Team Paranoia strikes again

I'm not a beat writer, but I understand the relationships you need to build on a beat and the risks-rewards involved in breaking certain stories. As I said before, I realize this was a pre-draft workout, meaning the stakes were not high compared to, say, an arrest, failed drug test, coach firing or coach tirade. Would I have written this story? My guess, probably yes; it seems more newsworthy than anything else that happened that day.

My original point, however, questioned the perception of unethical. To reiterate my take, Where's the problem? If Quick had looked behind the blinds and saw the players brawling, a coach smacking one of them in the head, a player choking a coach, a player doing 'roids or smoking a J instead of shooting one, or anything of the like, would he not report these because the team said the practice was closed, that he saw something they didn't want him to see? This is a case where reporting what the writer sees is up to his or her judgement and willingness to go with it and potentially strain source relationships. You cannot make this call with a blanket statement.

To call Quick's original actions unethical is both inaccurate and insulting. (Per SportsJournalists.com protocol, I don't know Quick and I live on the opposite coast.)

The press-at-large took a huge hit in credibility regarding the presence of WMD's in Iraq and this country's motivations for going to war. (And before you start complaining about how I'm comparing the Jailblazers to War, remember I'm arguing the action, not the situation.) In the case of Iraq, people have argued that the press didn't do its job, that it went along with what the government was telling them instead of digging for more info, confirming info, trying to find out what went on behind closed doors. What if a White House reporter looked through a pair of blinds and saw the President in a teleconference with bin Laden, would that reporter be considered unethical for looking through a pair of blinds in plain sight, or would the reporter actually be doing his or her job?

Try to look at the action separate from the discovery of news, and realize that it is an important and necessary action for the discovery of any type of news.

Sure, it is surprising that Quick ran with this story given the risk-reward payout (then again, maybe not given his existing relationships), and he sort of did have an FU attitude in his blog post, which made it more personal than it needed to be. Those points are debateable, but considering he didn't break any laws, I consider the action and his ethics to be solid.

 

The ban has been lifted. You may now resume your regularly scheduled peeping and prying of Blazer activity.

 

Quick didn't burn any sources. Nobody leaked anything to him, he didn't out anyone, he alone suffers any consequences, which now apparently seem minor.

As far as burning bridges goes, perhaps he's cognizant that the Blazers' top management is living on very, very borrowed time and won't be around long enough for there to be any fallout, or that he holds the hammer here because the Blazers (again) looks like idiots with the media, or that he's confident enough in his ability and that the paper will back him to the wall that he felt comfortable taking a shot back at an organization that has turned from one of the best in the NBA to one of the worst.

I think he knows what he's doing.

Do you think Cuban would have pitched a fit about something like this, instead of concentrating on what is really important?

Maybe that's why the Mavs, who were the polar opposites of the Blazers when he tok over, are now among the NBA's model franchises and the Blazers have devolved into (old) Clippers North.

Just sayin.' ;D

 

I just don't understand why Quick told everybody that he looked through the blinds. With as paranoid as the Blazers are, wouldn't it be more fun to just report what happened, not tell that you saw through the blinds and watch the team freak out?

 

Canzanos blog on the issue explained more. I was not aware that the Trail Blazers had registered the domain name johncanzano.com. Wtf?? Jeezus, with all the BS the team is busy doing how did Portland's basketball franchise have energy left over to win 20 games this year?

www.oregonlive.com/canzano

 

Insane. The Knicks have a challenger. :

 

I think the Knicks are in second place on this one. Must be.

 

Is this what we mean by "unbiased reporting"?

 

e - also remember this is an organization that once drafted bowie instead of jordan. pre-draft workouts are, indeed, a touchy subject to the few fans the trail blazers still have.

 

Hope I'm not outing someone, but folks on the Saints beat talked about life in the Ditka era. He'd closed practices, but they realized they could go to adjacent Zephyrs Field and watch practice from the press box. Saints found out and raised holy hell with the Z's, who shut off access to the press box.

 

It's real simple. If a team is hiding something, but doesn't do it well enough, they have no beef with ANY tactics the reporter used to find out. If the GM had an extramarital affair and a reporter found out by looking in a window, was it the reporter's fault tghe blinds weren't drawn? Talk about a weak line of defense.
They bought Canzano's potential domain name? I really do not know the answer to this question. Does Paul Allen still own the Blazers. I have a good friend who worked for Allen for awhile and he's a sensible soul for a billionaire genius. Were I the publisher of the Portland paper, or even if I was Canzano, I'd look to set up a nice non-confrontational lunch with the owner and point out the franchise is succeeding only in blackening his name.