Tim Layden says objectivity is dying in sports reporting

We disagree on this one, which is fine. In the situation you describe, if a coach complains about an end-of-game foul, you should describe, objectively, what happened, whether you disagree with the coach or not. Was there contact? Where, and when? You can describe what happened without bias or injecting an opinion. That's what good reporters do.

It wouldn't be the reporter's opinion if there was no contact. Or three fingers on a wrist. Nowadays, instant reply makes it much easier to describe these things without relying on an in-the-moment opinion of what happened.

I think you can come to the conclusion, through describing what happened, that the officials got it wrong, while still being objective. But to make a blanket statement (opinion) that the officiating was poor, without describing the situation and giving the audience the chance to make up its mind is not being objective.

 

Fully agree with this statement, except I'm not sure what a "planket" is.

 

Why can't the writer just say what the official's call was, and say it was a controversial play because coach X thought it was something else. THAT is being objective.

It's irrelevant what the writer thinks in a game story. Let the columnists do the opining/bloviating.

 

I think anyone writing anything would be wise to support their conclusions with facts--but failing to do so has nothing to do with whether or not a piece of writing is objective.

 

You're doing your readers a disservice if you're not helping them evaluate the merits of those divergent views. It's not being objective--it's ignoring reality to pretend all views are entitled to complete equally weights. An objective writer could explain to readers which side was correct without injecting his or her "bias" into the situation.

A game story is inherently a representation of what the writer "thinks." He or she chooses to write about--or ignore--most of what happened in the game. The facts he or she choses to include--and how they're organized--represents all sorts of judgments and is, at bottom, an "opinion" about the game.

 

This referee example is a weird hill for all of you to stand on. I agree a beat reporter probably shouldn't offer the opinion that a coach should be fired. But that's much, much different from objectively analyzing an event that occurred and drawing conclusions about those facts to better explain to a reader what happened.

 

I think there is a sliver of correctness in what you're saying. A sliver.

But you're taking this blurred line between objectivity and subjectivity and seemingly believe it's carte blanche to toss your opinion into a game story at will. You present the facts. Hopefully in an interesting manner. But unless you are a columnist, you do NOT need to gently nudge the reader toward one side of the aisle or the other.

 

Social media's a huge part of this......the unending quest for likes. Fanboy language in a Tweet is going to get a lot more likes and attention than a down the middle fact based one. And then the way your Tweet becomes your "persona" and "brand" and it seeps into your writing and then you're toast

 

This a very naive and simplistic view of the world. How does the reporter choose what "facts" to present and how to present them? That's inherently a judgment call and is itself an "opinion" about what was important, what occurred, etc. That doesn't change simply because you write "Johnny scored 10 points" instead of "Johnny scored 10 points, which I'm telling you because I think it's important, unlike the fact Bobby only score 2 points, or the fact that Sammy had four turnovers, etc."

 

That makes the bar for good, interesting, completely noncommittal beat writing very, very, very high.

I mean, you can write a boring story that doesn't tell the story of the game, and just the "facts," but no one reads it because they're too busy reading what everyone actually thought on Twitter.

 

Alma ... we're not talking about what's going to get the most clicks. We know the hot take is going to get the most clicks.

But I also remember a time when the public's first instinct was to believe what the media reports, and that's not their first instinct today. And that might, just might, be due to biased reporting.

 

Another false dichotomy. There's a reasonable (and objective) medium between a mere recitation of the "facts"* and offering a "hot take." A beat writer should be able to provide analysis that informs, entertains, and engages readers without turning into Skip Bayless. And he or she can do so while remaining objective and unbiased.

*Ignoring for a moment that (again) you're inherently expressing an opinion based on the facts you choose to include and how you decide to arrange them.