John Skipper Reveals . . .

Who?

 

Missed that, got it now. Didn't realize you replied too DW.

 

Fat fingers.

 

Ok. I am guessing there is established case law on stories that are heavy on implication. Is that an accurate guess?

 

R U Talkin' R.E.M. RE: ME? podcast on Earwolf

 

I’m sorry but what a cop out. I would sue if I were among those December layoffs. Surprised shareholders haven’t sued yet.

 

Sue for what?

 

Scoop? And he doesn't dare question, or even wonder about, the sketchy facts of the reason for the departure.

Although it is true that criticism of all journalism is prevalent, that criticism doesn’t always come with the context you get by knowing an organization well. Richard Deitsch, who just announced that he is leaving Sports Illustrated and will join The Athletic, and James Andrew Miller, who literally co-wrote the book about ESPN, possess that knowledge and access -- at least through sources. (If you need any more evidence of that, see Miller's scoop about the reason for Skipper’s sudden departure).

*

It’s a sign of changing times -- and, to me, not a good change -- that so many in journalism feel it’s now OK to substitute opinions for what we used to call facts. I’ve been on the digital side of journalism for 22 years now, and while I have taken what is about as far from a traditional path through this industry as possible, I do not believe everything old should be replaced with something new. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts, and I believe any conflating of the two does damage to the credibility of journalism. There are many who think this new type of journalism -- where everyone is open about biases and speaks “the truth” -- is a good thing.

Part of a 5,400-word column, his last as public editor.

Taking on the oh-so-simple subject of ESPN's future

 

It was certainly a 'scoop' - even if it was only a partial telling of the story.

And it's not necessarily the job of the ombud to report out the rest of Miller's piece.

As to the facts-are-facts, opinions-are-opinions thing, that's true - and it's also the basis for analysis, of which there is a very great deal in sports.

 

It was his last column and the biggest (and most shocking) story of the year for ESPN, about ESPN.

" ... about the reason for Skipper's sudden departure" should have read "for the reason Skipper gave regarding his sudden departure."

It certainly would have read more factual.

"The reason" is still nebulous.

Also, is it a "scoop" if you choose who's publishing your well-crafted narrative?

 

Right or wrong it's a 'scoop' if you publish a story other people want but no one else has.

And again, we have no idea what the real story of Skipper's departure is. Nor are we ever likely to.

This hasn't been particularly engaged or vital ombud. I certainly wouldn't expect him to start an investigation into Skipper's departure.

I'm surprised Deadspin hasn't devoted more time and effort to it.

 

It'll come out.

I didn't say start an investigation. I said to expand upon the thin layer of liverwurst he presented with no questioned asked.

They might be ... but if not, someone is.

*

Anyway, this ombud used several of his 5,400 words talking about journalism and journalistic integrity and truth. Yeah, well, show it then.