Oklahoma student newspaper does basic reporting, gets media session canceled

This is a good debate that should have been had in the newsroom or classroom.

I listen to and read Brian Stelter often, as he laments the fall of journalism and how it can be saved. The idea he’s most keen on, in terms of restoring public trust, is to reveal the process reporters go through in gathering news. I tend to agree with him, so I think the student reporters’ honesty in this case is a good thing, but there can be a longer discussion about what would have been the better way to handle it.

 

The kids could have avoided this just by using a clipboard and a confident wave.

 

I agree. I think the more that people understand how reporters work, the better it is for journalism. That said, we have all protected sources over the years. So, to me this begs the question, do you protect yourself? If you are your own source, if you see something you're not supposed to see or you're not being allowed to see, and then report it do you use the bland 'sources say' and protect yourself? Is that what we're talking about?

 

Tricky getting the story vs. maintaining your relationship with the coach. But the point is, the coach tried to hide something and it got found out. IT ALWAYS DOES. Nixon-Watergate, Bosox pitchers drinking whiskey and eating fried chicken during a playoff game, all the other stupid shit people do that eventually gets reported, Trump will get his at some point.
The kid reporters did a good job. Coach screwed up. Why criticize the reporters??

 

You're conflating two stories. The Red Sox dld shots before the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees. It wasn't much of a story; just something Kevin Millar bragged about. 'Chicken and beer' was in 2011 when the starters would get Popeyes and pound Buds late in games while the team was in an epic collapse.

 

Regardless, those were things that they probably didn't want to get out, but they did.

 

While I applaud the student reporters, I also think it's important to properly weigh what they did. The No. 1 quarterback was always going to be revealed on Saturday and it was always most likely not going to be Rattler. This isn't exposing some great injustice that would go unreported. It's closer to Woj and Shams tweeting out a transaction that would be officially revealed in a few minutes anyway.
They used binoculars to confirm what most people suspected. Good work. But I don't think that's a slam-dunk ideal way to work. Lots of reporters could probably sneak around and confirm something - do we want to be that profession about a football game? Over the long haul, it's probably not wise.
Talking to the dad is no problem. That's better reporting than the binoculars.

 

Awesome analogy. I'm not in sports anymore and have to create pretty much all my content from "thin air" by coaxing sources to share their insights daily now for a trade publication but it makes me remember how much of my DI college coverage at a daily was SID/game reaction-fed with little to no actual digging. Hindsight being what it is.
I'm in the process of doing the equivalent of a rolled-up newspaper to a new puppy with my latest employee who waits for press releases to write something instead of coming up with original content. I was the same way when I started this gig a few years ago. I couldn't go back, I think, to just responding to only what the subjects gave me.

 

Ahh yes, I forgot pandemic-era (and far before that for the NFL, NBA and big-time college programs) access is so interesting and loud.

 

The coach didn't hide anything. Not announcing who your starting QB is doesn't equate to "hiding" something. Football practices are often closed.

 

Alma, you were unenthusiastic (at best) about what these reporters did, and you also are critical of reporters who stay within the lines to get access. What are some examples of reporting that do pass muster with you?