Wilson says he disliked the article about himself in this week's issue and even disputes the accuracy of the text by writer Franz Lidz, saying that he was made to "look like Charlie Sheen." Wilson, however, does not quibble with the unusual photo the magazine used as the main art for the story, even though it looks like something that Sheen might post on Twitpic these days.
So what parts of the article — which delved Wilson's "straight edge" lifestyle, unique personality and current rise to stardom — does he take issue with?
Wilson said some of the things that were inaccurate ranged from his father's profession as a fighter pilot ("It said he was an Air Force pilot, and he wasn't. I mean, I wish he was, that would be tight, that would have been awesome. But that wasn't the case.") to saying he gave up on hitting when he was 15 years old: "It only said I gave up on hitting when I was 15," Wilson said. "I didn't give up on hitting until the World Series when Matt Cain(notes) got me to ground out on a changeup."
"The [SI writer] spent a couple days with me, which is why it's surprising, but other than that, he just went on Wikipedia, looked up some stuff and just copy and pasted it," Wilson said. "There wasn't anything insightful [in the article], which is a bummer. It was a waste of time."
A Sports Illustrated spokesman says that Lidz and the magazine stand by the story and after reading the article (which can be found here), it's hard to understand why Wilson thinks it was a waste of time. I learned a few things about Wilson that I didn't know before — he once ordered a video of every lefty vs. lefty matchup in the bigs one season — and the portrait painted was an overwhelmingly positive one.
As for coming off looking "like Charlie Sheen" in the profile, the inference is Wilson's, not ours. Lidz portrayed Wilson as a man of many interests who used drive to reach the big leagues and, oh yeah, sometimes doesn't follow normal convention — but that's the exact same public image that Wilson has built for himself on Twitter.
Wilson, of course, is welcome to take up any inaccuracies with the magazine and he says he might devote a blog post of his own to the article. That's fine. Accuracy should be a goal of any journalistic outfit and maybe SI can take a closer look at his points and address them .
At the same time, Wilson should take another read of the piece and look past those few hangups. Perhaps it's hard for him to see the forest for the trees, but that's a decent piece that brought his story to a wider audience.