The semester is over, but da blog rolls on! Frankly, this story to me was too big NOT to blog on.
Anybody who follows sports knows that the NFL's Detroit Lions are on the verge of history. Bad history. They lost Sunday to the New Orleans Saints 42-7 to fall to 0-15 with one game to play in the season. No NFL team has finished a season winless since it was expanded to 16 games in 1978. To add insult to injury, a pesky flu bug has passed through the team. (Sick of losing?)
After Sunday's game, Lions head coach Rod Marinelli held his post-game press conference. Columnist Rob Parker of The Detroit News was there. Parker has asked Marinelli throughout the season about his defensive coordinator, Joe Barry, who is also Marinelli's son-in-law.
This question, however, was markedly different.
Parker asked, "On a light note, do you wish your daughter would have married a better defensive coordinator?"
Marinelli ignored the question in the moment, but the sense of a personal attack has been a talking point throughout the sports media. I was listening to the Dan Patrick radio show when Adam Schefter of the NFL Network made an appearance and blasted Parker for becoming the story rather than reporting it.
Parker published an apology in his column Monday, saying that his relationship with Marinelli is "different". He also added the following:
"What might have seemed like a personal attack wasn't...Who knows, Marinelli, a straight shooter who never goes off script, might actually have given us a funny quote. He didn't. My attempt failed. And because of that, my attempt at humor may have seemed slighted, cruel, and even insensitive. For that, I apologize."
Parker also appeared on ESPN's "First Take", a morning show which he frequently contributes to, to explain his position. (Click the video)
Marinelli finally broke his silence Monday, saying Parker crossed the line "big time", saying that going after his daughter was out of bounds.
"I just think anytime you attack my daughter, I got a problem with that -- in a room of stink, and as a man, and it was premeditated," Marinelli said. "I think there's something wrong with that, yeah."
When asked if he had read Parker's apology, Marinelli responded: "I didn't read it, I was just told a little bit about it, and I don't accept anything."
Marinelli also told the media that any attempt to stir him up, as he believes Parker intended to do, is futile: "I can shoulder anything you bring -- easy. I can shoulder anything you bring."
In our class, among others, we talked frequently about the relationships between journalists and those they cover. Did Parker assume too much about his relationship with Marinelli? Is Parker's question be out of line, no matter how close he and Marinelli would be?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Citizen Journalism and the Mumbai Attacks: "We're All Journalists Now"
Many around the world are referring to the tragedy in Mumbai as "India's 9/11". The blood, horror, and carnage spread by the terrorists does frighten us now, just as it did seven years ago.
In a sense, modern technology made this act of terrorism even more frightening. Because of Twitter, Flickr and other services, people around the world were thrust into first-hand accounts of what was going on, while the big media outlets tried feverishly to keep pace.
Imagine what it would have been like if Twitter and Facebook had been around on the REAL 9/11. People in the towers or on the planes would have been able to let us all know what was really going on.
The question is: Is this necessarily a good thing for journalism?
Robert Creamer, a political organizer and strategist, is a contributor for The Huffington Post. He blogged about two colleagues of his who texted them from Mumbai. As he pondered the significance of this event and its coverage, he identified two key points:
"First, experiencing terrorism -- attacks on innocent civilians -- from the stand point of the victims themselves really drives home in no uncertain terms that it is completely morally repugnant.
"Second, our experience Thursday demonstrated once again how dramatically technology has forced us all into the same neighborhood."
But is this a neighborhood in which we really want to be? Does it do us any good to see raw pictures of dead and bloodied bodies in the streets? Will reading about cold-blooded murder from those who see it firsthand draw people to the news, or push them away?
Even more pressing of a question: Will it inspire future attacks?
Mira Veda, an Indian recording artist, posted her comments on The Huffington Post as well, saying that more coverage of the Mumbai terror will lead to more attacks.
"The ruthless terrorist attacks aimed at high profile luxury establishments in Mumbai were specifically orchestrated towards Britons and Americans to get premium media coverage."
"The tactical and strategic gain for the perpetrators creates an ominous future of fear for us but seems to produce favorable results for them. Every news channel, print media and virtual medium is bombarded with the same message: Fear. Mission successful."
That fear seems to expand with the fact that the terrorists were using modern technology to their advantage. The Courier-Mail out of Queensland, Australia is reporting that the terrorists used BlackBerrys in order to track the news feeds and international reaction of the goings-on.
It is rumored that Indian authorities even asked those on Twitter to stop reporting on the anti-terror operations, so as not to aid the terrorists.
Amy Gahran, a writer on Poynter.org, is exploring the rumor on her blog. In the meantime, she wrote a column on Poynter regarding "Responsible Tweeting". She seeks to educate Twitter users in the finer points of journalism. Essentially she is saying that this request, true or not, is a milestone for citizen journalism.
Again, I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. What I see on the nightly news or the cable networks is at least edited and somewhat censored (or at least warned about) so I can avoid the graphic nature if I choose to. Being thrust into the scene via Twitter and such puts me in an uncomfortable spot as a news viewer.
Perhaps the most poignant piece on this issue comes from Forbes magazine. They called the Mumbai attacks "Twitter's Moment", thrusting it into the mainstream of journalism. Referring to the rumored self-censorship, Forbes declares:
"If it's true, it's a breakthrough. It's the sort of challenge journalists covering combat have long grappled with: What information should you share? Who decides what you can write? To what end?"
These are questions we have grappled with in our class, and likely still will. To paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper, just as we think we have the answers, citizen journalism changes the questions.
The Forbes article (and thus, this blog post) comes to a conclusion we have also come to in our class, and that I have admitted personally from the beginning.
"We're all journalists now. Let's just hope none of us wind up being combat reporters, as so many in Mumbai did this week."
In a sense, modern technology made this act of terrorism even more frightening. Because of Twitter, Flickr and other services, people around the world were thrust into first-hand accounts of what was going on, while the big media outlets tried feverishly to keep pace.
Imagine what it would have been like if Twitter and Facebook had been around on the REAL 9/11. People in the towers or on the planes would have been able to let us all know what was really going on.
The question is: Is this necessarily a good thing for journalism?
Robert Creamer, a political organizer and strategist, is a contributor for The Huffington Post. He blogged about two colleagues of his who texted them from Mumbai. As he pondered the significance of this event and its coverage, he identified two key points:
"First, experiencing terrorism -- attacks on innocent civilians -- from the stand point of the victims themselves really drives home in no uncertain terms that it is completely morally repugnant.
"Second, our experience Thursday demonstrated once again how dramatically technology has forced us all into the same neighborhood."
But is this a neighborhood in which we really want to be? Does it do us any good to see raw pictures of dead and bloodied bodies in the streets? Will reading about cold-blooded murder from those who see it firsthand draw people to the news, or push them away?
Even more pressing of a question: Will it inspire future attacks?
Mira Veda, an Indian recording artist, posted her comments on The Huffington Post as well, saying that more coverage of the Mumbai terror will lead to more attacks.
"The ruthless terrorist attacks aimed at high profile luxury establishments in Mumbai were specifically orchestrated towards Britons and Americans to get premium media coverage."
"The tactical and strategic gain for the perpetrators creates an ominous future of fear for us but seems to produce favorable results for them. Every news channel, print media and virtual medium is bombarded with the same message: Fear. Mission successful."
That fear seems to expand with the fact that the terrorists were using modern technology to their advantage. The Courier-Mail out of Queensland, Australia is reporting that the terrorists used BlackBerrys in order to track the news feeds and international reaction of the goings-on.
It is rumored that Indian authorities even asked those on Twitter to stop reporting on the anti-terror operations, so as not to aid the terrorists.
Amy Gahran, a writer on Poynter.org, is exploring the rumor on her blog. In the meantime, she wrote a column on Poynter regarding "Responsible Tweeting". She seeks to educate Twitter users in the finer points of journalism. Essentially she is saying that this request, true or not, is a milestone for citizen journalism.
Again, I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. What I see on the nightly news or the cable networks is at least edited and somewhat censored (or at least warned about) so I can avoid the graphic nature if I choose to. Being thrust into the scene via Twitter and such puts me in an uncomfortable spot as a news viewer.
Perhaps the most poignant piece on this issue comes from Forbes magazine. They called the Mumbai attacks "Twitter's Moment", thrusting it into the mainstream of journalism. Referring to the rumored self-censorship, Forbes declares:
"If it's true, it's a breakthrough. It's the sort of challenge journalists covering combat have long grappled with: What information should you share? Who decides what you can write? To what end?"
These are questions we have grappled with in our class, and likely still will. To paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper, just as we think we have the answers, citizen journalism changes the questions.
The Forbes article (and thus, this blog post) comes to a conclusion we have also come to in our class, and that I have admitted personally from the beginning.
"We're all journalists now. Let's just hope none of us wind up being combat reporters, as so many in Mumbai did this week."
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
ESPN: Kickin' It Old School
So, remember my blog post about ESPN not reporting the alleged Brett Favre info-sharing story? If not, continue to scroll down. The last thing I wrote in that article was my anticipation of what ESPN's ombudsman, LeAnne Schreiber, would have to say about the whole thing.
Well, Schreiber has spoken.
In her latest column published this week, Schreiber praised ESPN for excersing "old-school journalistic ethics" with regards to the Favre story.
Still, though, the perception that the network was favoring or protecting Favre is hard to overcome. Schreiber asked ESPN's news director Vince Doria his reasoning for delaying the Favre coverage.
"When a story involves criminal allegations or issues that impugn character, and when there is no track record of similar behavior by the individual targeted by the story, we don't report it without further confirmation on our part," Doria said. "We felt this story called Favre's character into question, and we couldn't confirm it."
So, Schreiber's final verdict is summed up thus:
"ESPN had a genuine old school moment. If ESPN had them more often, it would have a better chance of winning the perception game."
So, do you agree? Does true journalism include holding off on reporting character-damaging allegations towards those with seemingly good character? What about the John Edwards story as a precedent?
Well, Schreiber has spoken.
In her latest column published this week, Schreiber praised ESPN for excersing "old-school journalistic ethics" with regards to the Favre story.
Still, though, the perception that the network was favoring or protecting Favre is hard to overcome. Schreiber asked ESPN's news director Vince Doria his reasoning for delaying the Favre coverage.
"When a story involves criminal allegations or issues that impugn character, and when there is no track record of similar behavior by the individual targeted by the story, we don't report it without further confirmation on our part," Doria said. "We felt this story called Favre's character into question, and we couldn't confirm it."
So, Schreiber's final verdict is summed up thus:
"ESPN had a genuine old school moment. If ESPN had them more often, it would have a better chance of winning the perception game."
So, do you agree? Does true journalism include holding off on reporting character-damaging allegations towards those with seemingly good character? What about the John Edwards story as a precedent?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
World Series: Tainted by Television?
As all us baseball fans know, the World Series is currently in a state of stormy limbo.
Game 5 between the Philadelphia Phillies and Tampa Bay Rays began Monday night in Philadelphia, and is still not over. It was suspended in the middle of the 6th inning due to a nasty winter rain, which has continued today, even turning into snow in some parts of Philly. The game is scheduled to resume Wednesday night.
This comes on the heels of Saturday's Game 3 delayed by 91 minutes for rain and not beginning until nearly 10 PM Eastern time.
The decision to suspend the game ultimately was in the hands of Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. There is mixed reaction not only to his decision, but a number of factors that some say tied Selig's hands.
One main culprit being pointed out is the game's late start (8 PM Eastern). The weather was pleasant during the day on Monday, and the forecasts leading up to the game suggested it would be so up until the evening. So, why not just switch the game to the afternoon?
The media, particularly the Fox Network, that's why.
Phil Sheridan of the Philadelphia Inquirer boldly wrote today that the game was a "farce" and should have been stopped when the rain first began in the 3rd or 4th inning. He emphasized the point that in a regular-season game, the stoppage would have come quickly, or the game would have been moved. But, since Fox insists on scheduling games to start in prime-time, there was nothing that could be done.
"In October, the game went on," Sheridan said. "And Major League Baseball should be ashamed for allowing its most important game of the year to deteriorate into an embarrassing mess because of slavish obedience to its pimp, the Fox Television Network."
Oh, snap!
Gary Shelton of the St. Petersburg Times, hometown paper of the Rays, also expressed his displeasure (albeit less brash), saying this:
"Doesn't Major League Baseball think more of its sport than that? After a while, isn't someone concerned about the players' safety? Is the love of ad revenues so great? (Check that. It's a silly question.)"
Well, of course, the newspapers of both teams are going to be upset with MLB and Fox, but no one from Fox itself is going to have the fortitude to call them out on it, right?
Wrong.
FoxSports.com's Senior Baseball Writer, Ken Rosenthal, called out his own bosses. Here are a few of his gems:
"I can't believe I'm writing this, but Major League Baseball needs a reminder and maybe even a kick to the head."
"World Series games should not start anywhere near 10 p.m. ET."
"Yes, I work for FOX, but someone please tell me: How exactly was the late start good for the game?" (Referring to Game 3)
So, what do you think?
*Does the media have too much power in sports?
*What reaction will Fox have to Rosenthal's loyalty to the citizen over his own employers?
*Does this impact Fox's journalistic credibility? Do they want any?
Game 5 between the Philadelphia Phillies and Tampa Bay Rays began Monday night in Philadelphia, and is still not over. It was suspended in the middle of the 6th inning due to a nasty winter rain, which has continued today, even turning into snow in some parts of Philly. The game is scheduled to resume Wednesday night.
This comes on the heels of Saturday's Game 3 delayed by 91 minutes for rain and not beginning until nearly 10 PM Eastern time.
The decision to suspend the game ultimately was in the hands of Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. There is mixed reaction not only to his decision, but a number of factors that some say tied Selig's hands.
One main culprit being pointed out is the game's late start (8 PM Eastern). The weather was pleasant during the day on Monday, and the forecasts leading up to the game suggested it would be so up until the evening. So, why not just switch the game to the afternoon?
The media, particularly the Fox Network, that's why.
Phil Sheridan of the Philadelphia Inquirer boldly wrote today that the game was a "farce" and should have been stopped when the rain first began in the 3rd or 4th inning. He emphasized the point that in a regular-season game, the stoppage would have come quickly, or the game would have been moved. But, since Fox insists on scheduling games to start in prime-time, there was nothing that could be done.
"In October, the game went on," Sheridan said. "And Major League Baseball should be ashamed for allowing its most important game of the year to deteriorate into an embarrassing mess because of slavish obedience to its pimp, the Fox Television Network."
Oh, snap!
Gary Shelton of the St. Petersburg Times, hometown paper of the Rays, also expressed his displeasure (albeit less brash), saying this:
"Doesn't Major League Baseball think more of its sport than that? After a while, isn't someone concerned about the players' safety? Is the love of ad revenues so great? (Check that. It's a silly question.)"
Well, of course, the newspapers of both teams are going to be upset with MLB and Fox, but no one from Fox itself is going to have the fortitude to call them out on it, right?
Wrong.
FoxSports.com's Senior Baseball Writer, Ken Rosenthal, called out his own bosses. Here are a few of his gems:
"I can't believe I'm writing this, but Major League Baseball needs a reminder and maybe even a kick to the head."
"World Series games should not start anywhere near 10 p.m. ET."
"Yes, I work for FOX, but someone please tell me: How exactly was the late start good for the game?" (Referring to Game 3)
So, what do you think?
*Does the media have too much power in sports?
*What reaction will Fox have to Rosenthal's loyalty to the citizen over his own employers?
*Does this impact Fox's journalistic credibility? Do they want any?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Trash-Talking Reporters?
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?
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?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
ESPN Sends, Then Retracts DO NOT REPORT Memo for Favre Bombshell
If everyone else is reporting on a story, does that mean you ought to report on it, too? You'd think so, but an interesting case is developing within the Worldwide Leader in Sports.
It all began this past Sunday when Jay Glazer of FoxSports.com reported that legendary quarterback Brett Favre, now with the New York Jets, had contacted the Detroit Lions before their game with Favre's old team, the Green Bay Packers, on September 14.
Favre is alleged to have given the Lions inside information on how to stop the Packers. It didn't really matter, since the Packers still won 48-25.
Favre has denied the report, texting Sports Illustrated's Peter King, saying it was "total BS". Lions coach Rod Marinelli has officially not commented on the situation. Those who have commented on it include every major sports outlet nationwide.
Except ESPN.
It would seem odd that the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in Sports" wouldn't jump all over this story. It was odd enough that Mike Florio openly questioned ESPN on his blog at profootballtalk.com. Just hours after that initial posting, Florio received an internal ESPN memo from an anonymous source.
Under the heading **DO NOT REPORT**, the memo said the following:
“Yesterday, FoxSports reported that Brett Favre spent 60 to 90 minutes before the Week Two game between the Lions and the Packers educating the Detroit coaching staff regarding the Packers’ offensive strategies. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY RELIABLE SOURCES THIS REPORT IS NOT TRUE. We did NOT report it yesterday.
"Today, the NFL responded to the report, saying even if Favre did this he did not break any league rules. We are NOT reporting it today, because that would mean airing the erroneous report. DO NOT REPORT IT.” (Emphasis included in original)
Florio went on to denounce this explanation, saying that, if anything, ESPN should have made itself look good compared to a competitor by reporting the inaccuracy of the story.
And then came today, in which Favre met with the media for his weekly press conference.
Favre told reporters that he was called by his friend and former Lions president Matt Millen for an invitation to go hunting. Besides general talk about football nothing else was discussed.
"I didn't give him any game-planning," Favre said. "I haven't been in that offense in over a year. I don't know what else to tell you. It was pretty simple."
Now that Favre has talked, ESPN has lifted its ban on the story.
Why the sudden change? Florio received another internal communication from ESPN today saying that the story was "hot". Florio remains skeptical about ESPN, stating that if they still believe it's false, why did they wait to report it.
So, in relation to our class, some interesting questions are raised:
*Does ESPN's prominence in the sporting world obligate them to report on a story such as this? Do they owe that to their viewers?
*Was ESPN taking the moral high road by not reporting the story?
*Shouldn't ESPN be lauded for waiting to verify the story through their own sources? Why is Florio so skeptical?
When ESPN's ombudsman writes on this, it will be interesting to see what happens.
It all began this past Sunday when Jay Glazer of FoxSports.com reported that legendary quarterback Brett Favre, now with the New York Jets, had contacted the Detroit Lions before their game with Favre's old team, the Green Bay Packers, on September 14.
Favre is alleged to have given the Lions inside information on how to stop the Packers. It didn't really matter, since the Packers still won 48-25.
Favre has denied the report, texting Sports Illustrated's Peter King, saying it was "total BS". Lions coach Rod Marinelli has officially not commented on the situation. Those who have commented on it include every major sports outlet nationwide.
Except ESPN.
It would seem odd that the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in Sports" wouldn't jump all over this story. It was odd enough that Mike Florio openly questioned ESPN on his blog at profootballtalk.com. Just hours after that initial posting, Florio received an internal ESPN memo from an anonymous source.
Under the heading **DO NOT REPORT**, the memo said the following:
“Yesterday, FoxSports reported that Brett Favre spent 60 to 90 minutes before the Week Two game between the Lions and the Packers educating the Detroit coaching staff regarding the Packers’ offensive strategies. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY RELIABLE SOURCES THIS REPORT IS NOT TRUE. We did NOT report it yesterday.
"Today, the NFL responded to the report, saying even if Favre did this he did not break any league rules. We are NOT reporting it today, because that would mean airing the erroneous report. DO NOT REPORT IT.” (Emphasis included in original)
Florio went on to denounce this explanation, saying that, if anything, ESPN should have made itself look good compared to a competitor by reporting the inaccuracy of the story.
And then came today, in which Favre met with the media for his weekly press conference.
Favre told reporters that he was called by his friend and former Lions president Matt Millen for an invitation to go hunting. Besides general talk about football nothing else was discussed.
"I didn't give him any game-planning," Favre said. "I haven't been in that offense in over a year. I don't know what else to tell you. It was pretty simple."
Now that Favre has talked, ESPN has lifted its ban on the story.
Why the sudden change? Florio received another internal communication from ESPN today saying that the story was "hot". Florio remains skeptical about ESPN, stating that if they still believe it's false, why did they wait to report it.
So, in relation to our class, some interesting questions are raised:
*Does ESPN's prominence in the sporting world obligate them to report on a story such as this? Do they owe that to their viewers?
*Was ESPN taking the moral high road by not reporting the story?
*Shouldn't ESPN be lauded for waiting to verify the story through their own sources? Why is Florio so skeptical?
When ESPN's ombudsman writes on this, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Vince Young Has His Say
So, remember my last blog post about ESPN's ombudsman talking about how the media treated Vince Young? You should, since it's just below this post...
Anyway, Young had his own say today after his Tennessee Titans had practice. The interview was conducted by MSNBC's Tom E. Curran, and appears on the MSNBC page, as well as a summary on ESPN's.
In essence, Young seems miffed at the media, as this quote seems to suggest:
“I feel like they’re writing my legacy,” Young said. “They’re writing my story. I’m a great guy, a great humble guy. I’ve done a whole lot in my career in just three years and for [the media] to do stuff like that to try to make me look bad for some reason — I don’t know why — but they’re just writing my legacy.”
When asked specifically about his supposed mental instability, Young had this to say:
“I don’t want to talk about that. That’s something else the media made people think like that. I know who I am, everyone knows who I am as a person. They know good and well, I ain’t trying to commit suicide or all that kind of crap.
"It was just a story everybody wanted to write. It was hot and everybody need [sic] to make their money, feed their viewers. I always get the bad end but I just brush that off and use that as motivation for myself.” (Emphasis added)
So, does Young make a fair point? Did the media sensationalize his condition to get more viewers, or were they simply reporting what they felt to be true? Will this affect his legacy, as he seems to suggest?
Anyway, Young had his own say today after his Tennessee Titans had practice. The interview was conducted by MSNBC's Tom E. Curran, and appears on the MSNBC page, as well as a summary on ESPN's.
In essence, Young seems miffed at the media, as this quote seems to suggest:
“I feel like they’re writing my legacy,” Young said. “They’re writing my story. I’m a great guy, a great humble guy. I’ve done a whole lot in my career in just three years and for [the media] to do stuff like that to try to make me look bad for some reason — I don’t know why — but they’re just writing my legacy.”
When asked specifically about his supposed mental instability, Young had this to say:
“I don’t want to talk about that. That’s something else the media made people think like that. I know who I am, everyone knows who I am as a person. They know good and well, I ain’t trying to commit suicide or all that kind of crap.
"It was just a story everybody wanted to write. It was hot and everybody need [sic] to make their money, feed their viewers. I always get the bad end but I just brush that off and use that as motivation for myself.” (Emphasis added)
So, does Young make a fair point? Did the media sensationalize his condition to get more viewers, or were they simply reporting what they felt to be true? Will this affect his legacy, as he seems to suggest?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Examining privacy in a see-all, tell-all media environment (with Football!)
As you've probably figured out by now, I love sports. Sportsy-sports-sports.
Anyway, one might think that the elements in journalism wouldn't apply as much in the sports world. Truth is what happens on the field or the court. A sportswriter needs only to convey what went on at the game, along with some post-game interviews mixed in, right?
Well, just as news has become a 24-hour a day medium, sports has done the same, and more space needs to be filled on the tube and the web. As such, sports news has had to change and become a more sound form of journalism. Recently, sports networks and their websites have even hired ombudsmen to critique the journalistic quality of their programming.
This post sparks from an article by ESPN's ombudsman, Le Anne Schreiber, formerly a sports editor for the New York Times. You can read it here.
The debate revolves around Vince Young, quarterback for the Tennessee Titans. He suffered an injury in this season's opening game on September 7. Happens all the time, right? Well, Young has had some on-the-field struggles during his brief pro career, and he has told the press that it has had a negative effect on him mentally, even to the point of considering retirement. This injury seemed to add to his mental strain.
On September 8, the day after Young's injury, he went to watch Monday Night Football at a friend's house. Trouble is, no one from the Titans knew that's where he was. Titans coach Jeff Fisher called Nashville police for help in finding where Young was, concerned about his state of mind. Young was later found to be no threat to himself or others.
Why would Fisher do this? ESPN obtained a copy of the police report the following Friday, September 12, which described that Young's therapist had coach Coach Fisher that Young had mentioned suicide and left the therapist's office with a gun. ESPN then published an article on their web site entitled "Fisher reached out to police because therapist said Young mentioned suicide". The story also was covered on various ESPN TV programs.
Schreiber writes, "There was a 36-hour period when viewers and readers, taking the story at face value, flooded my mailbox with serious questions about the journalistic ethics of publishing information from a therapist about a person's mental state."
The police report, as it turns out, happened to be very poorly worded. Coach Fisher later said in an interview with ESPN's Chris Mortensen that Young has no personal therapist, but visits with one that works for the team, Sheila Peters. He also said that Mike Mu, Young's local marketing manager, had called Peters on the Monday night in question and told her that Young had mentioned suicide.
So, even though it wasn't the therapist that released the information, it was still some serious privacy invasion by ESPN, right? Not so fast, says Schreiber. She explains that ESPN didn't break the story. The police report was first obtained legally by the local paper in Nashville, which then went on the AP wire. At that point, Schreiber says that ESPN "had an obligation to assess the information as best they could and present it responsibly to their audience."
Schreiber also describes how the executive editor of ESPN.com, Patrick Stiegman, did not want to rush the story, and warned his writers to not jump to conclusions. They needed to persist in corroborating the police report. Schreiber's final verdict was that "ESPN could not and should not have kept that information out of the news."
So, do you agree with Schreiber? Does any news organization have an obligation to publish a story that they obtained in such a way? Is this even really news?
Anyway, one might think that the elements in journalism wouldn't apply as much in the sports world. Truth is what happens on the field or the court. A sportswriter needs only to convey what went on at the game, along with some post-game interviews mixed in, right?
Well, just as news has become a 24-hour a day medium, sports has done the same, and more space needs to be filled on the tube and the web. As such, sports news has had to change and become a more sound form of journalism. Recently, sports networks and their websites have even hired ombudsmen to critique the journalistic quality of their programming.
This post sparks from an article by ESPN's ombudsman, Le Anne Schreiber, formerly a sports editor for the New York Times. You can read it here.
The debate revolves around Vince Young, quarterback for the Tennessee Titans. He suffered an injury in this season's opening game on September 7. Happens all the time, right? Well, Young has had some on-the-field struggles during his brief pro career, and he has told the press that it has had a negative effect on him mentally, even to the point of considering retirement. This injury seemed to add to his mental strain.
On September 8, the day after Young's injury, he went to watch Monday Night Football at a friend's house. Trouble is, no one from the Titans knew that's where he was. Titans coach Jeff Fisher called Nashville police for help in finding where Young was, concerned about his state of mind. Young was later found to be no threat to himself or others.
Why would Fisher do this? ESPN obtained a copy of the police report the following Friday, September 12, which described that Young's therapist had coach Coach Fisher that Young had mentioned suicide and left the therapist's office with a gun. ESPN then published an article on their web site entitled "Fisher reached out to police because therapist said Young mentioned suicide". The story also was covered on various ESPN TV programs.
Schreiber writes, "There was a 36-hour period when viewers and readers, taking the story at face value, flooded my mailbox with serious questions about the journalistic ethics of publishing information from a therapist about a person's mental state."
The police report, as it turns out, happened to be very poorly worded. Coach Fisher later said in an interview with ESPN's Chris Mortensen that Young has no personal therapist, but visits with one that works for the team, Sheila Peters. He also said that Mike Mu, Young's local marketing manager, had called Peters on the Monday night in question and told her that Young had mentioned suicide.
So, even though it wasn't the therapist that released the information, it was still some serious privacy invasion by ESPN, right? Not so fast, says Schreiber. She explains that ESPN didn't break the story. The police report was first obtained legally by the local paper in Nashville, which then went on the AP wire. At that point, Schreiber says that ESPN "had an obligation to assess the information as best they could and present it responsibly to their audience."
Schreiber also describes how the executive editor of ESPN.com, Patrick Stiegman, did not want to rush the story, and warned his writers to not jump to conclusions. They needed to persist in corroborating the police report. Schreiber's final verdict was that "ESPN could not and should not have kept that information out of the news."
So, do you agree with Schreiber? Does any news organization have an obligation to publish a story that they obtained in such a way? Is this even really news?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Tales from Sports Journalism with Dan Sheldon
Dan Sheldon joined Salt Lake City's KUTV Channel 2 in September 2005 as a sports reporter and anchor. He reports on weekdays, anchors the sports on weekend mornings, and co-anchors "Talkin’ Sports", a half-hour sports show on Sunday nights at 10:30. His KUTV profile website can be found here, and his blog here.
The reason Sheldon got into journalism is what he calls "the search for truth". In the world of sports, it would seem that truth is just what the box score tells you, but Sheldon says some digging is still required.
"Whether that's doing some digging to see if steroid use is a significant danger to local high school athletes or cutting through the spin to see if the Utes really have moved past what happened last year with Wyoming, all of it boils down to the search for truth," he said.
When it comes to his definition of "good" journalism, Sheldon says it's "aggressive, accurate storytelling that informs the viewer". KUTV, he says, does well with this, always striving to be "right" rather than "first". These views of journalism have remained constant since he began his college studies in journalism.
Even though his views remain the same, Sheldon recognizes that the profession is changing.
"Until we all figure out a way to best utilize the Internet (and monetize it properly), jobs are at risk," he said.
When it comes to citizen journalism, Sheldon feels that, in Sports, the passion of fans makes it difficult for a fair and balanced report.
"I think people know and appreciate the difference between, for instance, a sportswriter filing a report online and a fan blogging about his favorite team," he said. "I believe both have a place while serving different purposes."
For those aspiring journalists out there, Sheldon's simple advice is this: "You really have to want it."
"Once you get your foot in the door though, there's amazing thing that happens in that first job," he said. "If you work hard and are dependable, you'd be blown away by how far ahead you can get just by showing up and being consistent. It takes more than that as you move up the ranks, but those qualities will get well on your way."
The reason Sheldon got into journalism is what he calls "the search for truth". In the world of sports, it would seem that truth is just what the box score tells you, but Sheldon says some digging is still required.
"Whether that's doing some digging to see if steroid use is a significant danger to local high school athletes or cutting through the spin to see if the Utes really have moved past what happened last year with Wyoming, all of it boils down to the search for truth," he said.
When it comes to his definition of "good" journalism, Sheldon says it's "aggressive, accurate storytelling that informs the viewer". KUTV, he says, does well with this, always striving to be "right" rather than "first". These views of journalism have remained constant since he began his college studies in journalism.
Even though his views remain the same, Sheldon recognizes that the profession is changing.
"Until we all figure out a way to best utilize the Internet (and monetize it properly), jobs are at risk," he said.
When it comes to citizen journalism, Sheldon feels that, in Sports, the passion of fans makes it difficult for a fair and balanced report.
"I think people know and appreciate the difference between, for instance, a sportswriter filing a report online and a fan blogging about his favorite team," he said. "I believe both have a place while serving different purposes."
For those aspiring journalists out there, Sheldon's simple advice is this: "You really have to want it."
"Once you get your foot in the door though, there's amazing thing that happens in that first job," he said. "If you work hard and are dependable, you'd be blown away by how far ahead you can get just by showing up and being consistent. It takes more than that as you move up the ranks, but those qualities will get well on your way."
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Cost-Cutting Hits Close to Home?
In between sessions of General Conference today, I found a story on the web site for the Deseret Morning News that is fitting after our discussions about cost-cutting in journalism.
As you can read here: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700263712,00.html, a longtime Utah anchor has been pulled off the air. Randall Carlisle from KTVX Channel 4, Salt Lake City's ABC affiliate, will not be returning ot the air after 17 years in Utah.
Carlisle said he was not told specifically why his contract won't be renewed, but other clues suggest the reason why. KTVX was sold by Clear Channel this spring to Newport Television LLC. a Kansas City group. In mid-June, 15% of KTVX's workforce was laid off, and the programming schedule was changed in mid-August to eliminate the 4 PM newscast.
He holds no ill will towards KTVX, saying "It is what it is." He would like to remain in Salt Lake City, but can't find new work until his contract officially ends in December.
So, is Carlisle's dismissal part of a cost-cutting venture, or merely a coincidence? Given all we have discussed over the last week, in addition to watching "News War", it is something worth a ponder, to be sure.
As you can read here: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700263712,00.html, a longtime Utah anchor has been pulled off the air. Randall Carlisle from KTVX Channel 4, Salt Lake City's ABC affiliate, will not be returning ot the air after 17 years in Utah.
Carlisle said he was not told specifically why his contract won't be renewed, but other clues suggest the reason why. KTVX was sold by Clear Channel this spring to Newport Television LLC. a Kansas City group. In mid-June, 15% of KTVX's workforce was laid off, and the programming schedule was changed in mid-August to eliminate the 4 PM newscast.
He holds no ill will towards KTVX, saying "It is what it is." He would like to remain in Salt Lake City, but can't find new work until his contract officially ends in December.
So, is Carlisle's dismissal part of a cost-cutting venture, or merely a coincidence? Given all we have discussed over the last week, in addition to watching "News War", it is something worth a ponder, to be sure.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Things Overheard in a Taco Bell Drive-up Line
So, I had just gotten out of work this afternoon, and was waiting in the drive-up at Taco Bell. I flipped around the radio, and eventually landed on The Dan Patrick Show. For those of you who don't know, Dan Patrick was a major host of SportsCenter on ESPN for years and years before leaving them recently for his own show, loosely affiliated with Sports Illustrated.
Anyway, he was discussing something I think is very pertinent to our class. A link is found at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/8601/
The story is about an interview between Michael Phelps (yes, THAT Michael Phelps) and Dan Le Batard, a Miami Sports Radio Host whose goal is to make every interview memorable.
Basically, Le Batard asked Phelps about the coolest thing that's happened to him since the Olympics. Phelps, who was only there to promote the Kellogg's products his face now graces, side-stepped the question by talking about the Kellogg's-related charity he had just set up. Then the interesting stuff began...
Le Batard then said, “That was a nice move there, Michael, because you just segued right into what it is that you were selling there, when that can’t be the coolest thing to happen to you since the Olympics."
Phelps mentioned Kellogg's again and raising swimming awareness or something. In reference to a less-than-savory photo of Phelps in a nightclub, Le Batard then asked, “Do you go into the nightclub with these Kellogg’s products and just drop them on the floor with your face on them?”
Phelps decided enough was enough, and ended the interview, but not before accidentally not hanging up the phone right away and saying this about Le Batard: "That guy was an idiot, that was ridiculous."
Le Batard later called into The Dan Patrick Show to defend his method of journalism, which you can listen to by following the link.
So, this brings up a few interesting questions with regards to our class:
Was Le Batard fair to Michael Phelps?
Did he press that last point too hard?
Could Michael Phelps have gone off script and had some fun with it?
Does he have a responsibility to the media to answer their questions?
Has he developed a poor relationship with the media after this incident?
Anyway, he was discussing something I think is very pertinent to our class. A link is found at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/8601/
The story is about an interview between Michael Phelps (yes, THAT Michael Phelps) and Dan Le Batard, a Miami Sports Radio Host whose goal is to make every interview memorable.
Basically, Le Batard asked Phelps about the coolest thing that's happened to him since the Olympics. Phelps, who was only there to promote the Kellogg's products his face now graces, side-stepped the question by talking about the Kellogg's-related charity he had just set up. Then the interesting stuff began...
Le Batard then said, “That was a nice move there, Michael, because you just segued right into what it is that you were selling there, when that can’t be the coolest thing to happen to you since the Olympics."
Phelps mentioned Kellogg's again and raising swimming awareness or something. In reference to a less-than-savory photo of Phelps in a nightclub, Le Batard then asked, “Do you go into the nightclub with these Kellogg’s products and just drop them on the floor with your face on them?”
Phelps decided enough was enough, and ended the interview, but not before accidentally not hanging up the phone right away and saying this about Le Batard: "That guy was an idiot, that was ridiculous."
Le Batard later called into The Dan Patrick Show to defend his method of journalism, which you can listen to by following the link.
So, this brings up a few interesting questions with regards to our class:
Was Le Batard fair to Michael Phelps?
Did he press that last point too hard?
Could Michael Phelps have gone off script and had some fun with it?
Does he have a responsibility to the media to answer their questions?
Has he developed a poor relationship with the media after this incident?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
RIP Mary Garber
Touching tribute to a pioneer of sportswriting from North Carolina, Ms. Mary Garber in the Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/sports/23garber.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin
Since I want to be a sportswriter, I've been doing a lot of research into the lives and backgrounds of some of my journalistic idols: Buster Olney, Tim Kurkjian, etc. Many of them have a reverence for Garber, because she excelled in her field at a time when everyone was doing their best to exclude women from the sportswriting profession. Now, it seems that women reporting on sports have been popping up more and more. What an age we live in...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
An Odd Apology
As some of you may know, I am an aspiring sports journalist, for either print or broadcast (maybe both...tee hee). Anyway, I have been more sensitive lately to the things that sports journalists and broadcasters do and say. Probably has something to do with this class...
Anyway, I was watching the Monday Night Football game on ESPN (AFTER I went to FHE, for all of you who wish to question my motives...ha ha). It just hapened to coincide with the NFL's recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month. As such, they played the Spanish announcer's call of a play coming out of a commercial. That's where it got interesting...
Tony Kornheiser, the quasi-comic relief in the booth, said after the Spanish call, "I took high school Spanish, either he said he's not going to be caught, or please pick up my dry cleaning tomorrow." I thought it was funny, since I served a Spanish-speaking mission and I currently teach Spanish at the MTC, and know what it's like to have no idea what's going on.
Apparently, someone thought it was, in the words of the Commish, "funny faux pas, not funny ha-ha", because Kornheiser then issued this odd apology later in the game: "I said something before which I shouldn't have said, I apologize for it. Not my first mistake, undoubtedly won't be my last, but a 100% apology." Huh?
I suppose it's just Tony trying to be extra-cautious, since it isn't his first mistake: he's gotten into hot water with ESPN before over comments about their awards show, The ESPY's. Still, I think he had no need to apologize for this one. There was no malicious intent. Just shows the kind of world we live in, where everyone takes offense to everything.
Anyway, I was watching the Monday Night Football game on ESPN (AFTER I went to FHE, for all of you who wish to question my motives...ha ha). It just hapened to coincide with the NFL's recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month. As such, they played the Spanish announcer's call of a play coming out of a commercial. That's where it got interesting...
Tony Kornheiser, the quasi-comic relief in the booth, said after the Spanish call, "I took high school Spanish, either he said he's not going to be caught, or please pick up my dry cleaning tomorrow." I thought it was funny, since I served a Spanish-speaking mission and I currently teach Spanish at the MTC, and know what it's like to have no idea what's going on.
Apparently, someone thought it was, in the words of the Commish, "funny faux pas, not funny ha-ha", because Kornheiser then issued this odd apology later in the game: "I said something before which I shouldn't have said, I apologize for it. Not my first mistake, undoubtedly won't be my last, but a 100% apology." Huh?
I suppose it's just Tony trying to be extra-cautious, since it isn't his first mistake: he's gotten into hot water with ESPN before over comments about their awards show, The ESPY's. Still, I think he had no need to apologize for this one. There was no malicious intent. Just shows the kind of world we live in, where everyone takes offense to everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
