiling, Human Road Block to Better TV.

Some who saw the “Sports Xtra” exchange respond. (Last names withheld at the discretion of Scott’s Shots.)

From Mike B.
I saw the one-on-one they had. No real fireworks, except maybe when Shaughnessy handed a book by Halberstam on the civil rights movement to Holley (which was, in my opinion, a taunt and uncalled for) and said (and I’m paraphrasing here), read this; it’s 795 pages and if you’ve got a problem, it’s with the book, not me. Holley’s response was that his forefathers could write a (1,200) or 1,400 page book on the civil rights movement just from personal experience, and that by inserting the quote (from Halberstam) and not characterizing it Shaughnessy was implying that he agreed with it. Shaughnessy replied by asking Holley if he characterized every time (sic) quote he includes in his columns; Holley in turn said that’s the columnist’s job. Then Shaughnessy — who is really one of the most defensive and thin-skinned persons I’ve ever come across — for no (sic) little apparent reason brought up Carl Everett (which, since Everett and Holley are both black, I thought was a subtle racial dig and really out of line).

Interesting, during the entire interview Holley really struggled to make eye contact with Shaughnessy.

From Michael P.
I watched Sports Xtra Sunday night. this is what I observed:
Holley basically calling out Shaughnessy saying if you’re gonna put that quote in your article, you need to either agree or disagree with it and not just throw it in there. Dan got pretty defensive asking Holley if he opined on every quote he put in his columns, which Holley responded by saying of course not, but with something like this (comparing civil rights movement to the Sox WS), you can’t just leave it there on it’s own. They actually talked about the quote a little and whether it was relevant to Dan’s column, at which point Dan started spewing all of Halberstam’s credentials on the civil rights topic, telling holley to read his 700 page book, and if he had a problem, dan would give Holley Halberstam’s phone number and he can take it up with him.

From Joe S.
I saw it.

I think it was a tempest in a teapot.

Halberstam’s quote made the point that, once a long-sought-after goal is achieved, the people who reached that goal tend to disband — was a worthwhile point. His examples of the black civil rights movement and the Red Sox winning the World Series — which could be construed as being equally important achievements — were poorly chosen. As Holley pointed out, the black civil rights movement hasn’t concluded yet while the Sox achievement is over and done, not to mention that people actually died in the former struggle. Both good points by Holley.

However, I disagree on his his insistence that Shaughnessy should have commented on the quote in his article. Most columnists that I read never qualify someone else’s quote that they may use. It just isn’t done.

So, while Holley made some good points, his argument I believe is really with Halberstam and not Shaughnessy. He should have just made his point and moved on.

David Scott writes from a seaside shanty on the shores of Hull, Mass. and can be reached at shots@bostonsportsmedia.com