sox and stripes: baseball's ironic american dreams

Sox and Stripes: Baseball’s IronicAmerican DreamsLisa Glebatis Perks

Sports media depictions of the Yankees and Red Sox have produced ironic team personae

that can best be understood through the lens of Fisher’s (1973) materialistic and moral-

istic American dreams. In this article, the author traces the interaction of Burke’s first

three tropes—metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche—in sports news coverage of the

Yankees and Red Sox from 2000–2010 to explain the discursive construction of the

teams’ ironic personae. Collectively, media emphasis on money metaphors, the Yankees’

lucrative 21st century stadium, and a militaristic owner align the team persona with a

materialistic, aggressive economic competition model, whereas the Red Sox are repre-

sented by metaphors of frugality, a classic stadium, and familial ‘‘Idiots’’ to create a

moralistic, cooperative image of the organization. The teams’ personae are ultimately

created and sustained through the tropological cycle and the dialectical interaction of

the rivals.

Keywords: American Dreams; Baseball; Mass Communication; Media Communication;

Popular Culture; Rhetorical Criticism

Red Sox owner Harry Frazee’s trade of Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1919 is often

marked as the origin of the ‘‘most intense rivalry in professional sports’’ (Symonds,

2004, para. 3), one that is considered an ‘‘embedded part of our culture’’ (Bodley,

2004, para. 12). Instead of time healing old wounds, tensions persisted between

the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. From 1996–2000, George Steinbrenner’s

disciplined Yankees dominated the Red Sox and all of baseball, adding four World

Series championships to their record-setting number of titles. The unparalleled

number of Yankees championships also corresponded with unparalleled team spend-

ing: The Yankees’ payroll rocketed from a league-leading $53 million in 1996 to $209

Lisa Glebatis Perks (Ph.D., University of Texas, 2008) is an assistant professor in the Department of English at

Nazareth College. Correspondence: Lisa Glebatis Perks, Department of English, 4245 East Avenue, Rochester, NY

14618; E-mail: [email protected]

Communication Quarterly

Vol. 60, No. 4, September–October 2012, pp. 445–464

ISSN 0146-3373 print/1746-4102 online # 2012 Eastern Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2012.704571

million in 2008, more than double the 2008 Major League Baseball (MLB) team

average (USA Today Salaries Database, 2010; Blum, 2008). Drawing inspiration from

payroll figures and the team’s aggressive courtship of players, Red Sox co-owner

Larry Lucchino exasperatedly christened the Yankees the ‘‘evil empire’’ in 2002

(quoted in Kepner, 2004, para. 18), a moniker readily recirculated by media outlets

to frame the rivalry.

Just a few years later, Lucchino, John Henry, and Tom Werner’s band of scruffy,

self-titled ‘‘Idiots’’ would break their curse, beating the Yankees in the American

League Championship Series (ALCS) after falling behind three games to zero, and

go on to win the 2004 World Series. Some observers considered the Red Sox players’

lighthearted attitudes to be a key to the team’s success as the group ‘‘romped its way

through the postseason [and] actually appeared to be having fun’’ (Nocera & Useem,

2004, para. 4). More recent press coverage of the organization depicted the Red Sox

as a fun-loving team (Bondy, 2009), complete with supportive owners and a ‘‘players’

manager’’ (Browne, 2007, para. 10).

Descriptions of the teams in the previous paragraphs were drawn from sports

media sources, which have a strong hand in framing the teams’ personae.1 Although

the Yankees and Red Sox have many common features, including hefty payrolls and

impressive success, the teams’ mediated personae have a dialectic relationship, ulti-

mately being defined in and through their divergence from one another. Focusing

on sports news coverage of the teams from 2000–2010, I locate the personae in a

humble form of Burkean irony in which the teams have a ‘‘fundamental kinship’’ that

renders them consubstantial (Burke, 1969, p. 514). The reality of each team has been

constructed through symbolic divergence from the enemy, thus integrally binding the

two personae in an ironic frame. This ironic reality should be seen as perspectival,

offering ‘‘choices about attitude’’ (Mahan-Hayes & Aden, 2003, p. 37): The collection

of sportswriter discourse about the teams presents a complete picture of their con-

substantiality, but individuals with strong allegiances to either the Yankees or Red

Sox may adopt an attitude of romantic irony in which they consider themselves ‘‘out-

side of and superior to’’ their opponent (Burke, 1969, p. 514, emphasis in original).

This article’s conclusion develops implications of selecting a romantic ironic frame,

but the analysis invokes an attitude of humble irony to account for the holistic view

of the rivalry that is presented through the collection of sportswriter discourse.

As the capstone of Burke’s ‘‘Four Master Tropes,’’ irony spins together metaphor,

metonymy, and synecdoche, which are by themselves reductive, but together

adequately representative of reality. As Tell (2004) explained, irony is considered

the closest trope to reality or ‘‘the truth’’ because it is capable of ‘‘holding conflicting

perspectives in productive tension’’ (p. 47). Irony’s circumference is wide enough to

accommodate a multiplicity of terms, and flexible enough to safely harbor clashes of

the contained terms. Put another way, irony embraces ambivalence. This article

analyzes the use of metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche in sports news coverage

of the Yankees and Red Sox from 2000–2010 to argue that the team personae reindi-

viduated an established pair of conflicting perspectives: Fisher’s (1973) mutualistic

American dreams.

446 L. G. Perks

Fisher’s theory pushed for a more nuanced understanding of an American dream

myth that encapsulated both the materialistic side, undergirding the principle of

self-interested economic competition and success, and the moralistic side, promoting

cooperative efforts of pursuing a common good. The two American dream myths are

rooted in traditional religious values (Fisher, 1973, p. 163) and also subsume many

contemporary social and political tensions. Fisher argued that the myths were embo-

died in the 1972 presidential candidate rhetoric, dividing Nixon and McGovern along

materialistic and moralistic lines. In addition to representing a fundamental ideologi-

cal divide between our nation’s major political parties, the two American dreams

relate to class differences, for although class does not have a direct causal relationship

with political affiliation, those who have benefited from the materialistic dream are

more likely to believe in its principles (Fisher, 1973, p. 161).

The myths and their religious, political, and class undertones have seeped into

popular culture as well. Smith (2009) argued that in musician biopics, the moralistic

version of the dream (one based on heterosexual love) represents the resolution to

trauma predicated on excesses of individualistic, materialistic achievement.2 In

contrast to Smith’s texts, neither side definitively ‘‘wins’’ in baseball’s American dream

tug-of-war: It is an ongoing dialectic circulating in media discourse. The diachronic

nature of baseball’s struggle is unique in popular culture for sport is a text that resists

the suturing of typical entertainment forms. Sport is punctuated by short-lived

conclusions at the end of a season, but team personae are always in negotiations

predicated on their history, present situation, and speculations about the future.

Sport is a fertile symbolic field for irony because its open narrative tolerates the

negotiation of competing perspectives. Put another way, the open narrative lends

itself well to what Crable (2000) referred to as irony’s ‘‘dynamic, developing pro-

gression’’ (p. 326). Acknowledging that the team personae are not static entities, this

article covers a time period in which the teams undoubtedly underwent significant

symbolic development. I trace Burke’s first three tropes—metaphor, metonymy,

and synecdoche—in sports news coverage of the Yankees and Red Sox from

2000–2010 to explain the symbolic scaffolding on which the teams’ ironic personae

are discursively constructed. Collectively, media emphasis on money metaphors,

the Yankees’ lucrative 21st century stadium, and a militaristic owner aligned the team

persona with a materialistic, aggressive economic competition model, whereas the

Red Sox are represented by metaphors of frugality, a classic stadium, and familial

‘‘Idiots’’ to create a moralistic, cooperative image of the organization. After tracing

the interaction of the tropes, I offer conclusions about the American dreams, their

activation in sports news, and the use of tropological analysis in understanding the

rhetorical development and maintenance of agonistic public relationships.

Baseball, Media, and American Dream Myths

Baseball is an American-born tradition whose development is intertwined with the

growth of the nation (Butterworth, 2007). Many sports reinforce cultural values,

Communication Quarterly 447

but baseball is seen as ‘‘especially emblematic of American society’’ (Trujillo & Ekdom,

1985, p. 263) and particularly representative of the ‘‘values that comprise the basic

ingredients of Americanism and the American dream’’ (Elias, 2001, p. 8). Even when

national fabric is torn and rewoven, ‘‘baseball’s history and mythology provide a rhe-

torical resource for reaffirming cultural values in the present’’ (Butterworth, 2008,

p. 146). For example, Overman (1997) argued that the Puritan work ethic was dis-

placed from work onto sport following industrialization, restoring some traditional

functions of the body that had been usurped by machinery. In addition to sport fulfil-

ling emotional and corporeal drives, Aden (1995) wrote that baseball nostalgia helps

individuals negotiate their uncertainties about work and power, representing a fleeting

form of escapism for a society that has seen a reduction of tangible physical and social

connections. The well-established links between baseball, nostalgia, and the American

dream (see also Von Burg & Johnson, 2009) reinforce baseball’s status as a repository

of national mythology and enduring values.

With their focus on work, economic opportunity, and varying versions of

‘‘success,’’ the American dreammyths speak to many values, including social responsi-

bility, social mobility, and collective and individual power. Fisher described the

materialistic myth and its followers with the characteristics of ‘‘effort, persistence,

‘playing the game,’ initiative, self reliance, achievement, and success’’ (1973, p. 161).

The materialistic myth essentially embraces the empowering tenets of capitalism and

promotes a pure free-market system that should not be burdened with financial reg-

ulations (1973, p. 161).3 The other side of the American dream, the moralistic myth,

involves ‘‘true regard for the dignity and worth of each and every individual’’ (Fisher,

1973, p. 161). The moralistic myth highlights collective, altruistic goals, and the pro-

ductive contributions individuals make in pursuit of those communal goals. Both

myths are open to subversion for several reasons: Hochschild (1995) observed that

‘‘hollowness,’’ ‘‘hypocrisy,’’ and ‘‘selfishness’’ are common critiques of the material-

istic myth (p. xii), while the moralistic myth is undermined for being ‘‘self-righteous’’

(Fisher, 1973, p. 161) and overly idealistic. Even with their respective strengths and

flaws, Fisher stressed that neither myth is inherently superior (1973, p. 163), and it

would not be possible to rid our cultural psyche of just one myth for they are mutua-

listic, drawing strength from the other’s subversion.4 In Burkean terms, both myths

collectively work to present a well-rounded view of our national identity.

News media are complicit with national mythology, both reflecting pre-existing

mythologies and spinning their own myths that help ‘‘create order out of disorder’’

(Bird & Dardenne, 1988, p. 70). To articulate the news media’s role in digesting the

American dreams and cultivating the Yankees and Red Sox personae, this analysis

draws from numerous electronic and print news sources accessed through Academic

Search Complete database, LexisNexis Academic database, and Google. The print

sources include USA Today, Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, The New Yorker,

and The Boston Globe, all of which are in the top 20 on the BurrellesLuce circulation

rankings for newspapers or magazines (‘‘Top Media Outlets,’’ 2009). The websites

accessed were sponsored by prominent sports and news organizations including

MLB and ESPN. Collectively, the diversity of sources represents constructions of

448 L. G. Perks

the team personae from both within and without the teams’ markets. Drawing from

this collection of sources, the article traces the divergent American dream myths

through the tropes of metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche that collectively com-

prise the ironic Yankees and Red Sox rivalry.

Metaphors: Money Machine Versus Bargain Bin

While the first three master tropes are all considered reductive, metaphor is the sim-

plest way of considering an object, person, idea, relationship, or situation. Metaphor,

likened to ‘‘perspective,’’ can be thought of as ‘‘a device for seeing something in terms

of something else’’ (Burke, 1969, p. 503, emphasis in original). A particular point of

view or perspective gets privileged when using one term or phrase to stand for some-

thing else; therefore, a well-rounded approach to using or examining metaphors

demands employing ‘‘as many different terms as its nature permits’’ (Burke, 1969,

p. 504). In this section, I consider patterns in the metaphors used to describe both

teams. The metaphor patterns coursed through perspectives of the teams’ payrolls,

players, stadiums, and owners, collectively illustrating the team personae that were

privileged in media. The title of Madden’s (2009) article employed metaphors that

illustrate the dramatistic divide between the teams: ‘‘As Yankees Break Bank, Bosox

Hit Bargain Bin.’’ In the opening, he wrote ‘‘If you didn’t know better, you’d think

the Yankees were oblivious to this wretched economy and the Sawx were going

overboard to make a statement for austerity’’ (Madden, 2009, para. 2). Throughout

multiple metaphors used to describe the teams, the Yankees were most often cast as

big spenders, while the Red Sox were depicted as the budget friendly, home-grown

talent team.

Although the Yankees paid a luxury tax and participated in revenue sharing that

benefited MLB and subsidized other teams, news stories rarely referenced the collec-

tive positive impact of the Yankees’ payroll, focusing mostly on the power and advan-

tage their payroll gave them. Sportswriters’ selections of metaphors positioned the

Yankees’ seemingly limitless budget as their defining feature, neatly aligning them with

the materialistic myth’s focus on freedom from economic constraints. Nocera and

Useem (2004) noted that the Yankees’ owners ‘‘spend money like water’’ (para. 4),

Hoch (2008) referenced their ‘‘monster payroll’’ (para. 24), and the title of Symonds’

(2004) article stated that the Red Sox’s true curse was the ‘‘Yankees’ Cash.’’ Discus-

sions of the new Yankee stadium were also framed in terms of revenue: Writers labeled

the stadium ‘‘a far more effective money machine’’ thanks to additional luxury seating,

increased ticket prices, and sponsorships (Symonds, 2004, para. 8). This stadium

money machine would feed the team’s future monster payrolls.

As the sportswriters’ selection of metaphors marked the Yankees as an outlier in

the MLB payroll rankings, their successes and failures were often framed with refer-

ence to financial clout. Following the Yankees’ third consecutive World Series cham-

pionship in 2000, Cincinnati Reds general manager Jim Bowden observed that ‘‘If

every club were allowed to spend $100 million in payroll, you would not have the


same team winning every year’’ (quoted in Chass, 2000, para. 7). Bowden’s remark,

combined with the prevalence of money metaphors about the Yankees, perpetuated

the myopic view of the team as having an unfair competitive advantage. The Yankees’

successes were seen not in terms of talent, strategy, and luck, but framed almost solely

in terms of finances. Yankees’ general manager Brian Cashman acknowledged that

perceptions of the team’s payroll have often led to the criticism that ‘‘the reason they

win is because of the money’’ (Garber, 2002, para. 78). Money metaphors not only

created a rhetorical asterisk next to the Yankees’ victories, but also justified chastise-

ment if they were to fail: Following the Yankees $420 million payroll commitment to

acquire three players in 2008, Borden observed that when a team has a ‘‘payroll this

much higher than the rest of the league, there can be no excuses’’ (2008, p. 3F).

Under George Steinbrenner’s rule and bank account, the Yankees organization was

indeed known for tolerating no excuses, creating an image of the organization as a

tightly disciplined, militaristic machine. Metaphors set the perspective of Yankees

players as soldiers: They were called ‘‘troops in pinstripes’’ (Bodley, 2003, para. 7)

and referred to as the ‘‘Wicked Emperor’s [. . .] pinstriped minions’’ (‘‘Forces of

Good,’’ 2004, para. 1). Metaphors helped create the players’ soldier image, but quotes

from the players reinforced the idea that they were members of a total institution

who internalized the materialistic perspective of the team. For example, outfielder

Johnny Damon derided the team’s performance during the 2008 season, referencing

their payroll-related expectations and job insecurity: ‘‘The Steinbrenners have $200

million in us, and we haven’t shown what we’re made of . . . [The trade deadline

on] July 31st comes sooner than you know it’’ (quoted in Hoch, 2008, para. 25). Dis-

course from sports journalists, the Steinbrenners, and the players themselves all

framed the Yankees players as replaceable cogs in the indomitable money machine.

Evoking the team’s payroll and the transience of the players’ relationships with the

team cast them as employees at best, as sports mercenaries at worst. Missing from this

relationship was moralistic recognition of the importance of voluntary team cohesion,

as well as management and owner support of players. The rhetoric suggested that sign-

ing with the Yankees meant giving oneself over to their impersonal, output-driven

institution. Extreme pressure placed on Yankees players represented reverse causality

in the materialistic myth’s principle that wealth and power will follow if one is talented

and works hard. Essentially, the Yankees players already attained status and wealth by

being selected to be part of the venerable organization; therefore, they had to give their

all to the team in terms of hard work and making full use of their talents. New York

Times columnist Buster Olney (2004) drew from many of these factors, wondering

if ‘‘the enormous expectations of Steinbrenner and the team’s fans’’ undermined

the team’s ability to win a championship (p. 324).

With a sizeable payroll that ranked them just behind the Yankees from 2000–2010

in all but two years, the Red Sox should also have been considered a big spending team

(USA Today Salaries Database, 2010). In 2007, they drummed up fiscal chatter by

paying $50 million just for the right to negotiate with Daisuke Matsuzaka, eventually

paying over $100 million to sign the Japanese pitcher (Sandler, 2009, para. 17).

Despite their payroll extravagances, many news stories referencing the Red Sox’s team

450 L. G. Perks

spending philosophies perpetuated the moralistic American dream mythology

through metaphors that suggested budget stringency. Even in 2004, when the Red

Sox had the second-highest payroll in the league, Nocera and Useem (2004) argued

that the team put together their ‘‘roster with the kind of budget discipline that marks

most small-market teams’’ (para. 4). Sandler (2009) stated that the key difference

between the Yankees and Red Sox was that Boston maintained a budget-friendly farm

system while the Yankees let their farm system falter after the 1990s, ‘‘leading to a long

run of expensive free agent signings’’ (paras. 8 & 13). While labelling the Red Sox a

‘‘bargain bin’’ team seems like a stretch given their relatively high payroll, sportswri-

ters’ use of financial metaphors gradually pulled the Red Sox’s persona away from

their high payroll reality and into a frugal symbolic reality that was constructed largely

through comparison to the Yankees.

Although many of the Yankees’ premiere players, including captain Derek Jeter,

were products of their farm system,5 sports news sources obscured these facts when

contrasting Yankees and Red Sox payrolls, rosters, ownership, and budget strategies.

For example, Lupica (2008) mocked the costly Yankees trade for Alex Rodriguez in

service of praising the Red Sox for spending ‘‘better than the Yankees’’ and having

several farm system players fill prominent roles on the team (para. 3). Throughout

many articles, the term ‘‘farm system’’ was used as a metaphor for the Red Sox’s busi-

ness philosophy of making smart investments in upstart players. Although the term

farm system has some connotative overlap with the term money machine, including

emphasis on efficiency and order, the metaphors are divided along pre-industrial and

post-industrial lines. The word ‘‘farm’’ harbours pre-industrial, pastoral connota-

tions that suffuse ‘‘farm system’’ with an idyllic aura, drawing it symbolically away

from the post-industrial, mechanical excesses associated with the ‘‘money machine.’’

The pastoral roots of the farm system helped depict the Red Sox organization as more

loyal to players with their willingness to take chances on young men and cultivate

talent over the years. The farm system focus in news stories moralistically linked

the Red Sox team to community building and familialism, rather than seeming like

a loose affiliation of hired hands.

Quotes from owners Lucchino and Henry that circulated through various media

sources reinforced the Red Sox’s budget-conscious image. Henry expressed interest

in implementing a salary cap in 2004, but switched tactics in 2009, issuing a call with

Lucchino for a ‘‘payroll zone’’ that would establish both a payroll ceiling and basement

for MLB teams (‘‘Henry,’’ 2009, para. 12). The goal of the payroll zone, according to

Henry, was to promote ‘‘competitive balance’’ (Browne, 2009, para. 4). Lucchino

noted that the payroll zone might harm their organization’s competitiveness

(‘‘Henry,’’ 2009; Browne, 2009), but praised the measure in spite of the Red Sox’s

personal risk: ‘‘Sometimes a short-term problem for us may be a long-term solution

for the game, for the industry, and also for us’’ (quoted in Browne, 2009, para. 6).

Lucchino’s statement of support for the payroll zone echoed McGovern’s rhetoric

defining the 1972 election as a ‘‘struggle between our better impulses and our more self-

ish, baser instincts’’ (McGovern quoted in Fisher, 1973, p. 166). Framed in terms of the

overarching bargain bin metaphor, Lucchino’s ‘‘better impulse’’ was to encourage


other high spending teams to try out the Red Sox’s more frugal budget strategy and

thus curb exorbitant payroll increases, even though a big budget gave the Red Sox a

competitive advantage compared to many teams. The payroll zone would not com-

pletely level the MLB playing field, but the metaphors that surrounded it, including

‘‘competitive balance,’’ suggested that the zone would be a more equitable system.

By pitching the payroll zone as a personal sacrifice that would benefit ‘‘the game,’’

Lucchino deftly marked the high-spending Red Sox as unwilling participants in payroll

bloat, aligning them with the moralistic myth despite what their book keeping showed.

Sports news’ emphasis on metaphors such as ‘‘farm system’’ and ‘‘competitive

balance’’ in connection to the Red Sox’s business philosophy echoed the collectivist

principles of the moralistic myth. These metaphors favor investments in players and

a more level playing field in MLB. In the moralistic model, team competition should

ideally be premised on an organization’s knowledge of baseball (skill in identifying and

cultivating unknown players) and knowledge of finance (making productive use of a

reasonable budget); thus, the bargain bin approach represented sport, intellectual, and

financial savvy. The moralistic myth, as applied to the Red Sox, constructed an ideal-

istic version of professional baseball as a game that rewards skill and intelligence, not

bank accounts. In this manner, the bargain bin collection of metaphors promoted the

idea of ‘‘brotherhood’’ within the team and among the league.

Metonymy: The Bullet Train Versus the Little Engine

Burke (1969) acknowledged the interconnectedness of the tropes, noting that they

‘‘shade into one another’’ (p. 503). This section addresses the New York ‘‘bullet

train’’ and Boston ‘‘little engine,’’ Lucchino’s metaphors that described each team’s

metonyms—their stadiums (quoted in Vecsey, 2008, para. 8). Burke (1969) explained

the basic strategy of metonymy as conveying ‘‘some incorporeal or intangible state in

terms of the corporeal or tangible’’ (p. 506). As a lower order trope, metonymy also

illustrates language’s inadequacies because it must ‘‘always treat the ineffable in terms

of the effable’’ (Tell, 2004, p. 43). Like metaphor, this perspective is inherently incon-

gruous in that metonymic use of language distances understanding from objective

reality, for the ineffable does not have an ‘‘accurate’’ means of symbolic represen-

tation. As language draws from the tangible realm, over time ‘‘the original corporeal

reference is forgotten, and only the incorporeal, metaphorical extension survives’’

(Burke, 1969, p. 506). Both Fenway stadium and the 2009 Yankee stadium functioned

as metonyms for their organizations, offering sportswriters a tangible reference for

representing the teams’ dynamic personae.

News stories framed the 2009 Yankee stadium as a reductive representation of the

organization’s perceived extravagance. The stadium opened during a difficult econ-

omic climate in which the materialistic myth became vulnerable, highlighting the sta-

dium as an ‘‘ill-timed, out-of-place monument to American excess’’ (Buckley, 2009,

para. 15). This Yankee monument divided fans and sportswriters along the lines of

avarice versus advancement, representing both subversion and affirmation of the

452 L. G. Perks

materialistic myth, respectively. Rieber (2009) noted that the ‘‘overpriced’’ Yankees

tickets made the organization look ‘‘like an arrogant, money-grubbing, out-of-touch,

elitist bunch of yahoos’’ but countered that in the ‘‘nice, clean, spacious new ball

park’’ the ‘‘fan experience is enhanced . . . about 500 percent’’ compared to the old

stadium (paras. 4, 6, 8). This commentary reduced the substance of both the owner-

ship and fan experience to the stadium: Ownership was reflected in the stadium’s

potential and creation, while the fan experience was subsumed in the actualized con-

ditions of the stadium. Poetic realism, according to Burke (1969), must capture this

temporal trajectory from seminal to actualized (p. 505).

And in both the stadium’s creation and experience, sportswriters often focused on

taxpayer and community exploitation. Stadium opponents criticized the ‘‘$550 to

$850 million in taxpayer money’’ (Gormley, 2008, p. B5) and the city land involved

in the stadium, noting that the new arena was located in part on former community

parkland (Berger, 2008; Schwartz, 2006). Bronx native Berger opined that with the

land grab, ‘‘Yankee greed trumped the needs of the new kids in [his] old neighbor-

hood’’ (2008, para. 6). The high 2009 ticket prices, and disparate amenities based on

ticket price, generated criticisms that the Yankees purposely ignored the working

class segment of the community when creating their new stadium (Dodd, 2009).

The Yankee stadium was rhetorically constructed as a heartless money machine that

would continue churning no matter who or what got in its way. Complaints about

the organization’s (mis)use of community funds, community land, and fans’ wallets

evoked Fisher’s claim that the materialistic myth is mistrusted by those who are

‘‘troubled by the avarice, resentment, [and] envy’’ that ‘‘often accompany its mani-

festation in real life situations’’ (1973, p. 161). Indeed, the $1.5 billion price tag of the

new stadium, making it the ‘‘most expensive sports venue’’ in the United States

(Dodd, 2009, para. 5), marked it as an outlier in sports. The uniqueness thus

distanced the Yankees from other teams, priming the stadium to be a vessel for

the Yankees’ distinct identity.

Building the stadium on new ground also purportedly damaged the historical

roots of the Yankees’ home. Legendary reliever Goose Gossage lamented the move

because of the momentous events the former stadium harbored: ‘‘Babe Ruth stood

at home plate. The new stadium’s going to be spectacular in all ways, but it’s going

to be different. I don’t care any way you look at it, it’s not home plate’’ (quoted in

Kepner, 2008a, para. 3). The dominant sentiment from current members of the

Yankees organization, however, was that history would travel with the team. Closer

Mariano Rivera noted that the move would not sever ties to the organization’s his-

tory; instead, ‘‘the mystique, the legacy, everything, you bring it to the new stadium’’

(quoted in Goessling, 2008, para. 34).

Old must make way for new in the materialistic myth’s often interrelated pursuits

of wealth, success, innovation, and convenience. Even Gossage took a practical turn,

admitting that the size of concourses and seating in the former stadium impaired

fans’ comfort, while the extensive bathroom lines limited fans’ viewing time (quoted

in Kepner, 2008a, paras. 40, 41). These complaints seem to have been assuaged in

2009. Barbarisi (2009) praised the new stadium’s architectural flow, including a


‘‘walkable, open concourse that allows fans to see the field from anywhere in the

stadium’’ (para. 4). He further commended the stadium’s superior gadgetry, includ-

ing the ‘‘massive video screen in center field that is truly a technological marvel’’

(Barbarisi, 2009, para. 5). Comparisons between old stadium and new stadium

positioned the Yankees as the advanced and advancing team. The new stadium

functioned as a tangible homage to the materialistic myth’s affirming principle that

unbridled economic competition leads to ‘‘success,’’ signified here in terms of inno-

vation and convenience.

In contrast to the Yankees 2009 state-of-the art-facilities, from 2000–2010 the Red

Sox’s Fenway Park was the smallest and oldest stadium in the majors, remaining

much the same since 1912 (Symonds, 2004; White, 2007). Dotting his discourse with

metaphors, Lucchino compared the ‘‘little engine that could’’ in Boston to the ‘‘bullet

train in the Bronx’’ (quoted in Vecsey, 2008, para. 8). Lucchino’s parable highlighted

Fenway’s nostalgic, old-fashioned feel through contrasting it with the technological

advancements (and vast expenses) of the 2009 Yankee stadium. Some considered

the Lansdowne little engine to be a rough ride, however. Buckley at once subverted

the moralistic dream and affirmed the materialistic, opining

The Red Sox can talk all they want about how Fenway is ‘‘America’s most belovedballpark,’’ but let’s be real: That’s a line written by marketing people and notanyone who crams his or her 21st century-sized backside into those awful seatsin Section 5. Fenway is a perfumed-up dump. (2009, para. 4)

Innovation and comfort were not top priorities for Verducci, who highlighted the

archaic seats as part of the connection Red Sox fans felt with their ball club: Fenway

represents a tangible medium for the bond between people and their team ‘‘not only

because Papi can stand in the same batter’s box as Teddy Ballgame, but also because a

son might sit in the same wooden-slat seat as his father’’ (2004, para. 70). To explain

Verducci’s observation metonymically, family relationships could be reduced to the

experience of taking in a game at transhistorical Fenway stadium.

Additional articles about Fenway positioned the classic park as a centerpiece of

the Red Sox’s nostalgic, moralistic persona. Features such as the aforementioned

wooden-slat seats, basic food options, manual scoreboard, and the small size helped

Fenway and other old ballparks like Chicago’s Wrigley Field to ‘‘serve as a brief inter-

mission from the hectic plots of our lives, taking us back to a slower, less complicated

time’’ (Prestien, 2001, p. 164). Writers’ selections of working class fan quotes (see, for

example, Angell, 2004; Verducci, 2004) further distanced the Fenway experience from

entertainment extravagance and made it more about community and family. Verducci

(2004) told the story of Roberta Rogers, whose family ‘‘didn’t have much money [. . .],didn’t take vacations, didn’t go to the beach’’ (para. 50), but scraped together funds so

that they could watch the Sox at Fenway. Fan finances were allegedly a consideration

for the ownership’s decisions as well: According to Lucchino, fan feedback during a

sluggish 2008 economy led the Red Sox to freeze ticket prices for 2009 because such

a move was ‘‘the right thing to do for the people of the Red Sox Nation’’ (quoted in

Sandomir, 2008, para. 5). In sum, news stories emphasizing Fenway’s uncomplicated

454 L. G. Perks

features and fans positioned the stadium as a moralistic, nostalgic haven that cemented

the bonds between fans of varied generations and means. It was constructed as a space

in which one could experience community.

Perhaps because Fenway has been a Boston fixture for almost a century, it has been

rhetorically ensconced within the public domain, and Fenway news stories depict

stadium decisions as community-driven. Nocera and Useem (2004) observed that

the former Red Sox owners wanted to ‘‘rip [Fenway] down and have taxpayers

underwrite a new stadium’’ (para. 5). However, the idea for a new $500 million sta-

dium, proposed in 1999, was abandoned because ‘‘Massachusetts’ politicians weren’t

willing to underwrite much of the cost’’ (Symonds, 2004, para. 9). Moralistic agency

here was located not with the Red Sox organization, but with resolute Massachusetts

politicians who were unwilling to foot the huge expense. Quotes from the current

Red Sox co-owners, however, rhetorically reappropriated the moralistic agency, pro-

viding reinforcement for their cost-saving, bargain bin metaphor: When explaining

the decision to maintain and enhance the existing space, Lucchino stated, ‘‘We just

wanted to preserve a nice little old ballpark’’ (Araton, 2009, para. 3). Rhetoric sur-

rounding stadium decisions ultimately positioned the needs and interests of the

Red Sox Nation and Boston community as the driving forces in organization deci-

sions. The Fenway metonym was portrayed as a community resource, in opposition

to the Yankee ‘‘monument to excess’’ that was constructed as a drain on community

resources.

Synecdoche: King George Versus the Idiots

Burke (1969) discussed synecdoche as the third master trope, providing the examples

of several ‘‘relationship[s] of convertibility’’ to illustrate his point: ‘‘part for the

whole, [...] name for narrative, disease for cure, [and] hero for villain,’’ as well as

their reversals (pp. 508–509). The shading of the tropes carries through to these terms

as Burke considered metonymy to be ‘‘a special application of synecdoche’’ (p. 509).

Synecdoche’s interest in the relationship among terms and their reversals represents

its most striking divergence from metonymy. Metonymic reduction achieves a

‘‘comfortable level of simplicity’’ (Crable, 2000, p. 322), offering a one-way conver-

sion of terms that distills meaning into a tangible entity or experience. Synecdoche

instead views meaning as a symbolic field of interaction between terms: the rhetorical

activation of truth. This important difference between metonymy and synecdoche—one-way conversion vs. two-way convertibility—divides the tropes epistemologically,

nudging metonymy toward the scientific end of the continuum and synecdoche

toward the poetic. In synecdochal analysis, rhetorical critics must look at the two-way

relationship between the sides: Hero should be seen in terms of villain and villain in

terms of hero, for one cannot exist without the other. Articulation of a synecdochal

relationship therefore lays bare the process of symbolic conversion.

While Burke considered all symbolic characters necessary in the development

of ‘‘the truth,’’ he argued that one character is often the ‘‘primus inter pares’’ or

‘‘summarizing vessel’’ of an entity (1969, p. 516). This summarizing vessel at once


comprises the circumference and is within the circumference of the whole: It is part

of the ‘‘total definition’’ but also ‘‘embod[ies] the conclusions of the development’’

(Burke, 1969, p. 516). The summarizing vessel of the Red Sox is more complex to

identify due to the organization’s moralistic dispersal of agency, but the Yankees’

figurehead from 2000–2010 (and beyond that temporal boundary) was clearly George

Steinbrenner.

Throughout his nearly 40 years as Yankees’ principal owner, George Steinbrenner

earned a variety of omnipotent nicknames including King George, the Boss, and the

General, indicating the centrality of his role in making team decisions (see, for

example, Bodley, 2003; Goldstein, 2010; Puma, 2002). Puma (2002) contended that

Steinbrenner ‘‘transformed the Yankees into baseball’s foremost dictatorship’’ (para.

2), while Bodley (2003) portrayed the former owner as an intimidating MacArthur-

worshipper. The militaristic emphasis in descriptions of Steinbrenner and his leader-

ship suggested a firm hierarchy within the Yankee organization, linking Steinbrenner

ineluctably with the team persona as the commander-in-chief: He was the one who

drove the Yankees’ tightly structured, militaristic money machine. Steinbrenner’s

centrality in the organization was emphasized visually through the team’s 2003 Sports

Illustrated cover in which he was surrounded by his five smiling, pinstriped pitchers

with the headline ‘‘You Can’t Have TooMuch Pitching (Just Ask George).’’ Steinbren-

ner’s arms were crossed (prominently displaying another metonym for the team’s

dominance on his left hand—a gold championship ring), he was the only one not

in uniform, and was the only one with a serious expression on his face, several signs

that collectively signified his position as stern leader.

In 2007, Steinbrenner relinquished control over the Yankees’ day-to-day opera-

tions, putting responsibility on the shoulders of his two sons, Hal and Hank (Kepner,

2008b). However, news stories continued to portray the new ownership’s plan to be a

‘‘dominant force’’ in baseball (Hank Steinbrenner quoted in Kepner, 2008b, para. 6)

in a way that extended George Steinbrenner’s emphasis on production and victories,

not personal relationships. Hank Steinbrenner exemplified the competitive attitude

with his promise that the organization’s losing record ‘‘will be turned around next

year, by force if we have to’’ (quoted in Kepner, 2008c, para. 4). Depictions of the

Steinbrenner family’s perceived ‘‘win-at-all-costs’’ philosophy (‘‘Yankees’ Steinbren-

ner,’’ 2010, para. 1) resonated with the materialistic myth’s promise that if ‘‘one

employs one’s energies and talents to the fullest, one will reap the rewards of status,

wealth, and power’’ (Fisher, 1973, p. 161). In other words, the owners’ heavy-handed

team involvement had a mutually reinforcing relationship with the team’s elite

reputation.

When Steinbrenner passed away during the 2010 season, news stories emphasized

the Yankees success as the centerpiece of his legacy. For example, his The New York

Times obituary ran with the headline: ‘‘George Steinbrenner, Who Built Yankees into

Powerhouse, Dies at 80’’ (Goldstein, 2010). An ESPN obituary positioned Steinbren-

ner as the whole for every part of the organization, noting that ‘‘the Yankees and

Steinbrenner were synonymous’’ (‘‘Yankees’ Steinbrenner,’’ 2010, para. 46). While

this article focuses on the years 2000–2010, Steinbrenner had been the summarizing

456 L. G. Perks

vessel for the Yankees for decades, and his influence will likely continue through his

sons. Synecdochally, the General was, is, and will be interchangeable with the Yankees.

And, as Steinbrenner is the Yankees, the Yankees persona is inextricably linked to

the principles of the materialistic myth that made both Steinbrenner and his team

dominant forces.

Holding true to their collectivist persona, the Red Sox did not have a primus inter

pares that came from a high-ranking organizational position. The clearest part that

signified the team whole from 2000–2010 was the 2004 self-titled band of ‘‘Idiots’’

who exemplified the moralistic myth’s principle of ‘‘brotherhood’’ (Fisher, 1973,

p. 161). While the Yankees’ synecdoche was top-down with regard to the organiza-

tional hierarchy, the Red Sox were bottom-up. In contrast to Sports Illustrated’s cover

that positioned Steinbrenner front and center in his organization, the cover from the

Red Sox’s Sports Illustrated ‘‘Sportsmen of the Year’’ issue used a collage of photos to

replicate the team’s logo, visually reinforcing the team’s dispersal of agency (‘‘Who

else?’’, 2004). In Sports Illustrated’s article about selecting the Sportsmen of the Year,

the editors re-told the Sox’s curse-breaking story, noting that the Sox were ‘‘pro-

fessional, collegial, [and] colorful athletes’’ (‘‘Who else?’’, 2004). Because of the Idiots’

collegiality, no one person or small group could be used to visually signify the team.

Journalists described the colorful 2004 Red Sox as an ‘‘unkempt [and] scruffy’’

(Verducci, 2004, para. 35), ‘‘shaggy-haired troupe’’ (Nocera & Useem, 2004, para.

4), also highlighting individual players as exemplars of questionable grooming and

hygiene: Angell labeled Damon’s coif ‘‘bible-movie hair’’ (2004, para. 3), while

Verducci referenced Trot Nixon’s ‘‘pine-tar encrusted batting helmet’’ (para. 37)

and called Derek Lowe ‘‘another shaggy eccentric’’ (2004, para. 37). Years after the

Idiots disbanded, their impact on the team persona remained strong: For example,

Bondy considered the Red Sox the gold standard for ‘‘cutting up’’ in 2009 (para.

2). News coverage highlighting the Red Sox’s eccentric nature gave the team a familial

quality, one of accepting each player individually for his own unique way of being.

This type of inclusive family echoed the moralistic myth’s tenet that one can ‘‘be as

one conceives himself’’ (Fisher, 1973, p. 162). Romano (2004) made this supportive

familial link clearer in his ‘‘Idiot’’ encomium, writing, ‘‘They dress like no other team.

Frumpy, messy and without great care. They behave the way other teams could only

dream. Silly, happily and with amazing camaraderie’’ (para. 14). In this sense, the col-

lectivist ethic came from reveling in one’s ability to be an individual—at once a unique

part, but also part of the whole.

Part of this fun-loving, cohesive, Idiots persona was the message that being one of

the Red Sox was something one wanted to do, not a job one had to do. Fueling these

perceptions of self-sacrifice in the service of team unity were pitcher Curt Schilling’s

medical heroics to pitch with a ‘‘sutured and seeping ankle’’ in 2004 (Angell, 2004,

para. 1), and reports that Schilling, Mike Lowell, and other players forsook more

lucrative offers to join the Red Sox (Nocera & Useem, 2004; Benjamin, 2007).6

Clubhouse cohesion was depicted as a priority in the Red Sox organization, as

demonstrated by the organization’s trades of star short-stop Nomar Garciaparra in

2004 and slugger Manny Ramirez in 2008 because both players were reportedly


unhappy in Boston. Schilling praised the ownership for recognizing the importance

of team unity and cohesion, saying, ‘‘[T]hey realize that there is no one player

that will ever be more important than the sum of the parts’’ (quoted in Dalla,

2007, para. 8).

Perceived sacrifices such as Schilling’s 2004 ankle surgeries, several players’ pay

cuts to join the Red Sox, the organization’s decisions to let go of unhappy stars,

and even the allegedly self-harming payroll zone the Red Sox owners had proposed,

were all necessary ingredients in the construction of a moralistic persona. As Fisher

(1973) explained, in order to persuade others with ‘‘moralistic appeals, one must

condemn himself in some way or other’’ (p. 162), signifying voluntary prioritization

of collective above individual. This sacrifice of individual for collective can be predi-

cated on the arousal of guilt: guilt over letting down one’s team, guilt over demand-

ing too much money, guilt over having greater resources than most MLB teams, and

perhaps most powerfully, guilt over resembling one’s enemy.

Conclusion

The interaction of the first three tropes—metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche—collectively comprises irony, the ‘‘development which uses all the terms’’ (Burke,

1969, p. 512, emphasis in original). The metaphors function as a lens, setting our

perspective. The perspective then relates to what tangible element will function as

metonym and how language will borrow from that corporeal resource. Further, both

perspective and reduction meld with synecdoche by framing the part-for-whole

relationship. It is important to consider the constitutive relationship in synecdochal

analysis: Is part more often used to signify whole or is whole used to signify part? This

question can produce revelations with regard to the locus of symbolic strength for

each party in the agonistic relationship.

Collectively, these tropes constituted an ironic development that maintained cohes-

ive organizational personae for the Yankees and Red Sox from 2000–2010, personae

that became real and nearly incontrovertible through discourse. The irony that was

ultimately produced in and through sportswriters’ trope-laden accounts of the teams

was one of mutualistic American dreams. This symbolic reality was distanced from,

yet ultimately more persuasive than, any objective reality (if one were possible).

Through media emphasis on money metaphors, an exorbitant but cutting edge

stadium, and hands-on ownership, the lucrative Steinbrenner empire exemplified

the materialistic dream. And, as noted, the Yankees have been the most decorated

franchise in major league history, offering legitimation of the materialistic dream.

While the Red Sox approached dynasty status with their championships in 2004

and 2007, the organization was still cast on the moralistic side of the American dream

in stories describing budget-conscious business strategies, a ‘‘community’’ stadium,

and fun-loving players.

Surely there were aspects of each team’s identity that contradicted these ironic

personae. On a basic economic level, one may argue that the Red Sox ownership

458 L. G. Perks

represented the antithesis of a collectivist attitude because they had the highest ‘‘Fan

Cost Index’’ (roughly the cost for a family of four to attend a game) in all of baseball

(Vecsey, 2008). One may also say that the Yankees’ farm-raised captain, Derek Jeter,

exemplified the self-sacrifice and loyalty that are more readily associated with the

moralistic side of the dream. These examples of contradictions, instead of undermin-

ing my argument, worked in support of the dichotomistic impressions of the Yankees

and Red Sox: The exceptions have existed, but media have not emphasized them. The

owners, players, and their respective actions were funneled into the two American

dreams through media coverage that symbolically spotlighted certain traits through

use of the tropes. Although fans of the Yankees or Red Sox could reappropriate their

team’s unique persona for use in distancing themselves symbolically from their rival

team, the collective impact of this sports media tropological cycle activated a humble

ironic reality for the teams predicated on the dialectic relationship they had with

one another.

This article draws its conclusions from an examination of Yankees=Red Sox sports

news coverage from 2000–2010, but it is important to also discuss the broader

temporal context to understand how the tropes have been activated. Although the

American dreams have circulated throughout society for decades, Fisher based his

article on analysis of Nixon and McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign rhetoric.

Around the same time as he assumed control over the Yankees, George Steinbrenner

made an illegal contribution to Nixon’s campaign (Goldstein, 2010), suggesting an

allegiance to Nixon’s materialistic values and demonstrating his own commitment

to the materialistic myth’s tenet of doing as one pleases—a commitment that he

clearly brought to his role as owner. Because of Steinbrenner’s significant power

within the organization, analysis of Yankees news coverage prior to 2000 would likely

bear out many of the tropes discussed here. The span of 2000–2010 was chosen, how-

ever, because of the relative strength of the rivalry. This timeframe encapsulated the

moralistic dream’s curse-breaking victory that corrected years of imbalance and for-

cefully pushed both team personae into the dialectic relationship that more strongly

aligned them with the dreams. In sum, I suggest that the materialistic myth circulated

through the Yankees’ persona prior to 2000, but the Red Sox’s resurgence in the early

2000s sent the tropological cycle into rapid motion and activated the latent moralistic

dream.7 Burke (1969) argued that ironic perspectives are ‘‘existing always, but attain-

ing greater clarity of expression or imperiousness of proportion of one period than

another’’ (p. 513). The years 2000–2010 should be seen as a period of greater clarity

for both teams’ personae.

This article’s method of tracing how metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche are

deployed in news media to collectively support the ironic American dreams can be

fruitfully applied to analyses of other public rivalries, feuds, contests, or agonistic rela-

tionships. For example, the dreams arguably emerged in the 2010 World Series pitting

the Texas Rangers and their ‘‘taxpayer-gouging’’ stadium (Zirin, 2010, para. 3) against

the San Francisco Giants’ Idiot-like band of ‘‘misfits’’ (Sheinin, 2010). Sportswriters

covered the Giants with a moralistic angle, highlighting their homegrown pitching,

diverse personalities, and cohesiveness (see, for example, Gregory, 2010; Sheinin,


2010). Additional tropological analyses would likely reveal further American dream

patterns reindividuated in disparate agonistic relationships, not just those found

in baseball or sport. These additional ironic patterns may connect directly to the

American dreams themselves or draw from some related sub-tensions observed in this

article, including individualism vs. collectivism, excess vs. moderation, innovation vs.

preservation, and competition vs. cooperation.

The American dreams, and these tensions they subsume, are integral to our ident-

ity as a nation. As such, it is essential that we can productively dialogue about them.

Even fans’ selection of a romantic ironic frame in the Yankees=Red Sox rivalry can

promote national unity through unconventional identifications. If fans select a

romantic ironic perspective from the media discourse on the rivalry to strengthen

identification with fellow citizens of the Yankees Universe or Red Sox Nation, they

will be united with unlike-minded individuals. Such an experience can discourage

ideological polarization and promote understanding as fans focus on team allegiances

to unify them, thereby setting aside political, class, or other differences. Put differ-

ently, through selecting a romantic ironic frame from the rivalry discourse, fans

can open the doors to humble ironic frames of greater ideological importance. This

engagement across traditional ideological lines is necessary for the health of the

populace if we are to function productively within our nation’s enduring, dialectical

ironic circumference, for, according to Fisher (1973), America needs moralistic and

materialistic symbols to ‘‘signify her whole meaning’’ (p. 167). Cataloguing the

divergent personae of the Yankees and Red Sox encourages better understanding

of America and the negotiation of her essential, duelling ideologies.

Notes

[1] The term persona refers to a cohesive set of images ‘‘constructed and performed’’ both with

and without the participation of those represented (Cloud, 1996, p. 116).

[2] For another example of American dream rhetoric in sports culture see Trujillo (1991).

Although he does not utilize Fisher as a lens for analyzing press coverage of pitching great

Nolan Ryan, Trujillo (1991) essentially observes tensions between the two dreams as repor-

ters touted Ryan’s ability to pursue the materialistic version of the dream while commending

his moralistic impulses to focus on his pitching and avoid haggling over his salary (p. 297).

[3] In my interpretation of Fisher (1973), the materialistic myth’s emphasis on the ‘‘freedom to do

as one pleases’’ (p. 162) relates to economics, and cannot be applied directly to the Yankees

players. If one powerful figure is free to do as he pleases (Steinbrenner), this necessitates that

others will have to fall in line. In other words, Steinbrenner’s freedom negated that of the

players and other organizational employees.

[4] Other scholars argue that although the American dream need not ignore its moralistic side, it

is commonly reduced to mere materialism (see Hochschild, 1995, p. 36).

[5] Notable farm-raised Yankees from the 2000s include Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada,

Robinson Cano, Phil Hughes, and Joba Chamberlain. Yankees General Manager Brian

Cashman has also claimed a philosophy of ‘‘building the Yankees through the farm system,

low-risk trades and occasional free-agent spending’’ (Kepner & Curry, 2008, para. 1).

[6] The Red Sox’s ability to draw star athletes with lower salaries further reinforced their bargain

bin, budget discipline image.

460 L. G. Perks

[7] The Red Sox narrowly lost to the Yankees in the 2003 ALCS and won the World Series in

2004. Sportswriter Bill Simmons (2005) captures the team’s trajectory, labeling the Red Sox’s

turn-of-the-century years ‘‘Rejuvenation’’ (1998–2000), ‘‘The Abyss’’ (2001–2003), and

‘‘Hope is a Good Thing’’ (2004).

References

Aden, R. C. (1995). Nostalgic communication as temporal escape: When It Was a Game’s

re-construction of a baseball=work community. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 20–38.

doi: 10.1080=10570319509374505Angell, R. (2004, November 8). The curse of curses. The New Yorker. Retrieved from Academic

Search Complete database.

Araton, H. (2009, April 26). Red Sox preserving Fenway’s winning appeal. The New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/sports/baseball/26araton.html

Barbarisi, D. (2009, May 5). New Yankee Stadium will be history in the making. Providence

Journal-Bulletin. Retrieved from Academic Universe database.

Benjamin, A. (2007, November 20). Lowell staying put. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://

www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/11/20/lowell_staying_put/

Berger, A. (2008, April 5). Barbarism in the Bronx. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/

bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/04/05/barbarism_in_the_bronx/

Bird, S. E., & Dardenne, R. W. (1988). Myth, chronicle, and story: Exploring the narrative

qualities of news. In J. W. Carey (Ed.), Media, myths, and narratives: Television and the press

(pp. 67–86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blum, R. (2008, September 22). Baseball bids adieu to Yankee Stadium. Democrat and Chronicle,

p. D1.

Bodley, H. (2003, October 9). Losing simply not an option for Yankees. USA Today. Retrieved from

Academic Search Complete database.

Bodley, H. (2004, October 21). Sport’s ultimate rivalry. USA Today. Retrieved from Academic


Bondy, F. (2009, May 19). Pinstriped pie in face of bomber tradition sure is fun. Daily News.

Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

Borden, S. (2008, December 26). Money doesn’t always equal championships. Poughkeepsie Journal,

pp. 1F, 3F.

Browne, I. (2007, October 17). Francona thinking big picture. Retrieved from http://mlb.mlb.com/

news/article.jsp?ymd=20071017&content_id=2270248&vkey=news_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos

&partnered=rss_bos

Browne, I. (2009, February 18). Lucchino, Henry in favor of salary cap. Retrieved from http://

mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090218&content_id=3843924&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.

jsp&c_id=mlb

Buckley, S. (2009, May 5). New stadium gets mixed reviews: A love-hate relationship. The Boston

Herald. Retrieved from Academic Universe database.

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Butterworth, M. L. (2007). Race in ‘‘the race’’: Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and heroic construc-

tions of whiteness. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 228–244. doi: 10.1080=07393180701520926

Butterworth, M. L. (2008). Purifying the body politic: Steroids, Rafael Palmeiro, and the rhetorical

cleansing of Major League Baseball. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 145–161.

doi: 10.1080=10570310802038713Chass, M. (2000, October 28). Yanks know how to get the job done. The New York Times. Retrieved

from LexisNexis Academic database.


Cloud, D. (1996). Hegemony or concordance? The rhetoric of tokenism in ‘‘Oprah’’ Winfrey’s

rags-to-riches biography. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 13, 115–137. doi: 10.1080=15295039609366967

Crable, Bryan. (2000). Burke’s perspective on perspectives: Grounding dramatism in the represen-

tative anecdote. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 318–333. doi: 10.1080=00335630009384299Dalla, S. (2007, December 6). McCain seeks support of Red Sox Nation. Retrieved from http://

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/06/mccain-seeks-support-of-red-sox-nation/

Dodd, M. (2009, April 6). Baseball’s new palaces: Yankee Stadium and Mets’ Citi Field. USA Today.

Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2009-04-02-baseball-palaces_N.htm

Elias, R. (2001). A fit for a fractured society: Baseball and the American promise. In R. Elias (Ed.),

Baseball and the American dream (pp. 3–33). New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Fisher, W. R. (1973). Reaffirmation and subversion of the American Dream. Quarterly Journal of

Speech, 59, 160–167. doi: 10.1080=00335637309383164‘‘Forces of good (Red Sox) prevail.’’ (2004, October 26). USA Today. Retrieved from Academic


Garber, G. (2002, July 9). The fleeting (and haunting) art of the sports dynasty. Retrieved from http://

a.espncdn.com/gen/s/2002/0709/1403646.html

Goessling, B. (2008, July 14). Waving goodbye; Fathers, sons pay their final respects to Yankee

Stadium. The Washington Times. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

Goldstein, R. (2010, July 13). George Steinbrenner, who built Yankees into powerhouse, dies at

80. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/sports/baseball/

14steinbrenner.html

Gormley, M. (2008, September 16). New York lawmaker: Yankee subsidies hit taxpayers, fans. USA

Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-09-16-3141026797_x.htm

Gregory, S. (2010, November 2). Giants win World Series: Year of the pitcher ends with a fitting

duel. Time News Feed. Retrieved from http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/11/02/giants-win-

world-series-year-of-the-pitcher-ends-with-a-fitting-duel/

‘‘Henry: Salary cap would garner support.’’ (2009, February 18). Retrieved from http://sports.espn.

go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3916048

Hoch, B. (2008, July 4). Yanks’ quiet loss spurs loud meeting. Retrieved from http://mlb.com/news/

gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20080703&content_id=3059367&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Hochschild, J. L. (1995). Facing up to the American dream: Race, class, and the soul of the nation.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kepner, T. (2004, February 8). Red Sox trying to picture the parade. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/sports/baseball-red-sox-trying-to-picture-the-

parade.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print

Kepner, T. (2008a, March 30). Deep inside the big ballyard in the Bronx. The New York Times.


Kepner, T. (2008b, March 31). It’s still ‘‘win,’’ but not ‘‘win now or else’’. The New York Times.


Kepner, T. (2008c, May 15). Cashman under fire as Yankees struggle. The New York Times.


Kepner, T., & Curry, J. (2008, July 10). Needing pitching, Yankees opt to keep young talent. The

New York Times. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database.

Lupica, M. (2008, March 23). Yanks: In A-Rod we trust. Daily News. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis

Academic database.

Madden, B. (2009, January 11). Tale of 2 stoves as Yankees break bank, Bosox hit bargain bin. Daily

News. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database.

Mahan-Hays, S. E., & Aden, R. C. (2003). Kenneth Burke’s ‘‘attitude’’ at the crossroads of rhetorical

and cultural studies: A proposal and case study illustration.Western Journal of Communication,

67, 32–55. doi: 10.1080=10570310309374757

462 L. G. Perks

Nocera, J., & Useem, J. (2004, November 15). How the curse was really reversed. Fortune. Retrieved

from Academic Search Complete database.

Olney, B. (2004). The last night of the Yankee dynasty: The game, the team, and the cost of greatness.

New York: HarperCollins.

Overman, S. J. (1997). The influence of the Protestant ethic on sport and recreation. Brookfield, VT:

Ashgate.

Pedulla, T. (2007, October 9). Torre: Job talk was no help to Yankees. USA Today. Retrieved from

Academic Search Complete database.

Prestien, S. G. (2001). Past [im]perfect: Mythology, nostalgia, and baseball. In R. Elias (Ed.),

Baseball and the American dream (pp. 158–169). New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Puma, M. (2002, June 9). King George rules the Bronx. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/

espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=Steinbrenner_George

Rieber, A. (2009, May 4). Note to fans: Just sit back and enjoy it. Newsday. Retrieved from Academic

Universe database.

Romano, J. (2004, October 27). The Beantown idiots are running the asylum—Well. St. Petersburg

Times. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

Sandler, J. (2009, April 4). They are the Yankees, with brains; The Red Sox have both money and

sense. National Post. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.

Sandomir, R. (2008, November 13). Red Sox will not raise ticket prices. The New York Times.


Schwartz, A. (2006, March 21). Yankee stadium parkland swap. Gotham Gazette. Retrieved from

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/parks/20060321/14/1795

Sheinin, D. (2010, November 2). Are the world champion San Francisco Giants a lesson for the rest

of baseball?. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/

content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110206508.html

Simmons, B. (2005). Now I can die in peace. New York: ESPN Books.

Smith, G. D. Jr. (2009). Love as redemption: The American dream myth and the celebrity biopic.

Journal of Communication Inquiry, 33, 222–238. doi: 10.1177=0196859909333696Symonds, W. C. (2004, October 14). Boston’s real curse: The Yankees’ cash. Business Week Online.

Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf20041014_4955_

db035.htm

Tell, D. (2004). Burke’s encounter with Ransom: Rhetoric and epistemology in ‘‘Four Master

Tropes’’. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 34, 33–54. doi:10.1080=02773940409391294‘‘Top media outlets’’. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.burrellesluce.com/top100/2009_Top_

100List.pdf

Trujillo, N. (1991). Hegemonic masculinity on the mound: Media representations of Nolan Ryan

and American sports culture. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 290–308. doi:

10.1080=15295039109366799Trujillo, N., & Ekdom, L. R. (1985). Sportswriting and American cultural values: The 1984 Chicago

Cubs. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 262–282. doi: 10.1080=15295038509360085USA Today Salaries Database. (2010). Retrieved from http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/

salaries/default.aspx

Vecsey, G. (2008, April 13). Still charming, but more costly, after all these years. The New York

Times. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Verducci, T. (2004, December 6). Sportsmen of the year. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from Academic


Von Burg, R., & Johnson, P. E. (2009). Yearning for a past that never was: Baseball, steroids, and

the anxiety of the American dream. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26, 351–371.

doi: 10.1080=15295030903176641White, P. (2007, August 23). Red Sox Nation new king of the road. USA Today. Retrieved from

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/redsox/2007-08-22-Roadattendance_N.htm


‘‘Who else? Red Sox and their fans make Sportsman of the Year choice an easy one’’. (2004,

November 28). Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/

magazine/specials/sportsman/2004/11/27/wertheim/index.html

‘‘Yankees’ Steinbrenner dies at 80’’. (2010, July 13). Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/

new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5375561

‘‘You can’t have too much pitching (just ask George)’’. (2003, March 31). Sports Illustrated.

Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/9911/index.htm

Zirin, D. (2010, October 27). Giants vs. Rangers: A World Series beyond blue and red. The Notion:

The Nation’s Group Blog. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/blog/155597/giants-vs-

rangers-world-series-beyond-blue-and-red

464 L. G. Perks

Copyright of Communication Quarterly is the property of Eastern Communication Association and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

sox and stripes: baseball's ironic american dreams

Documents