As if we needed another reason to love Charles Robinson...

Instead of trying to read my mind, just read my posts. I provided one reason why this my "hurt [my] cause"--public opinion--and reasons why, even if it doesn't, I don't think it's a particular valuable story to write.

As I've said, there certainly is a role for descriptive, just-the-facts reporting. You're blinding yourself to reality, though, if you believe that the editorial judgments that go into publishing an "objective" story don't have quite a bit to say about your underlying beliefs. Journalists can't just cling to "objectivity" as an excuse to disclaim all responsibility for their stories.

Here's an example. Town council passes a law that says you can't wear blue pants on Thursdays. You only have the resources to write one story about it. Among the potential angles are:

Story A: Just-the-facts story on tickets given to people wearing blue pants.

Story B: Just-the-facts story on people the reporter personally found breaking the rule on wearing blue pants.

Story C: Just-the-facts story about police giving tickets to some people wearing blue pants but not others (essentially a combination of stories A and B).

Story D: Story about the merits of the blue pants law, quoting the mayor saying the blue pants are a blight on society, and a concerned citizen worried about his free speech rights being abridged, even though not one person other than the mayor supports the law.

Story E: Story about the merits of the blue pants law, quoting the mayor saying blue pants are blight on society, and nine concerned citizens worried about free speech rights being abridge, because not one person other than the mayor supports the law.

Story F: Story about how the mayor's third cousin runs the biggest green pants factory in town.

Story G: Story about how the mayor was emotionally wounded as a child because of the Thursday in middle school when he was harassed because his parents sent him in blue pants.

Most people would agree that (with the exception of perhaps Story E) all of these would meet the classic definition of "objective" reporting. But isn't also quite clear to see that your decision to publish a story on this law (or none, or 12) makes a pretty big statement, and that the way you frame it makes an even bigger one. The idea that just writing an "objective" story somehow divorces you from that is absurd.

 

You wasted a lotta keystrokes to not answer my question, Mr. Wolfe

 

What question is that? I've already answered twice why this could potentially hurt the cause of changing the fundamentally unfair system of college athletics--without proper context, it could sway public opinion into believe lack of enforcement of the rules are the problem, not the rules itself--and why it would have a detrimental effect on other worthy causes--it's a waste of resources.

The rest of the post demonstrates why your idea you can just "expose bad stuff" is a fallacy. The mere decision to write a story about a topic in and frame it in a particular way says quite a bit about your own beliefs. Call me all the names you want, but it won't change the fact that writing a just-the-facts, descriptive story doesn't allow you to just shield yourself in a false sense of "objectivity" journalists cling to.

 

Again -- IN YOUR OPINION. Yes, I will grant you that facts can be interpreted differently. And you have to grant me that facts can be interpreted differently. You can debate to kingdom come whether what he found at Miami and how he reported it dovetails with your worldview, but that doesn't change that Robinson's investigative journalism is in no way shape or form pernicious, and doesn't change the fact I'm giggling at you being so verklempt over coverage that does nothing but aid your cause, aside from him "not showing the proper outrage."

 

I missed it earlier, when did Tom Wolfe make an appearance?

"The Last American Hero is Nevin Shapiro. Yes!"

 

Decisions do not get made in a vacuum. As I've repeatedly pointed out, resources are limited. When one makes a decision to: 1.) cover a story at all; 2.) frame it in the way he does, it makes a big difference.

One need not explicitly advocate for a position--or "show[] the proper outrage"--to make a statement. We need to evaluate the story Robinson wrote against the other descriptive, just-the-facts stories he could have written. Maybe he writes this exact story, but includes an added paragraph or two of context suggesting the NCAA has come under increasing pressure for its refusal to pay players. Maybe he writes a story about a booster at another school paying for a player's trip home to attend his dead mother's funeral, instead of one about hookers, drugs, and abortions. Maybe he decides it's not worth writing about college sports at all and decides to expose the AAU underworld.

The idea that Robinson--or any reporter--merely lays out the facts and lets the public decide is ludicrous. By choosing to write this specific story and shaping the story in the way he did, Robinson clearly meant to send a certain message he wouldn't send with another. Indeed, at the very least, we can say this about his intentions: Robinson himself admitted they pursue these stories to expose the bad actors--coaches, ADs, boosters--rather than every individual violation. A story saying Coach Smith allowed X, Y, and Z to occur on his watch tells an extremely different story than we know of violations that occurred at 105 different schools. Readers will interpret the stories differently and reporters bear some responsibility for it.

Once we accept Robinson clearly had underlying assumption/belief/opinion/premise in mind when shaping his story, we should accept we're free to criticize those assumptions/beliefs/opinions/premise and they way in which he used them to shape his story. You don't have to agree with me on the validity of my underlying argument about the fundamental unfairness of the NCAA system. But you should at least agree that how a journalists uses his skills are as important as the skills themselves. And IN MY OPINION--which seems to be perfectly reasonable to express on a journalism message board to try convince others--Robinson hasn't put his to very good use.

 

So how could he have put them to better use with the Miami story?

 

But your question misses a big point: Why did he write the Miami story at all? He didn't have to. If you write "Local Boy Wets Bed", you're not doing good journalism just because what you wrote was factually true.

In any case, I've already explained he could have added more context, or framed the story entirely differently. It would have remained descriptive, just-the-facts, and "objective" but readers would have been more likely to reach a different interpretation. He wrote the story the way he did, though, because he admittedly had an "agenda".

 

Yeah, you lost me here. I have no idea where you're going with this. Sorry.

 

lcjjdnh, I think where your argument -- while interesting -- comes up short is in your assumption that Robinson isn't attempting to blow up the system simply by exposing how completely rotten it is and how silly it is to have such arbitrary rules and standards. Any reasonable, intelligent person understands the system is corrupt and fucked. But change sometimes has to come from shining a light on the roaches. Presumably, eventually, you shine enough lights and maybe someone stops fumigating the structure and simply tears it down to begin anew.

 

Your question presumes that Robinson had to write the Miami story. My point is that the analysis of whether something is "good" journalism doesn't start there, it starts at the choice to write the story at all. The hypothetical was an example of that.

 

Remember when someone twisted the arms of all these schools and forced them to sign on to the NCAA bylaws?