What Lee Jenkins' LeBron scoop says about our industry

[YankeeFan]

Nothing like a good night's sleep to give you a fresh perspective on things.

 

[93Devil]

That last sentence is off-putting, but the rest of the story is far more interesting than the whining in the WP and NYT articles.

<i>Remember, this all comes down to who you'd rather hear about the second Iraq War from: news reporters or deck Cheney. Imagine the ego it takes to believe the public would prefer the former.</i>

Can we stop with this comparison already?

LeBron James is not an elected official who is directly accountable to the public, and makes decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people's lives, often for selfish or nefarious reasons, and have every reason in the world to twist facts to fit a political narrative.

You're really telling us that it's different because it's sports -- because the stakes are lower?

That means different rules apply?

You're the guy who says FOX and MSNBC, aren't journalism. That sports radio isn't journalism. You might as well just say that sports reporting is not journalism.

Yes, different rules apply. In probably 80-90 percent of cases, I'd guess.

I don't know how you get from there to saying sports writing has NO journalistic value or credibility at all. It does - it's just a different kind.

Fox News and MSNBC are propaganda, to be considered entertainment. I'd say the same of ESPN with most of its teevee programming. A vast majority of the time, they hold no more journalistic value than, say, an episode of Real Housewives.

It's a shame only a small percentage of Americans understand this.

You can also add a litany of websites to this list, which is what kills anyone trying to do anything responsible on the national level. I don't like what CNN.com is telling me, I'll just go to townhall.com or slate.com.

 

[YankeeFan]

Yes, different rules apply. In probably 80-90 percent of cases, I'd guess.

I don't know how you get from there to saying sports writing has NO journalistic value or credibility at all. It does - it's just a different kind.

I was enjoying Devil's posts so much, I almost forgot to reply to this.

To me, the same rules should apply, regardless of the stakes involved. If the ethics rules are different for sports, then it makes me question all of the sports journalism I consume.

Partnerships between the media, and the subjects they cover are particularly troubling. How do I know I'm getting the real story, or the whole story, if sports journalists are this close with the people they cover?

 

[Boom_70]

Nothing like a good night's sleep to give you a fresh perspective on things.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill --And when you wake up 93 devil will
still be an idiot .

 

[MisterCreosote]

To me, the same rules should apply, regardless of the stakes involved. If the ethics rules are different for sports, then it makes me question all of the sports journalism I consume.

One more time: Sports journalism is rarely about holding people accountable to their stakeholders. In the times that it is, yes, the same rules apply.

Partnerships between the media, and the subjects they cover are particularly troubling. How do I know I'm getting the real story, or the whole story, if sports journalists are this close with the people they cover?

The short answer is because if LeBron James says HE is going back to Cleveland because it's home, when HE is really going back because his wife wants him to, well, he's still going to play in Cleveland, the world will not come to an end and no one is adversely affected by his rationale.

If deck Cheney says WE are going to war because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, when WE are really going to war because the wealthy elite want to control oil supplies, well, tens of thousands of people die, trillions of dollars get spent off the books, entire governments get toppled, election processes get hijacked by extremists, etc., etc.

Do I really need to explain further why this is not as "troubling" as you believe?

 

[YankeeFan]

Sports journalism is rarely about holding people accountable to their stakeholders. In the times that it is, yes, the same rules apply.

This is why the public thinks Coach K is the greatest guy in the world, and used to think the same thing about Tiger Woods.

And, journalists wonder why the public doesn't see what they see. Because you don't tell us!

It's narrative driven. It relies on compromising ethics in return for ACCESS.

But, I should trust that, when it matters, the same rules apply. LOL. Who's enforcing the rules?

 

[MisterCreosote]

It's narrative driven. It relies on compromising ethics in return for ACCESS.

Completely false assumption because you're viewing "ethics" through the wrong prism.

Who's enforcing the rules?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/editor

 

[Joe Williams]

I think it's terminology that's tripping up a lot of us on this stuff.

-- Exclusive: What SI/Jenkins got from LeBron. The first-person form of story-telling is long-established, and I don't feel a need to make sure that LeBron said -- up front -- every word in this allegedly stitched-together extended quote. LeBron either said those words in the pre-writing interview(s) with Jenkins or he owned them afterward via the final read. It was a collaborative work by subject and writer and the labeling makes that clear.

-- Scoop: News that someone wouldn't necessarily want out in the public view or news generated by some reporter putting together 1+1 and then learning further elements to build the story. Primary subject wouldn't have up-front input in the process, only reaction comments when presented with the info.

-- Guess: Closer to what Sheridan did, because there was little else to his "story" and much of that proved to be incorrect (breaking it via LBJ's Web site, for instance).

Haven't yet come up with a name for the 140-character versions of the above (though Guess could remain the same) if provided without link to an actual piece of reporting.

And I'm still waiting to learn how any of these things get monetized in this day and age, beyond someone just selling an advertiser a click total. Are advertisers really so dumb to fall/pay for that?

An outlet that tweets out a bunch of "scoops" but has a Web site that is absolutely grueling to wade through, is that where I want my ads? How about the joints that force visitors to sit through 30-second commercials (starting immediately with sound) to read a 3-graft item or watch a 15-second video? Or the ones that alienate casual visitors by demanding payment on a committed subscription rather than, say, micropayments for the particular articles sought?

Media world is chaotic, and the mashing-up of exclusives, scoops, guesses and sheer bullshirt only make it worse.