Sports Illustrated layoffs

TheMaven's Bill Sornsin (from that content recruiting webcast) told me that "the craziness has finally died down" but wouldn't say how many would-be content contributors have signed up.

 

TheMaven's USC outlet reported Clay Helton was getting axed. Sports Illustrated's Pat Forde refutes that report. So, in a nutshell, SI is contradicting its own reporting. What a mess.

 

A great way to undermine the remaining legacy value of the SI name.

 

Pretty stupid. I know the guy who reported the firing. He is a great person and a good news reporter. I hope he is right, for his sake. If he is wrong, that is an unacceptable mistake on a story of this magnitude.

 

His background doesn't suggest his source was "internet chatter" or it was a story for clicks. I've always felt that sources who outright lie or misrepresent what they actually know shouldn't be covered under the "we protect our sources" rules. Of course, reporters aren't doing themselves a favor publishing something and not noting an official response (or non-response) from the school.
Has USC announced officially that Helton is back next year? Seems like that would be a better way to refute the story than say - the story isn't true. It isn't like the AD is busy evaluating yesterday's game tape.

 

There's a big difference between declining comment and saying affirmatively to the reporter, "The story you're about to write is inaccurate. Contrary to the assertions of your sources, no decision has been made." That should, at the very least, compel the reporter to hit the pause button.
Interesting to learn that the reporter in question here has some legitimacy. Based on that, I'm going to assume he's not a fanboi writing the story for the purpose of making it happen.

 

Makes me think of this classic ATPM scene.

 

SI Maven guy apologizes:

Why I Was Wrong on the Clay Helton Story

Adam MayaDec 4, 2019

An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Clay Helton would be dismissed by USC. Below is a retraction from the author.

I was wrong, and I am sorry.

Those seven words cannot exonerate me from the mistake I made this week -- incorrectly reporting Clay Helton would be fired -- but I felt they were the first that belonged in this statement.

I know many are wondering how I came to write my initial story Sunday that Helton would be dismissed. If you’ve followed my work, you know it’s a situation I’ve been tracking the entire season. Fast forward to this past weekend and I was told by multiple sources that USC had decided to make a coaching change. These same sources had alerted me to three developments in the past -- athletic director Mike Bohn’s hiring, Bru McCoy’s transfer back to USC, and Graham Harrell becoming the offensive coordinator.

I’m not going to out my sources -- this is my sword to fall on -- but essentially there was a misunderstanding on their end as it pertained to Helton’s status. They confused certain actions by Bohn and their superiors at USC, particularly in the previous week or so, to mean Helton was definitely being fired, when in actuality keeping him was still under consideration.
As a result, a coaching change was inaccurately characterized to me as being a formality rather than, as was later explained to me, conditional. If I had known the latter, I would not have filed my report in such terms. Given my sources’ track record, I had no reason to think their intel in this instance was incomplete. I fully believed in what I reported, which is why I was so definitive. Alas, I made a major error that assuredly caused great pain to a coach I couldn't respect more as a person, and his family.

I deeply regret not being much more thorough and careful, especially because of how sensitive this news was -- at my alma mater, no less.

Again, I feel great remorse over my story, and thus have apologized to Helton and USC, as well as Sports Illustrated. I want to apologize to you, the readers, as well. Thank you to the many who have expressed your support. At the end of the day, I want to be clear that my intentions as a journalist were pure -- my ultimate drive is to simply provide for my family. Meanwhile, my professional objectives remain the same: to cover USC accurately and with integrity, and to the best of my ability.

I inexcusably missed the mark here.

 

In the latest depressing update, the new SI overlords have gutted their copy desk.

 

I've been surprised how many editing errors get through since they went twice a month. Missing or extra words in sentences and deleted first references. I'll see a last name referenced in a story and I'll go back to try and figure out who they're talking about. Seems they needed more copy editors, not fewer.

 

Coming very late to this thread but in reading the latest edition, I see where they have announced that SI will be a monthly publication starting in January. . . 16 issues a year. (I am sure that this has been mentioned elsewhere here but I haven't seen it. . . apologies if I missed it.)

"What's different is the way you consume that content. A 21st-century print magazine is no longer a vessel for news and timely analysis. It's the ultimate lean-back experience, an opportunity to enjoy the kind of writing and images that can't -- and shouldn't -- be gobbled quickly on a phone," the editor's letter said.

"So in 2020 SI will give you the magazine experience that you crave by shifting to a monthly publishing schedule. The next issue, dated February 2020, will arrive in late January. . . "