Braun, ESPN, and sports "journalism"

[Nottso]

Probably the best (or worst) example I've seen lately came from Mike Florio at PFT. A few months ago he speculated that Jermichael Finley could conceivably argue for wide receiver money if franchised. Of course other sites and blogs picked up on it and there was a bit of hullabaloo over it.

 

A month later, Florio stated that Finley almost certainly would fight for receiver money, and even posted a bunch of links to outside sources. Those outside source links went to the posts on sites and blogs that had reacted to his (Florio's) original out-of-nowhere speculation a month earlier.

 

Talk about creating a story out of nothing! Masterful!

[1992casey]

Another good/bad example involved this board and a moron on WSSP.

 

Suddenly, the Brewers were about to acquire Adam Dunn, and Brewerfan was the source. The reality was that there was a lengthy topic in the Rumors forum discussing something written by an obscure blogger in Ohio.

 

Doug Melvin actually felt the need to comment.

[Teatoe993]

Don't see what the big deal is. I get..... off on that type of stuff.

[jjfanec]

Probably the best (or worst) example I've seen lately came from Mike Florio at PFT. A few months ago he speculated that Jermichael Finley could conceivably argue for wide receiver money if franchised. Of course other sites and blogs picked up on it and there was a bit of hullabaloo over it.

 

A month later, Florio stated that Finley almost certainly would fight for receiver money, and even posted a bunch of links to outside sources. Those outside source links went to the posts on sites and blogs that had reacted to his (Florio's) original out-of-nowhere speculation a month earlier.

 

Talk about creating a story out of nothing! Masterful!

 

Florio is probably the worst excuse for a sports journalist anywhere. I have no clue how this guy got a job with nbc. All he does is wildly speculate or create stories out of nothing. If anything he should work at espn

[benji]

I lost all respect for Florio when he destroyed Aaron Rodgers without knowing the facts with that airport incident.

[joepepsi]

Sports journalism has never had anything to do with the tenets or ethics of legitimate journalism. Back in the day journalists were friends of the athletes. They traveled with them, played cards on the train with them, drank with them in hotel bars, protected them from public scrutiny, and assisted teams in myth making of certain players. Nowadays, sports journalists continue to just make stuff up to suit whatever argument their producer or editor wants them make on a particular day. Sports "journalists" have never been held to anything resembling accountability. They are no more journalists than the 6 and 10 weather man on the local news.

 

I haven't watch espn baseball tonight or Sportscenter for at least 5 years. I suggest everyone else do the same. I am disappointed in MLB Network on their coverage of this issue. It seems MLB is dictating editorial content to the network: "try and appear fair, but continue with the vague suggestions that Braun is a juicer." Eric Byrnes is possibly the stupidest person to ever appear on television. He won't be part of the MLB Network team this time next year.

 

My hope is 60 minutes does a real journalism piece on this story around Opening Day, and we can then put it to rest.

[Cyanogen5]

News today is all about sensationalism...especially sports news. The issue to me isn't integrity, although that is lacking, but accountability. What happens to the guys who spouts off using uncorroborated "facts" as his basis for dragging a guy through the mud, only later to find out that the guy was innocent? Nothing. He is not forced to retract his statements. He doesn't lose his job. He just moves on to the next story. Many of these guys are celebrities themselves. They are paid for their ability to attract viewers/readers/hits rather than their insights or their ability to report meaningful stories and news. The blame really lies with us (Americans in general). We latch on to every word that these guys say, and discuss it ad nauseum on message boards, talk shows, etc. never really pausing to wonder if it is true. We are gossip hounds...using the "news" as entertainment. Until that culture changes...this is what the "news" will be.

[azcheesehead]

What was interesting today on ESPN radio was Jonathan Coachman. He referenced knowing many people who take PEDs (obviously from his WWE days) and he stated that no one on Earth is smart enough to know how to beat the levels of testosterone in your system. For example, it's hard to get on a schedule where you know you will have levels in your body one day, and not the next. So, even if you DID know you were being tested on a Thursday (which you don't) you couldn't be totally confident in not having elevations in your system leading up to the test, much less making them disappear on a Thursday. He said coupling that with the fact that these guys don't know when they're being tested, he believed Braun, in his gut based off of his knowledge of how the PED game works. Coming from a place where roids run rampant, I liked what he had to say about Braun.

[dlk9s]

Let's say more facts come out and things change, are they all going to backtrack and change their stances or apologize for jumping the gun and making wild accusations? I doubt it.

 

Probably not. They'll just write another article with an opinion that reflects the new information. Apology is unlikely.

 

I write for a poker news site and while I don't really consider myself a "journalist," as I rarely get my information first-hand, I do try to make sure I always have the facts straight. If I'm not sure of all the details, I make sure I write as much and/or present multiple possibilities. Most of the time, I don't editorialize, as I'm just writing news, but when I do write an opinion piece, I try to be fair.

 

It's funny, I ran into a situation recently where I basically wrote an article where the main point of it was totally incorrect. The World Series of Poker was getting ready to announce the schedule for this year and they tweeted some teasers, one of which was that there would be no "November Nine" this year (for those who don't follow poker, a few years ago, the final table of the big $10,000 Main Event that most of you have probably seen on ESPN was moved to November from July for various reasons - changing it back to July would be a very big deal). As soon as I saw that tweet, I posted an article ASAP because hey, that's huge stuff.

 

The next day, when the schedule was announced, it turns out that the "November Nine" was simply moved to October because of the Presidential Election. I was soooooo pissed. Rather than removing the article or writing a new one (though I wrote a separate one with schedule details), I changed the headline to reflect the fake-out by the WSOP tweet, added an italicized note at the top of the article, and did a bunch of strikethroughs to show any changes. I did all that partly out of stubbornness and partly for humor purposes so people could see how the WSOP totally screwed me up.

[dlk9s]

I'm not sure that SI is really any better to be honest. The writers might be better, but they have many writers (this means you Peter King) that think they are as big or bigger than the game. The only thing SI does is at least verify stories before reporting them. But they aren't above basically riding the wave of ESPN, hence how Jeremy Lin is on the cover TWO weeks in a row. For those of you that get SI, can you think of any other time when during the regular season of a sport, the same player or even team hit the cover two weeks in a row? I know it's a slow sports time, but still.

 

I actually double-checked the date on the second issue to make sure I didn't receive the same one.

 

I like Jeremy Lin and all and hope he does great, but yeah, that was pretty silly.

[Thurston Fluff]

When you are an obsolete entity desperately holding on to past glory you say or do anything just to stay relevant. They are to sports coverage what Polaroid is to photography. An old school titan made obsolete by new technology. I don't even have them programed in my channel guide as an option. If I want scores I go to my phone or computer. If I want in depth analysis I go to reliable sites like this one. If I want opinion pieces or fluff about my team I listen to sports talk radio or local papers on-line. If I'm bored and want to watch something about baseball or football I go to the networks dedicated to 100% coverage of the sport. I just don't have any interest in ESPN any more.

[JCREW]

ESPN's Ombudsman had an article (sorry can't find the link) condemning the network for its blurring of reporting on athletes and worshiping them. It came out about the same time as "The Decision". To summarize, that LeBron fiasco, all of the "This is SportsCenter" commercials, and a number of other incidents are a huge problem for a network that wants to be a picture of fair and equal reporting. How can a network have its reporters act in commercials with the players they cover, pay both parties to do so, and still consider itself fair and equal?

 

Personally, I think those commercials make for brilliant entertainment. That's the first letter in ESPN - Entertainment. Furthermore, the N does not stand for news.

 

For me the bottom line is, ESPN does entertainment well. The problem is that they mix all of the following on nearly every show: news and entertainment, rumor and entertainment, rumor and news, opinion and news, opinion and entertainment, star-worship and news, etc. Then to top it all off, it's done at a pace far to fast (careless/reckless) to be completely accurate and fair.

[craigharmann]

I was listening to ESPN radio and they had an interview with Jayson Stark. He talked about Braun, saying he doesn't see how there's any way that Braun's reputation doesn't come back to where it was. I guess giving someone the benefit of the doubt isn't really a choice anymore.

[whizkid]

The double negative in your summary of what Stark said makes it look like Stark thinks his reputation will come back and that seems to conflict with your last sentence.

[craigharmann]

The double negative in your summary of what Stark said makes it look like Stark thinks his reputation will come back and that seems to conflict with your last sentence.

 

Sorry, I was trying to summarize, and my brain doesn't seem to be working well today. He doesn't think Braun's reputation will return to what it was pre-leak.

[brettac1]

Even if Braun had won based on doing something like prove the sample wasn't even his, he would never be able to clear his name. Once that genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't go back in.

[JohnBriggs12]

Even if Braun had won based on doing something like prove the sample wasn't even his, he would never be able to clear his name. Once that genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't go back in.

 

Which is exactly why Braun needs to sue whoever his team suspects was responsible for the leak or tainting the sample. Braun implied that his team knew or at least suspected more than he was allowed to say. My guess is they have strong indications of a financial or other heretofore not explained motive behind the tainting of the sample and perhaps the leak as well. But without subpoena powers it's tough to prove. They focused in the hearing on what could be proven, but to clear his name, they aren't going to stop digging.

[AZBrewCrew]

Maybe there was a female who felt jilted by him and felt like getting revenge. On a more serious note though, I would have to think the legal options would involve going after an organization and not as much an individual. I cant imagine much to be gained by going against an individual other than them admitting to leaking the information.

[JCREW]

I cant imagine much to be gained by going against an individual other than them admitting to leaking the information.

 

I agree with you AZBC, however, If Braun truly believes that the whole decision is a victory for all people who have been wrongly accused, I could see him wanting to sue to send a message.

I don't know if they would have just cause to do so, but I could see MLB and MLBPA working together to punish an individual in order to send a similar message to other would be leaks.

[tomwopat]

I cant imagine much to be gained by going against an individual other than them admitting to leaking the information.

 

I agree with you AZBC, however, If Braun truly believes that the whole decision is a victory for all people who have been wrongly accused, I could see him wanting to sue to send a message.

I don't know if they would have just cause to do so, but I could see MLB and MLBPA working together to punish an individual in order to send a similar message to other would be leaks.

 

You'd think that Braun would have to go to ESPN, as they were the ones who broke the story and know the identity of the leak. And while Braun is financially stable, I'd have to think ESPN has more capital at its disposal for a legal battle.

 

What would likely happen is that those closest to the leak would be fired. This might be justified, but it hardly does anything to compensate for the damage inflicted to his reputation.