Tim Layden says objectivity is dying in sports reporting

FWIW, Wilbon has said that he didn't want to go on the air that night, but that ESPN made him. He might have said it on Tony Kornheiser's podcast.

 

Website. Clemson let in a few fan sites a while ago, and to be fair, the ended up letting in more. It's a homer-heavy group for sure. Get the sense the school is OK with it in some ways, not in others (the rub with fanboys is the bitch up a storm when things go slightly wrong, which happens inevitably. They take it personally).

 

I always struggle with the scope of objectivity (to a degree I struggle to care about an article like that at all). Its obvious you can't be objective 100 percent. If I told you the college team you were covering could play Dec. 22, allowing you to have Christmas with your kids, or you could spend the holiday in Shreveport the day before the independence Bowl, a lot of folks would have a preference. Similarly, if you are a bottom line type person, or one who likes covering big events, you probably prefer the team you're covering does well, since readers care more. Just don't have it bleed into coverage.

And frankly, it's probably not proper to argue objectivity is dying. Old Grantland Rice godded up those athletes. Bob Ryan admitted he wrote with a pro-Celtics bias. Perhaps we can say the shroud of "objectivity" is falling away.

Now that's not to excuse slobbery homerism. That shit is annoying. Someone I heard on a podcast talking about this tried to make a delineation between "objective" and maybe "impartial." There's probably a better word for that. Anyway, sports in a lot of ways is a hope business. Go through preseason coverage, and a lot more is written about what could happen is a team, or parts of a team, are their best selves (so many "look at how many starts this offensive line is returning" stories).

That same podcaster pointed out the reporter with good off the record access often explains why a coach of GM did what they did. In a way that's carrying water for someone. I suppose I do that to a degree when buffeted with play-calling complaints (it seems fair to assume a slightly good coach often knows more about the mechanics of the sport and sees it better than folks who don't, but not always). I've seen others deal with that by coddling those complaints to not get too antagonistic with paying customers. I don't blame them all that much, and some of what they do is good work.

Another interesting point was Layden talked to Wilbon, a walking schtick who of course is gonna feel conflicted, and a pair of folks now in academia (don't recall how Adande was on the LA homer front). Might've been interesting to talk to former SI employee Robert Mays, who talks about being a self-hating Bears fan often, or ESPN's Mina Kimes, who has a Seahawks tattoo.

I come away thinking as long as you're not a homer-y goober, you're probably fine.

 

Out of curiosity, how was it editorialized?

 

Yeah, I read that. Doesn't change my opinion though. It was just a very bad look for him and ESPN.

 

It’s a multi-layered conversation, but for me it starts with this: If Layden wants to write a real piece on this, he finds someone who’s actually objective, or close to it, not an opinion columnist who works for a network that openly promotes inobjective brand-building.

 

He can say what he wants. ESPN isn’t firing Wilbon if he refuses, thus ESPN didn’t make him do shit.

 

A couple thoughts:

^^It’s a balance between working sources and serving the audience but at some point a reporter has to remember: I don’t work for the source. And usually, you know, they do remember it, but they’ve kissed enough ass by that point that they’d view it as a kind of betrayal if they shoved a story up a source’s ass. So they protect the source of info and shut out the reader/listener. These are the “oh yeah I knew that” types who “know” a lot but never say it in any kind of direct way.

^^ESPN has to stop being the be-all, end-all guide for things in journalism. There’s a sports Center anchor on there who can barely make it through an intro to a highlight or the highlight
itself without these weird pauses or a eyeroll or some dramatic look and it’s shitty work. You wouldn’t last a week in a decent TV station doing that. Because ESPN’s SC is by and large such a self-absorbed disaster of a product nobody pays much attention. But this is a Network that handed Mike Golic’s kid a massive talk show job based on little more
than being Mike Golic’s kid. This is a network that gave Bill Simmons untold millions to run a literary Sports site that clearly didn’t draw many readers and whose model was junked by MTV in the equivalent of a heartbeat. This is not a network that really knows what it’s doing anymore.

^^Is it objective to suggest that 3 straight trips to the ALCS without a World Series represents a “failure” for the Yankees? Based on their history, payroll and fan expectation, yes. Is the same true of the Mariners? No. It’d be the best 3 year run in franchise history. Objectivity depends on the beat, on some level. Beats do not exist in vacuums.

^^Athletes are spoiled all along the way. First by the recruiting sites and AAU types, next by the college beat writers who just wanna file and be home for dinner and finally in the pros by the longform crew. Longform in pro sports is increasingly closer to empathetic hero worship, hater dismissal and first-person “look at this heart I’ve put out on the table for you” sermonizing.

^^Most journalists are liberal and most vocal journalists on social media are as well, and they like patting each on the back about that. The “correct” view is to hold up Colin Kaepernick as a leading civil rights leader and regard his critics - even fellow black football players - as byproducts of a racist, oppressed America. The “correct” view is to marvel at the artistry and magnificence of the player-driven NBA. The “correct” view is that college athletes should be paid. The “correct” view is resist criticizing athletes at any level because “you don’t know them, and if you did, you’d be like me, in solemn admiration of their pursuits.” To think otherwise makes you, on some level, uncool and, moreover, a bad person.

 

Sure, there's wiggle room in this issue. But once journalists allowed themselves the luxury of being subjective, the readers no longer gave them credit for objectivity -- anywhere. Once journalists stopped believing even-handedness and objectivity to be an inalienable standard, it was a short route for the reader to stop believing what is reported.

And sometimes the professor is right.

 

This particular story was written as if a fan were writing it, with more opinions than facts and a mention of "poor" officiating and a blown call that cost the team the game. There are calls that may cost a team the game, which may need to be written about, but a writer has to dive into that further if leveling an accusation. That didn't happen.

I think the story was more a result of poor writing habits and lazy journalism, but that's kind of the point. Layden wrote about how it can sometimes be difficult for a writer invested in a team and the outcomes to be truly impartial, so if there is no longer an expectation of objectivity, it strips away at core journalism practices.

This particular writer on a NBA tweets about the players he covers as if they're his boys, so I can't say I'm shocked about the way stories are written. Just sometimes disappointed.

 

So it was not about a single call, but rather about the flow of calls? And that was before interviews?

Officiating is always weird. I prefer to ignore it, but by doing so, I'm in essence editorializing. If a coach complains, I might mention it or give it a headline. If there's one vital call late, I suppose I'll sneak it in.

 

Call him on it. “You write like a fan and act like these millionaires are your buddies.”