Nick Bromberg



Nick Bromberg

Ethics Paper

4/8/08

When we first set foot on campus as journalism students, the phrase “get it right” is pounded into our heads. However, in the incessant 24 hour sports news cycle, many times it looks like “get it right” is trumped by “get it first” even if that first report isn’t the most accurate.

Over the last twelve months, any number of sports stories can be pointed to in regards to error filled first reports. (Chris Mortenson’s Eli Manning report, Les Miles, Kelvin Sampson, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., the list goes on and on.) Yet, the reports are a dime a dozen, and thrown aside when the new one comes along.

Because there are so many hours to fill, often the latest reports become the news of the moment, and are dissected repeatedly amongst a bunch of platforms. A report about Les Miles’ whereabouts became so much of a story with conflicting reports, that Miles had to schedule a press conference just hours before the SEC Championship game to dispute reports that turned out to be wrong.

“On its GameDay college football show Saturday morning ESPN reported through "reliable sources" that it was a done deal and Miles would be the next Michigan coach. Later that afternoon, and just two hours before the kickoff of the SEC Championship in which his LSU team would play Tennessee, Miles took the unprecedented step of holding a news conference to quash the rumors. He chastised the media for reporting incorrect information and firmly stated that he would be the LSU coach next season. ESPN counter-attacked, saying that it had the story straight and Miles probably backed out of the deal when the story broke early. It turns out that even though Miles had permission to talk with Michigan he never actually did so.”[1]

Bill Mitchell, the director of Poynter Online, wrote an article with a set of guidelines regarding anonymous sources. All of them were relevant to sports journalists, but the third and final one stood out.

“If the only way to get an important story published is to rely on anonymous sources, do it. But do it in a way that recognizes reader skepticism and facilitates ongoing scrutiny of the anonymously-sourced material.” [2]

The amount of information presented in the Miles story would have been considerably less had it not been for anonymous sources. But at the same time, a fair amount of that information was wrong. Words like “report” are commonly used in stories like this, which does serve as sort of a quasi warning to readers to take the information with a grain of salt. However, during the process, the word report was thrown out the window, and everything was reported as absolute fact.

After the saga played out and Miles returned to Michigan, very little criticism was levied against the people breaking the reports. Kirk Herbstreit, who is only in sports media because he’s a former player and not a journalist, was put on the spot about his report, and did apologize for the bad facts. (Rumor has it that Herbstreit fell victim to a prank phone call)

I believe that Herbstreit was called out because he isn’t a “certified” journalist. Many media members claim to be watchdogs, but yet refuse to do the same thing for their own profession. Had Herbstreit gone to a journalism school and paid his dues, there would have been less of an inclination to pressure Herbstreit into apologizing.

And since journalists don’t want to admit that they are wrong, and don’t want to force their compatriots to admit that they made an error, the lack of corrections in regards to the reports is appalling.

But while journalists have fallen behind in regards to watching each others’ responsibility, the blogosphere has picked up the slack. Many sports blogs have stepped up and called out major media outlets for stupid stories and erroneous facts. In fact, is dedicated to ripping apart baseball writers’ stories.

When the latest report comes around that contradicts the previous one, earlier reports have a tendency to fall by the wayside and are never to be mentioned again. The new reports are discussed ad naseum and no mention is made to apologize for a previous misleading report.

ESPN actually does have a corrections page on their website, but it is not able to be found from the front page, and only when one searches “ESPN corrections” is it found.

Many of these reports are based on contributions from anonymous sources. I realize that the contributions of an anonymous source aren’t necessarily a journalist’s fault, but ultimately, it is the journalist that puts the report out.

With the reluctance to admit mistakes, it’s almost as if journalists have taken to hiding behind their anonymous sources. If the report is wrong, the journalist can just say that his source was wrong. And for the source, there are no repercussions because their name is not being put out.

A source can easily put out defaming information without putting his reputation in harm’s way. And even if that report turns out to be false, the false information that is presented first can still linger. Even though the Duke case wasn’t staged upon anonymous sources, the damage to the students in the court of public perception has already been done and won’t ever be erased.

I believe that this shelter of anonymity has led to the increase of false news reports and conflicting information. Anyone can refuse to go on record with their name and say something because they know it won’t come back to bite them. I realize that a lot of important information wouldn’t be released to the public if it wasn’t for anonymous sources and that many sources inside team’s front offices would lose their jobs if outed, but at the same time anonymous sourcing is being abused by both journalists and sources.

In light of Jayson Blair, and after reading about Jason Leopold, I also can’t help but wonder if some journalists are creating anonymous sources out of thin air, and using the strawmen to present stories or reports that they felt were relevant and newsworthy, but didn’t have anyone on record as saying so.

“But why did I hear no one at ESPN explicitly note that the column that so enraged Gundy was based on rumors and rumblings and the sayings of "insiders"? Because they want to be allowed to take those same liberties? Because they didn't bother to read the column? Because all that mattered was milking that videotape for a week's worth of commentary? Because the boundaries between fact, opinion and rumor have become so porous that nobody noticed rumor crossing the border with a fake passport?”[3]

Of course, Le Anne Schreiber’s ombudsman column is buried on ESPN’s webpage as well.

While being right should always remain a journalists’ top priority, I feel that it is now being thrown under the rug in the sports world favor of being first. Sure, being right is a priority, and bonus points if you’re right on the first try, but speed has become a top priority.

Is it because of ego? In my view, I can’t see how it isn’t. If a journalist was truly egoless, they would want to fly under the radar, and would ensure that every story was accurate and in full detail. But I fear that the pressure from the top is also fueling this rush to push out information. On any given Sunday morning in the NFL Season, Jay Glazer, Charley Casserly and Chris Mortenson are on television as network insiders. Many times the information from two of the three (or even all three) conflict, leading to one or more being proved incorrect. But each network can’t risk getting beaten to a scoop (Glazer’s acquisition of Patriots spy footage was a coup for Fox).

However, since stories have come to make some journalists (Leopold) famous, writers know that one scoop could put them one step away from stardom at ESPN, where the writers are just as famous as the athletes, and for some, it’s a risk that they are willing to take.

Mitchell, David, “Recasting the anonymous source as ‘exceptional event;” June 21, 2004,

Schreiber, LeAnne, “Fed fast food of opinion, ESPN audience strives for reported fact,” October 11, 2007,

Journal of Sports Media, “Les (Miles) Coverage is More,” December 3, 2007,

-----------------------

[1] Journal of Sports Media

[2] David Mitchell, Poynter

[3] Schreiber, Le Anne; ESPN Ombudsman

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download