Tim Layden says objectivity is dying in sports reporting

What is "objectivity"? And what is "subjectivity"?

Brian Cook is a Michigan fan. But his website provides better coverage of the team than anyone out there.

 

Was he a credentialed media member that night? Or simply there as a fan? Does that affect the opinions people have toward either side?

 

It's true there's a lot more fanboy stuff being written now. How bout the bias in political coverage? It's laughable to read the clickbait headlines all against Trump. I'm no Trump fan, but this is silly. The bias is unbelievable. Basically anybody that covers Trump writes with an anti-Trump edge. It's funny to read.

 

I think that answer is gonna differ from Michigan fan to Michigan fan in the height of the Harbaugh era.

 

One day they’re gonna wise up and quit paying your salary ...

 

Yet, Linda Cohn (I think), hosting the morning SportsCenter in a Knicks Christmas sweater ...

 

We might like to make them "subjective" terms, but the definitions are pretty clear.

 

No they’re not. Someone in this thread criticized a basketball writer for “editorializing” about the quality of officiating. But I think someone could easily do that while also remaining objective.

 

If you cover a team that has a likeable coach and players, that helps make your job easier, is accessible, honest and open, I think it's only human nature to kind of "root" for that team, so long as that bias doesn't show up in your reporting.

I have covered teams like this, and I feel myself pulling for them when I'm covering them, because I genuinely like the coaches and players. I think that's unavoidable.

Now, that doesn't mean you ignore it if they commit an NCAA infraction or ask softball questions and write a bubble-gum story if they blow a game in awful fashion.

 

Absolutely. There are appropriate ways to handle those situations.

This was before interviews, and coaches/players didn't appear to say anything that supported what was written. Yet the story remained.

But this was a small sample of a trend where some reporters feel like they're friends with the players and it may come through in their objectivity. There are even some veteran reporters at large publications, who should know better, who take selfies with the athetes they cover and post them proudly on social media. Bananas.

 

At the same time, if you cover individuals you dislike, you obviously shouldn't go out of your way to write negatively. There's give and take.

I don't think anyone is perfect at this, but there's also a difference between thinly veiled bias or subjectivity and not staying true to core journalistic principals.

I've covered people I like and dislike, and I've simply tried to find the stories that an audience would care about and that are important to the public's understanding of a public figure. Sometimes that includes profiling a guy in his home town, and including his foundation's contributions, and later writing about his DUI arrest (personal example). If you're trying to be honest and fair in your work, those are much easilier to deal with.

 

Indeed. Get some players or a coach to bitch about it, the league to issue an "apology" for the non-call, or describe the play and the alleged non-call with some sort of chatter or outcry from the fans. In this case non of that happened. It was one man's opinion, which is an antonym to objectivity.