It seems that the Brett Favre story I blogged on earlier in the week is evolving into a war of words featuring Jay Glazer, the FoxSports.com reporter who first broke the story.
In an interview with USA Today's Michael McCarthy, Glazer is still ticked about ESPN's handling of the story, as was revealed by ProFootballTalk.com, who still aren't satisfied with ESPN's coverage of Favre.
Glazer went so far as to say that he viewed that ESPN internal memo as a personal attack. His goal now is to make ESPN "miserable". Here's what he suggests:
"It's disappointing. What we should do as a result is start keeping score. If they want to talk about credibility, let's keep score, starting from Week One of last year, and see who broke what, who was right and who was wrong. I don't think they'd want that."
Sounds like a journalistic slobber-knocker, eh?
McCarthy later referred to a piece in yesterday's issue of SportsBusiness Daily (I'd link to it, but you need to shell out a load of money to subscribe. I figure y'all could save some dough). Writer John Ourand interviewed ESPN's director of news, Vince Doria. He thought that Glazer's story was an attack on Favre's character, and that is why ESPN waited to independently confirm it.
"This was never about ESPN saying the story was wrong. Jay Glazer is a fine reporter," Doria said.
We all know that we live in a journalistic world where the scoop is king. Reporters take pride in breaking stories, to be sure. Is there a conflict of interest when a reporter's pride/ego is hurt? Does it affect his reporting? Could his priorities shift from reporting for public good to reporting out of vengeance? If so, how will it affect his credibility?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment