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

[Dick Whitman]

Who is this "Zeke"?

 

[LWillhite]

Who is this "Zeke"?

Isiah Thomas.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

lcjjdnh, what are you doing to break up the cartel, besides posting anonymously about enablers on a message board? Tell us about your work.

 

[lcjjdnh]

lcjjdnh, what are you doing to break up the cartel, besides posting anonymously about enablers on a message board? Tell us about your work.

As I'm sure my family, friends, and other unfortunate souls I talk with about college sports with will attest, I often advocate for my position to anyone who can withstand a few minutes of lecturing. And, I hope changing the views of at least some sports journalists posting, too, although shrillness isn't often the most effective way of doing so.

Just doing what I can to change public opinion with my limited platform and resources. But if I was a sports reporter for a national outlet with millions of readers, I'd certainly assign myself more responsibility.

 

[YGBFKM]

So when does Robinson's expose on "The Wire" come out?

 

[dooley_womack1]

Who is this "Zeke"?

Isiah Thomas.

Um, no.

 

[dooley_womack1]

There's room for those who report and dig up news in the world as it exists, and room for others who rail and advocate for what they think the world should be. Room for both under the journalism tent.

 

[lcjjdnh]

There's room for those who report and dig up news in the world as it exists, and room for others who rail and advocate for what they think the world should be. Room for both under the journalism tent.

Resources are limited. Just because one can write a just-the-facts story about Topic X doesn't mean one should. The decision to pursue and publish a story Topic X is inherently a decision based on some underlying beliefs about your duty as a reporter, your obligation to readers, etc. The mere declaration that something is "newsworthy" enough to merit your attention is in itself a powerful editorial comment.

I'm not arguing there's no value in descriptive stories divorced of any prescriptive element*. I'm arguing that there's relative low value in a descriptive story in this context. That's not to say Robinson shouldn't apply his investigatory skills elsewhere, though.


* Although just because you're not openly advocating for a position doesn't mean you're not making some sort of a statement.

 

[dooley_womack1]

There's room for those who report and dig up news in the world as it exists, and room for others who rail and advocate for what they think the world should be. Room for both under the journalism tent.

Resources are limited. Just because one can write a just-the-facts story about Topic X doesn't mean one should. The decision to pursue and publish a story Topic X is inherently a decision based on some underlying beliefs about your duty as a reporter, your obligation to readers, etc. The mere declaration that something is "newsworthy" enough to merit your attention is in itself a powerful editorial comment.

I'm not arguing there's no value in descriptive stories divorced of any prescriptive element*. I'm arguing that there's relative low value in a descriptive story in this context. That's not to say Robinson shouldn't apply his investigatory skills elsewhere, though.


* Although just because you're not openly advocating for a position doesn't mean you're not making some sort of a statement.

Well, maybe Robinson likes the system, and thus wants to root out those who are bespoiling it. In what world are you the one to determine what someone's underlying feelings should be? OK, fine, we get it, you wanna dynamite things to kingdom come. In what world do Charles Robinson's exposes not help your crusade?

 

[Den1983]

Good for Robinson. Yahoo! is a much more respected journalistic entity than ESPN will ever be. Good to see he has his priorities straight.

 

[lcjjdnh]

There's room for those who report and dig up news in the world as it exists, and room for others who rail and advocate for what they think the world should be. Room for both under the journalism tent.

Resources are limited. Just because one can write a just-the-facts story about Topic X doesn't mean one should. The decision to pursue and publish a story Topic X is inherently a decision based on some underlying beliefs about your duty as a reporter, your obligation to readers, etc. The mere declaration that something is "newsworthy" enough to merit your attention is in itself a powerful editorial comment.

I'm not arguing there's no value in descriptive stories divorced of any prescriptive element*. I'm arguing that there's relative low value in a descriptive story in this context. That's not to say Robinson shouldn't apply his investigatory skills elsewhere, though.


* Although just because you're not openly advocating for a position doesn't mean you're not making some sort of a statement.

Well, maybe Robinson likes the system, and thus wants to root out those who are bespoiling it. In what world are you the one to determine what someone's underlying feelings should be? OK, fine, we get it, you wanna dynamite things to kingdom come. In what world do Charles Robinson's exposes not help your crusade?

He's free to have his own "underlying feelings". I'm free to criticize him and suggest they're wrong.

As for why these particular investigations trouble me:

-- The public could easily take away the message that the problem is that rule enforcement isn't strong enough, not that the rules themselves are fundamentally unfair.

-- Believe or not, this is not high on my list of "crusades". Given Yahoo! is one of the few remaining outlets investing significant resources into investigations, I wish they'd devote their resources to issues that could provide more value to society.

-- The plaudits Robinson has received on this site--including this thread ("[w]e...love Robinson")--suggest the vast majority of sports journalists (assuming this site is at least a representative example) think this is an example of "good" journalism. It worries me that this incentivizes them to pursue these sorts of stories (Mizzougrad continually bemoans that SI and others don't do more stuff like this). As above, this would waste valuable resources for a low-value story.

 

[dooley_womack1]

There's room for those who report and dig up news in the world as it exists, and room for others who rail and advocate for what they think the world should be. Room for both under the journalism tent.

Resources are limited. Just because one can write a just-the-facts story about Topic X doesn't mean one should. The decision to pursue and publish a story Topic X is inherently a decision based on some underlying beliefs about your duty as a reporter, your obligation to readers, etc. The mere declaration that something is "newsworthy" enough to merit your attention is in itself a powerful editorial comment.

I'm not arguing there's no value in descriptive stories divorced of any prescriptive element*. I'm arguing that there's relative low value in a descriptive story in this context. That's not to say Robinson shouldn't apply his investigatory skills elsewhere, though.


* Although just because you're not openly advocating for a position doesn't mean you're not making some sort of a statement.

Well, maybe Robinson likes the system, and thus wants to root out those who are bespoiling it. In what world are you the one to determine what someone's underlying feelings should be? OK, fine, we get it, you wanna dynamite things to kingdom come. In what world do Charles Robinson's exposes not help your crusade?

He's free to have his own "underlying feelings". I'm free to criticize him and suggest they're wrong.

As for why these particular investigations trouble me:

-- The public could easily take away the message that the problem is that rule enforcement isn't strong enough, not that the rules themselves are fundamentally unfair.

In your opinion.

Anyhoo, I ask again: how does exposing bad stuff about the current system hurt your cause to overhaul it? I think what you're doing is going all "New Journalism" on us as far as objective reporting goes. In short, I don't think you're in favor of such reporting