Mike Wise of WaPo fakes story to make a point

Remember, guys, if we don't use things like Twitter we lose credibility...

 

Yes, because had Wise written a false report via a more dignified medium (say, carrier pigeon), this would not have been an issue.

Twitter might be a waste of time for the Podunk Courier-Journal's two-man department, but guys at shops like the Washington Post use it to get their readers small bits of information in the quickest way possible, which is a worthy practice.

 

Their subscribers? Or just their "readers"?

Had Wise falsified a report in a more dignified medium, he'd have gotten a lot more than a 1-month suspension.

 

As much as I'm against newspapers giving their product away for free, if your publication does, then you should report in the unpaid medium with the same standards as print. This includes breaking news on Twitter, which has become a common practice.

Had Wise written a story for the Post's print edition faking a scoop, it would be worse. You're right.

But lying is lying. And lying in a public forum is something that can't be blamed on Twitter.

 

I inferred goalmouth's sentiments differently: that those who would call the sports desk the "toy department" have another piece of ammo. In this case, it is true.

Wise's tweet can't even sniff the disgracefulness of "Jimmy's World," but Janet Cooke didn't go on the radio and brag about faking the story, nor did she say she proved a point by duping the Pulitzer committee into believing her. Wise treated his job like a joke -- if only for a moment -- and people who think sports journalism is a joke won't overlook that.

 

Jayson Blair basically got booted out of sports back to the news room.

 

James Frey.

 

People may say whatever they like about sports writing, but we're much less likely to have fabulists in our ranks, and the number of those caught bear this out. It's a lot harder to flat out make things up when people are watching and following every aspect of a team or an athlete, and those athletes have been dealing with the media since they were about 16.

Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Jack Kelley, Stephen Glass, Mike Barnicle, Michael Finkel all wrote about people who were either completely fake, or people who wouldn't speak up to say that details about their lives had been fabricated because they were sort of timid in dealing with the media, either because of language or education. A lot of it even comes down to opportunity. If a New York Times metro reporter flies into West Virginia and makes up a whole slew of details about a person, or if a similar thing happens with a USA Today writer in Israel, who is going to stick a microphone in that person's face the day after the story runs? Athletes have daily opportunities to respond to things written or said about them, thus making the degree of difficulty a lot higher if you wanted to make shit up out of thin air. And there are all kinds of ways to check and double check stuff. When Albom pulled his nonsense, how quickly was it uncovered? The next morning, when, I believe, the Golden State Warriors beat writer talked to Richardson at the shoot around. Blair, Glass, Cooke, Kelley -- their lies went on for months and years before they were caught.

In Shattered Glass, one character makes the point that Glass never would have been able to pull off his ruse had The New Republic had one thing -- pictures. Well, sports is nothing but moving pictures. Even if you're writing about a 5-year-old kid who can hit 85 mph pitching, someone is going to want to see pictures.

I'd say we're doing ok in terms of keeping our fabulists in check.

 

Great take, DD.

 

ditto