What Lee Jenkins' LeBron scoop says about our industry

If you begin with these premises:

1. The media are lying manipulaters, always
2. THIS athlete simply cannot possibly speak in an articulate manner without the literary coaching of white lying media manipulator
3. There has to a GOTCHA! here, because the media is always lying and you just have to catch them. Any smart person can do it.

Then it's easy to come to the YF position. If you've interviewed hundreds (thousands?) of athletes (including LeBron!) then, like me, you might be able to see it for what it is.

YF I'm not annoyed with your posts because I know you're wrong and I know I could spend an hour typing up a plausible transcript for how I think this interview went but then I'd be done and realize, holy shit, I just spend the last hour (or more) trying to rebutt someone on the Internet who has a weird fascination with journalists and journalism despite the fact that he hates both. And in doing so I wouldn't be defending my own work or even the work of a colleague, I'd be defending the work of a competitor just to win an argument and get a few daps from more anonymous people frustrated by the media criticism of a small business owner fascinated with journalism despite the fact that he believes journalists are bad people who lie to him. Constantly. And that — all of that — might truly be the definition of insanity if I did it.

So, alas, I'll just have to let ya believe you won this one, old foe. The best gift I've ever given myself on this site was the clarity of knowing how truly irrelevant it is to "win" an argument about journalism on the internet with someone who hates journalism. I don't dislike you the way some do. You ask interesting questions at times. You're mostly respectful of me, my work. You just don't have the patience or open mind to even begin to understand how people like Jenkins and I do our jobs. And nothing I could say would change that. Which, again, that's ok! Unless you ever become a media tycoon like Emilio Azcarraga Milmo and are in a position to burn millions of dollars on a right-leaning sports magazine (I assume it would have a conservative slant) I doubt you'll ever be in a position to hire me or not hire me. So I'm good with conceding victories here on SJ, even though I know I'm right. Enjoy your evening.

 

End. Of Thread. DD wins, whether he wants it or not!

 

Not really. Fits his agenda perfectly.

 

Be sure to buy my new book "How To Win Threads and Influence People Without Really Trying," a SJ mash-up of two business classics.

 

Maybe we can get back to why this thread was started then...

Has anyone thought not just about how SI scored big with the break, but also how Jenkins simultaneously locked up the only worthwhile LeBron exclusive on the topic? Good luck sitting James down for even 20 minutes (from Brazil no less) and having your piece come close to what SI doles out for us next week in print. This was such a crazy score for the hard-working, trustworthy reporter and a big win over personality media.

 

I read his take -- and might have been nodding in agreement in 1994. This is 2014.

As Sandomir clearly knows, athletes can go directly to the fans if they so choose. They have Twitter. They have other avenues. Hell, we know what LeBron did in 2010. To still be able to get an exclusive like this in 2014 is impressive and speaks to so many issues, many of which have been discussed. If one of the conditions was that it be a first-person account, so be it. You do what you have to do to get the scoop, within limits -- and these were acceptable conditions.

SI got the scoop, but not necessarily the story? Please. The two are not mutually exclusive. Is there a story that's out there SI didn't get? By all means, New York Times, go get it. In no way has SI put itself in a position where it cannot report more, either, now that the announcement is past.

This was the story. More context will be great, and SI can report that too, but this is the news everyone cared about. It's the story that mattered at the time. There's no deadline on the rest, except for whomever wants to get there first, and can.

Did SI pay money for an exclusive? If so, I missed that. If so, then we've got a problem. Did SI make promises that in 2014 are unethical or regrettable? Not as far as I can see.

Big swing and a miss, as Elliotte said.

 

They did! They "reported", in their cute little transactions front page, that LeBron had signed.

24 hours before anyone else had it. And about 18 hours before LeBron actually, you know, signed.

 

What I find interesting is when a group of professional skeptics not only find nothing skeptical about the facts as presented, but become angry and defensive when someone else is skeptical.

But, here's the thing, you guys are defending a position Jenkins hasn't even stated. Nowhere has he claimed that every word in the essay/letter/press release is James' and/or was spoken by him.

Here's what he says in the Sandomir article, which is the only place I've seen him quoted:

“I was able to get those quotes and present the news to readers,” Jenkins said. “It’s a feat of editing, to put it together in a simple structure that made sense.”

He says "these quotes". That's it.

But, he also talks of capturing James' "voice". He's quoted four times, and two of the quotes are about James' voice.

He says this:

“My biggest priority was his voice, not my subtext.”

and:

“I felt that, in order to get his voice, it was worth it.”

When you talk about capturing someone's vice, that's speechwriter talk. That's a PR person's talk.

When you are capturing someone's voice, you are specifically not using just his words.

You are using words that he could conceivably have said. It's his tone, his vocabulary, his sense of humor, etc.

I believe most of the essay is cobbled together from James' quotes (though they may have been cleaned up a little). But, the beginning and end I believe are Jenkins words, written in James' voice.

Based on everything I've read about the article, including Jenkins own quotes, I'm not sure this is even an accusation. I don't know why it's controversial. I don't know why it's made people angry.

The debate over whether this was a good idea is a whole other thing. Having your writer collaborate with a subject, and giving him final approval, doesn't strike me as the greatest idea of all time. But, I'm not even sure why some think I'm supposed to believe the lede in the story came about as a result of the "about an hour" long interview James sat for with Jenkins.

 

Final approval ...

 

Yeah. This is the by far the bigger issue.

Of course, since it is a "first person" essay, I suppose he has to have it. That's why it's probably not a good idea to have your writer collaborate on this.

It's an ethical end around.

I also think it's funny that it's basically a repeat of how Jason Collins coming out story was handled. Folks are killing the Times for their design treatment of the James signing. It was only 18-months after the Baseball HOF blank page.

How often should SI go "first person". Isn't it a gimmick that should be used rarely?