Clay Travis: Sports bloggers have become ‘Mean Girls’; bully and travel in packs

Turns out I wasn’t the only person who found Will Leitch’s takedown of Darren Rovell to be excessively nasty.

Clay Travis felt the same way. Writing for Outkickthecoverage.com, he made many of the same points I did about Leitch.

Travis writes:

It wasn’t funny or witty or demythologizing of sports, instead, it was just mean and bullying. I’m not going to pretend I’ve never been mean in what I’ve written, but I’ve at least always tried to be funny. (I’ll excuse pretty much anything if it’s funny). But there was no attempt at humor or satire here, this was a serious attack on Rovell’s online persona.

Travis then expanded his critique. He said Leitch’s column is an example of a Mean Girls mentality among sports bloggers.

The more I thought about it the more I realized Will’s column was the culmination of something I’ve noticed over the past couple of years, the sports blogosphere’s descent into “Mean Girls.” You remember “Mean Girls,” right, the movie that suggested Lindsay Lohan was going to be a superstar, the script that vaulted Tina Fey into the limelight. (If you don’t remember “Mean Girls,” you’re clearly much cooler than me, which may be a given). At its heart the movie was about a group of cliquish girls who didn’t think for themselves and bullied everyone else around them. That’s when it hit me, increasingly the sports blogosphere in a Twitter age has come to resemble the clique of mean girls at the center of that movie, a cabal of bloggers who all share the same opinions and band together to bully the same targets.

The targets will vary, but they’re typically employed by ESPN. From Bill Simmons to Craig James to Joe Schad to Darren Rovell to Stephen A. Smith to Colin Cowherd to Stuart Scott, all of them have provoked the ire of the sports blogosphere at some point or another. It’s a roving band of ridicule, a bunch of ants trying to take down a rhino.

It’s jealousy personified. A group of people without a very substantial audience who go after a target with a substantial audience in hopes of punching up and making a name for themselves. Only the sports blogosphere fights aren’t one on one, they attack as a cohesive whole. Everyone, miraculously, has the exact same opinion of every target. And to what end? Are you really telling me that these ESPN targets are so much worse at their jobs than everyone else in the sports media? Of course they aren’t, that’s not the point, it’s that the mean girl clique has nothing better to do than band together and go after new targets over and over and over again. What they lack in audience they make up for in dedication, woe unto you if you have the temerity to question the herd of ants.

I’m sure they rose to their feet in Bristol when they read that passage.

I don’t know about the “Mean Girls” parallel, but as I wrote yesterday, I do believe the discourse has become excessively mean. Leitch simply took it to another level.  And there’s no question that high-profile targets like ESPN, Rovell, and Rick Reilly are under attack in the name of page views.

That isn’t to say some of those targets don’t deserve the criticism. Just because fans embrace the celebrity of Chris Berman when they see him in public doesn’t mean he is universally beloved when he launches into his schtick on ESPN. And it is essential to pile on Craig James.

Travis makes some points worthy of discussion. Judging by the Twitter reaction, his critique has hit a nerve or two among the bloggers/critics.

 

Culpepper on why he wrote about being gay: Realized now would be a good time

If you’re like me, you wanted to stand up and cheer after reading Chuck Culpepper’s column at the Sports on Earth site last week.

Culpepper wrote about thanking Brendan Ayanbadejo for comments he made in support of gay people during Super Bowl week. As he talked to the Baltimore Ravens linebacker following the game, you could feel his internal uneasiness before he finally blurted out the words.

He wrote:

“You don’t know me,” I said, and he grinned at that, “but you have done a lot for me,” and his eyes told me he knew what I meant. “And I just want to tell you that I am so grateful. You are a good man.”

Whew. There. I had spit it out. With reasonable concision, even. As we let go of our handshake, he said simply and unemotionally, “It’s the right thing to do, plain and simple,” whereupon I mustered a closing, “Thank you.”

Obviously, it was a significant moment in Culpepper’s life. In a Q/A, he sheds some light about his decision to write the column and what he has experienced during his career as a sportswriter.

Was this the first time you wrote about being gay?  Were there other times you considered writing about it?

I mentioned it in the acknowledgements of my soccer-in-England book, published in the U.K. in 2007 and the U.S. in 2008. It’s funny, but it could have been part of that book, because that book was first-person, until a wise soul at the David Black literary agency advised me: If you’re writing a book about one thing (in this case, English soccer), don’t distract people with another sweeping topic. (She provided an example of how such a thing had sideswiped another book.) And then, when I did interviews for the various BBC outlets for the book, the publishing PR reps thought I shouldn’t bring the gay angle to promote a book that wasn’t really about the subject at all. But otherwise, yes, I have considered writing it for about umpteen years.

When did you realize that you had to write this?

Even in that moment with (Brendan Ayanbadejo), I very well might have just balked and walked on, figuring I’d thanked him another time, which would be like me. I hail from a smallish Virginia town (Suffolk) where we sort of got conditioned not to put ourselves out there in any way, and I have spent life gradually shedding that impulse. So it surprised me that I did speak up and thank him, and I think I realized then that now would be a good time.

But I had a major guide in this. I rode to and from that AFC title game with Steve Buckley, the Boston Herald sports columnist who wrote his version of this column two Januarys ago. I also talked to him extensively in January, especially at the marvelous Diesel coffeehouse at Davis Square. And while he’s a firm believer that this should be everybody’s personal decision, he also encouraged me based on the volumes of responses he received from people who said his column had helped them. That’s the ethic you hear a lot these days, that there’s an added responsibility to lend your name, especially given the publicized stories of teen-agers struggling.

Could you have seen never writing about it?

Yes, and it probably would have made me very sad by age 70.

What in particular struck you about the reaction to the column?

I have lived recent days in a torrent of kindness that has floored me and instructed me as to how briskly the perception of this issue has changed. If the kind words keep up, I might have to start liking myself though I’ll try to avoid that mistake.

Has being gay ever been an issue for you as a sportswriter, either in dealing with sports editors and/or athletes?

With athletes, no, but largely because of my wanderlust and nomadism, which never seem to wane and seem only to heighten. There were 3 1/2 years in Los Angeles, then one in Chicago, a winter in Pittsburgh, nine years in Lexington (Kentucky), 2 1/2 in Portland (Oregon), 3 1/2 in New York, three in London, four months in Paris, two years in Abu Dhabi/Dubai. When Steve Buckley wrote his column, he got meaningful calls and texts of support from Bobby Orr, several Red Sox, Robert Kraft, people who knew him for years. Very few athletes have anything approaching that familiarity with me.

With editors, also no. There was (and is) a prince of a human being in Lexington, Gene Abell, who knew about it, but we never discussed it, and the same with Dennis Peck at the Oregonian. When I went to interview at Newsday in 2002, Sandy Keenan brought it up that very first day and gave me a great sense of comfort. The great Randy Harvey at the Los Angeles Times and the great Robert Mashburn in Abu Dhabi always conversed with me it openly on the subject. And now my Sports On Earth bosses Larry Burke and Steve Madden, there they are, extremely supportive and aware from the job interview on, a whole new world in motion, a world I frankly never foresaw.

There was, however, a strange byproduct way back when. Back in the 1990s, sometimes Gene would call me and say on my answering machine (answering machines!), “We need to talk,” or something like that, and straightaway I would feel a sense of dread, that I might be done, finished, because of this. And invariably when I called he would say something like, “We’re doing a special (basketball) section and need you to write a column,” something about the job itself. A dear friend in New York, straight guy, once told me, “I grieve for you when I hear that.” And it goes to show how we can internalize loony things, because that recurrent notion was nothing shy of loony, because with Gene, we’re talking about one of the kindest, most decent people ever to pop out of the birth canal.

Being a gay male in athletics still seems to be a taboo, especially for a team sport. Do you foresee that perspective ever changing? Do you foresee when it isn’t an issue to be gay and play for a pro football team?

I would have said no 10 years ago, probably no five years ago, and yes now. I would agree now with my great friend Gwen Knapp, who has said for years that the athletes are actually ahead of the media’s perception of the athletes. But especially in returning to the country after six years, and from places such as the UK where this issue is long since all but settled culturally, the speed of the changes of the perceptions of the issue here stun me. I never quite believed Andrew Sullivan when he used to write that once gay people could marry, the United States would become more American, but I feel now what he meant.

You are a couple days removed from writing the column. How do you feel about it now?

You know how you long wonder about doing something, anything, feel afraid of it sometimes through the years, unafraid other times, but then you finally do it and you’re no longer acquainted with the former you who wondered and sometimes worried about it, and you wonder what all the self-imposed suspense was about? Yeah. While covering a round-the-world sailboat race in 2011, I jumped off the back of a yacht in Cape Town, South Africa, to be collected by a trailing inflatable boat, in a tradition for visitors when the boats make their way to sea. I jumped into the frigid, shark-infested South Atlantic, and two sharks came up to me and I stared them down and they left.

OK, that last part is not true, but it was exhilarating beyond exhilarating, and it reminded me of the old Eleanor Roosevelt line: “Do one thing every day that scares you.” I’m not sure this column scared me anymore, not so much, but I guess it once did, so maybe it counts a little. But really, Eleanor: Every day?

Anything else?

The 2001 Wimbledon men’s singles final was one of the most magical days in the business. Rain had pushed it to Monday, and the All England Club let in the general public, and Centre Court was unusually rowdy as Pat Rafter played Goran Ivanisevic in a five-set barnburner and the Australian fans bobbed their inflatable kangaroos. We reporters pretty much loved Goran (and Rafter, too, in a different way), because Goran was great and funny in press conferences. And there was a genuine feeling for him when he won because we pretty much had seen his decade-long struggle to get there, his battle against himself and against his own addled brain that could take him completely out of the match and pretty much off the premises at any point. When he wept on the court, it was hard not to get choked up.

Then, after all this, at the end of the press conference his wiring short-circuited again, and he suddenly burst out complaining about a line judge whom he said “looked like a faggot.” The room boomed in laughter not out of homophobia but out of the absurdity, and while I mentioned it in my column, I mentioned it only three-fourths of the way down, buried beneath all the description of the great day. I sometimes want that column back, not to rant, but certainly to lampoon.

 

Jeff Pearlman knocks Whitlock, Parker: It’s all about me!

It wasn’t just me.

The former Sports Illustrated writer and now book author has his own site. He took exception to Jason Whitlock’s “Please give a Pulitzer” column and Rob Parker’s introductory piece at The Shadow League.

Pearlman writes:

I read two columns from sports writers that made me question their perspectives. The first, by Jason Whitlock, was a piece for (oddly) Ball State’s student newspaper. Jason’s an alum of the school, and the article was, I guess, his argument for why he deserves the Pulitzer Prize. The second, by Rob Parker, appeared on the website, The Shadow League, for which he now writes. It was, following his embarrassingly public dismissal from ESPN.com for making some insanely dumb comments about RGIII, an effort for us (the readers) to learn about, eh, Rob Parker.

Yawn.

Back when I was 22, and writing for The Tennessean, I presumed readers cared about me. I inserted myself in as many pieces as possible because—Hey!–look at me! I’m interesting! And fascinating! And, surely, my life will rivet you! So let me tell you why I’m a great writer! Why life as a Jewish man in the South is so tough! Why my transition from New York to Dixie has been so rocky! Let! Me! Tell! You! All! About! Me!

And then:

Some of the best writing I’ve ever done has come over the past 10 years, when I’ve been—for 98 percent of the time—invisible. I live in my own little Starbucks/Panera/Cosi cave, anonymous to the world, and write my happy books. I drink a cup of hot chocolate, slip on some baggy basketball shorts and a ripped T-shirt and write away. Notoriety matters not. Fame matters not. I get recognized, on average, two times a year. For a moment, it’s flattering. Then, just as quickly, it’s awkward. I don’t want that.

The greatest writers I’ve known revel in documenting the lives of others. Steve Rushin, the finest wordsmith I’ve worked with, never hyped himself for an award and, I promise you, never will. Neither did Jack McCallum. Or Jon Wertheim. Or Chris Ballard. Or Phil Taylor. Or Chuck Culpepper. Or Howard Bryant. Or Jonathan Eig. Or Leigh Montville. Or Mark Kriegel. Or Lee Jenkins. The best writers long to be invisible; to appear simply as a byline atop a story. Can anyone reading this imagine Joe Posnanski penning a piece titled ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF? Can anyone reading this imagine Kriegel calling himself Pulitzer worthy?

Hell, no.

Of course, Whitlock had to retort, via Twitter:

WhitlockJason Damn, this is quite possibly the most dishonest thing ever written.

Why Jason Whitlock wouldn’t do Q/A with me; said I didn’t ask ‘sophisticated questions’

I would like to thank Jason Whitlock for providing me with some page views today. He spoke out on Twitter about my post this morning regarding his comments about the APSE judging.

WhitlockJason Just a good old boy, never meaning no harm. Ed Sherman comes out smoking!!!

WhitlockJason Ed’s journalistic instincts are a little suspect. But he’s a good old boy, never meaning no harm. Making his way, the only way he knows how.

OK, you get the idea. Whitlock also had this post:

WhitlockJason Guess I shouldn’t have told Ed Sherman his Q&A questions were stupid a month ago

I hadn’t planned to write about him accepting and then declining to do a Q/A with me on the site. But since he brought it up, I figure it’s worth an explanation.

In December, I reached out to the FoxSports.com columnist, asking if he would be interested in doing a Q/A. My request came just after Bob Costas quoted Whitlock’s column on gun control during his halftime commentary on NBC’s Sunday Night Football.

I also wanted to talk to Whitlock about his sports media-based podcasts for Fox Sports. Specifically, I wanted him to address comments about a podcast he did with Richard Sandomir of the New York Times.

He repeatedly implored Sandomir to go after ESPN. “Deadspin has done a good job,” Whitlock said. “Some adults could get at the bigger issues at play here.”

Keep in mind, Whitlock once worked for ESPN and didn’t leave on the best of terms.

I also was intrigued about Whitlock’s comments on First Take during his discussion with Sandomir. He alleged that the show was geared to unemployed African-Americans.

“It’s not by accident that they’ve added the rap music, added the black women eye candy,” Whitlock said. “Skip Bayless picks on certain black targets. Then they brought in Stephen A. Smith to smooth it out.”

Later, Whitlock said, “Their ratings among black viewers is off the charts and it drives their decision-making. I’ve heard that from people I know.”

And one more sound bite. “There are a group of people who have time to watch this. They don’t have jobs. They like to talk sports and like the barbershop style of sports talk.”

OK, that’s a bit out there. I wanted Whitlock to discuss his position here.

So I contacted Whitlock about doing a Q/A and he said to email him some questions. I did ask him about ESPN, his First Take comments and other issues. After a week, I received the following email from Whitlock on Dec. 13:

Sorry for the delayed response. I’m not interested in the Q/A at this time. I can get my views out more effectively through platforms I control or through interviews with a more sophisticated line of questioning. Thanks for the invite.

Damn, I knew I should have gone to grad school so I could ask more sophisticated questions. At least, he said thank you.

Sure, I was ticked. But I moved on.

Then on Jan. 4, I went to Big Lead, and what did I see? A big Q/A with none other than Jason Whitlock. Now Jason McIntyre asked some good questions, but I didn’t think they were any more sophisticated than mine.

Now I was really ticked and thought about doing a post. But then there was Lance Armstrong and Manti Te’o. And I moved on.

Until today. I had a nice little Twitter battle with Whitlock. Not on the level of Whitlock-Richard Deitsch, or Deitsch-anyone, but still it was spirited.

Whitlock did do a chat with Deadspin readers today. My name came up. I swear I didn’t put Jon DePaolis up to it:

JonDePaolis: 52: Do you dislike Ed Sherman, or is he just a hater on you?

Whitlock: I don’t dislike Special Ed. Don’t really know him. The debate/discussion I’m having about the sportswriting industry is just above his ability to comprehend.

I’m trying, I’m really trying. And if anyone knows how I can get more sophisticated, please let me know.

 

APSE President replies to Whitlock’s charge: ‘Great lengths to ensure integrity of judging’

This just in from Associated Press Sports Editor president Gerry Ahern regarding Jason Whitlock’s charge the writing contest is biased against minority columnists:

“The Associated Press Sports Editors contest has long been recognized as one of the premier honors for sports journalists. Our contest goes to great lengths to ensure the integrity of the judging. Bylines and newspaper affiliations are redacted from the entries. Any judge that sees an entry from their news organization or from their market recuses themselves from judging that entry or discussion of it.”

Chuck Culpepper, gay sportswriter, thanks Ravens player for his stance

In case you missed it, my old friend Chuck Culpepper wrote a great column yesterday for the Sports on Earth site.

Culpepper writes, “I am that exotic creature, a gay male sportswriter.”

Later, he writes: “I am believed to be the only gay male extant who can recite the final scores of all 47 Super Bowls, and if we’re together and you’re unlucky, I might start it up.”

Culpepper wrote about being in the Baltimore locker room Sunday and whether he should thank Baltimore Ravens lineback Brendan Ayanbadejo, who defended gays in the wake of comments by San Francisco cornerback Chris Culliver.

Finally, Culpepper did:

As we walked out together, he told of hearing Tom Coughlin speak at the previous Super Bowl about love, a remarkable turn of American life I had missed while abroad. He told of applying Coughlin’s concept to a note he placed in head coach John Harbaugh’s suggestion box. And as he said this, we turned left from the locker room out into the cold tunnel, where it seemed just about time to part, and where I surprised myself.

“You don’t know me,” I said, and he grinned at that, “but you have done a lot for me,” and his eyes told me he knew what I meant. “And I just want to tell you that I am so grateful. You are a good man.”

 Whew. There. I had spit it out. With reasonable concision, even. As we let go of our handshake, he said simply and unemotionally, “It’s the right thing to do, plain and simple,” whereupon I mustered a closing, “Thank you.”

Do yourself a favor and read the entire article. Culpepper is one of the best anywhere. And forget about the gay aspect, I bet he is the only sportswriter who could recite the scores for all 47 Super Bowls.

 

 

Pulitzer wannabe Jason Whitlock accuses APSE contest of being biased against minority columnists

Jason Whitlock thinks very highly of himself. Yesterday, he did a column on Ball State’s website (he’s a 1990 graduate), bemoaning the fact that he isn’t eligible for consideration for the Pulitzer Prize since he writes for Foxsports.com.

Before I touch on the questionable notion of Whitlock winning a Pulitzer, there’s another item that needs to be addressed.

Whitlock claims in the piece that the Associated Press Sports Editors are biased against minority columnists in the judging of their annual contest. He writes:

The annual Associated Press Sports Editors awards do not generally and/or consistently recognize the kind of columns I regard as courageous, honest, original and opinion-driven. The APSE prefers storytellers. Its awards also consistently reflect the anti-minority-perspective bias pervasive throughout the sportswriting industry. Sportswriting is a good-old-boy network. It’s very difficult — perhaps impossible — for a person of color who writes from a minority perspective to be recognized as the best at anything in sportswriting.

That’s not a charge of racism. It’s a charge of bias, an affliction we all have.

As best I can tell, no non-white has won the APSE’s column-writing contest. Google “African-American winners of the Pulitzer Prize.” The list is deep and goes back many years. The Pulitzer Prize is far more prestigious and competitive than an APSE.

You can examine almost every aspect of writing as an art form and find examples of minorities being recognized as the best in any given year. Sportswriting is the exception.

Oh, there have been great minority candidates. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Miami Herald’s Dan Le Batard (a Cuban-American) was as talented, insightful and provocative as any columnist working in America. Before Michael Wilbon became a television star, he wrote some of the best sports columns I’ve ever read. Bryan Burwell had a run in the 1990s and is strong again in St. Louis. Shaun Powell laid it down at Newsday. When I showed up at the Kansas City Star in 1994, I shook the entire Midwest and eventually the country.

None of us has ever been quite good enough to reach the top. It’s my belief that our minority perspective is off-putting to predominantly white male judges.  

OK Jason, here are a few facts: That “good-old-boy network” network has awarded the best columnist award in the large circulation to the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins for two straight years; she also won in previous years. The same Sally Jenkins, who happens to be a woman. When it comes to minorities, women still are rare in the press box. Who would have thunk it from a “good-old-boy network?”

Also, Whitlock probably isn’t aware that the judges see entries that are devoid of all names and any identifying marks for a newspaper or website. It is just plain type. So it’s hard for the good-old white boys to know if they are slighting a minority columnist.

Finally, Whitlock probably should take a look at the APSE website. The sports editors, “the good-old-boys,” have an extensive diversity program, which outlines scholarship programs and seminars aimed at prospective minority journalists. The association knows it has to improve the minority presence in the profession.

And it isn’t as if Whitlock has been shut out in this contest. In recent years, he finished third in 2009 and tied for fourth in 2007.

I know many members of the APSE. I don’t think they have bias. I believe they have been fair in their judging.

*******

As for the Pulitzer portion of the column, Whitlock’s entry was returned because the contest isn’t open to “broadcast media” outlets. Now that seems ridiculous given the content that is being generated on those sites. But that’s a story for another day.

Anyway, Whitlock believes he’s worthy this year.

Last year, it’s my belief, I had my best year as a columnist. It all came together. I perfected my column style. For years, I’ve tried to take sports headlines and transform them into lessons about American society at large. Royko’s columns helped shape my view of America. In 2012, I was like Mike.

OK, now he’s comparing himself to Mike Royko. As I said, Whitlock thinks highly of himself.

Whitlock notes that the Pulitzers suck when it comes to sportswriters. I lamented about the shabby treatment when last year’s winners were announced.  Among columnists in the last 40 years, only Red Smith, Dave Anderson and Jim Murray have been given the award, and the last one was more than two decades ago.

Whitlock, though, thinks he has the goods if only he was considered. Now he wants to add his face to this Mt. Rushmore of sportswriting legends. Think about it: Smith, Anderson, Murray….Whitlock?

Yep, hard for me to picture too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rob Parker re-emerges: Writes about RGIII comments for Shadow League site

Rob Parker is back. The now former ESPN personality has hooked up with a site called The Shadow League.

His first column carries this headline: “Allow me to reintroduce myself; I’ve learned lessons, but I’m still Rob Parker.”

Parker opens by addressing his First Take comments on Robert Griffin III, which is why he no longer is on First Take:

I was Robert Griffin III.

I am RG III.

That’s because I’ve faced questions, too—always will. I faced them when returning home from college. I faced them when I first went to an NABJ conference as a young, ambitious cub reporter. I faced them recently when trying to convince the editors of The Shadow League that I wasn’t too old-school to resonate with their readers.

We are black men. This is what we do. We challenge each other. It will never stop, nor should it.

Continuing on that theme:

In no way did I mean to do any harm to Griffin III, the Redskins’ starting quarterback. By all accounts, he’s a good guy and had a tremendous rookie season.

When brothers talk to and about each other, it’s usually not intended with ill will. And that certainly wasn’t the goal of ESPN’s First Take, a show I proudly worked on for six years. I say ‘proudly’ not because it was regular loot, but because the show honestly gave black men a real, strong voice on a national platform.

No wonder it connected with so many brothers who have had to put up with all-white, sports-talk radio stations in a town near you. Yep, we didn’t have a voice there, but had one on First Take.

That was my goal: bring that voice to the forefront; give it an audience, some airplay. Stop just agreeing with the other guys at the table because it is easier, safer.

Nope. Not me. Never will be me.

You can’t be afraid of dialogue, talking about things that some people just might not know about. That’s how we learn, get educated and grow. Muting differing voices is hardly what America was built on. You don’t have to agree.

And here’s his lesson learned and sign-off:

Through the years, I have remained pretty consistent with my approach: be honest and fair. The Shadow League is getting the hard-hitting, thorough me.

I’ve learned something from the Griffin III situation. I learned, even more, that when you talk about race you need to be especially careful. However, it hasn’t changed me. And, I definitely won’t be muzzled here at The Shadow League. Trust me, those guys from the neighborhood will know it’s still me, still Rob from Jamaica, Queens.

So basically, Parker learned the lesson of being careful what you say about race on national TV. He’s now a long way from ESPN.

 

 

Make no mistake, Jay Mariotti won’t be writing for the Sun-Times

I think there’s a better chance of Lance Armstrong doing PR for USADA.

The only reason why the Chicago Sun-Times thing has come up relates to Jay Mariotti contributing a few guest columns for ChicagoSide, a relatively new sports site in Chicago.

The site is in the process of doing a content agreement with the Sun-Times. Select ChicagoSide pieces will appear in the paper.

So people began asking Mariotti today if that meant he could show up in the Sun-Times, via ChicagoSide.

Better chance that Lennay Kekua does PR for Lance Armstrong.

Mariotti writes in an email:

The Sun-Times, when I worked there, was a politically conflicted disgrace of a newspaper. The bosses cut deals and curried favor with people I had to cover as a Chicago sports columnist. They also failed to improve the Web site, a promise they made when I signed a contract extension in July 2008. I resigned in a cordial letter to the publisher two months later, after returning from the Beijing Olympics, and I handed back almost $1 million in wages. I don’t miss the place a bit.

I’ve written for Jon Eig (editor of ChicagoSide) as a way of helping his fun, new site and staying sharp as a writer. He asked me to contribute columns when the mood strikes me, and, if he wants, I’ll continue to do so on occasion for his site. I’m doing documentary work and writing books in L.A., and I’ve been meeting with major networks and sites about returning to the national sports media. My first book, “The System,” is available on Amazon.com, and it contains plenty of material about the Sun-Times.

 

 

 

Still not buying that Notre Dame reporters failed on Te’o story

Nothing like a little hindsight to make us all feel like idiots on the Manti Te’o story. You would almost think this is journalism’s darkest hour since Janet Cooke won the Pulitzer.

More piling on:

Ronnie Ramos of the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana:

It has become apparent in the past year that as mainstream media and journalists work online and across social media platforms, they have not brought with them the same accountability and transparency they demonstrated when they worked  for newspapers.

(Later he wrote) One of the outcomes of this Te’o hoax should be an in-depth review of how stories are vetted and a constant standard established for each organization across all platforms. We saw last year that lax standards for Twitter contributed to the false report about former Penn State coach Joe Paterno’s  death.

Patrick Hruby in The Atlantic:

The Te’o debacle isn’t like crediting the wrong player with a touchdown catch, or reporting an anonymously-sourced trade rumor that turns out to be false. This is a journalistic failure of the highest order, on a systemic scale, and frankly, there ought to be some sort of independent commission established to get to the bottom of how so many different organizations could be so very, very wrong about something so very, very basic.

********

And there were readers weighing in with comments on my site:

Barry: Not one reporter thought to contact the Stanford sports information director’s office on the outside chance of getting an interview with the “girlfriend’s” roommate, parents, a teacher, SOMEBODY, anybody that knew her personally?

Doing so more than likely would’ve revealed that the girl DIDN’T GO TO STANFORD! After which it likely would’ve been determined that SHE DIDN’T EXIST!

Might not be a bad idea for sportswriters to work the police and/or political beats for awhile before they migrate into the toy department. That way, they might be able to tell more easily when someone’s story sounds fishy.

Derek: Yes, a story should be verified before you run with it.  Journalists like to hold themselves and their profession in high regard, but when they fail to display even a shred of the intellectual integrity necessary to the pursuit of truth, and act with the unquestioning credulity of the proverbial choir member, things like this, which make the entire profession seem indistinguishable from the much-maligned, amateur blogosphere, are bound to occur.

Because no one at SI, ESPN, or any other outlet felt it necessary to scratch beneath the surface of a good story, the entire media is now being forced to absorb yet another black eye to its already battered reputation.

*******

And finally, Deadspin editor Tommy Craggs offered this assessment in his interview with Poytner:

I have less sympathy for the folks who crafted those painstaking “Love Story”-in-cleats feature stories about Manti and his dead girlfriend. Those were dumb, infantilizing stories to begin with, and they were executed poorly and sloppily, and if there’s any lesson to be drawn from this, it’s that this kind of simpering crap should be eliminated from the sports pages entirely.

*******

As I posted yesterday, I have a hard time blaming the reporters who covered the story and wrote about Te’o’s girlfriend. Why wouldn’t you believe Te’o? Why wouldn’t you believe Notre Dame? Brian Kelly made a spectacle out of giving him the game ball after the Michigan game.

Perhaps, reporters should have dug deeper to find out about the deceased girlfriend. To add details of who she was to the narrative. However, I don’t think it was imperative, considering what Te’o said about her.

It’s all hindsight. And don’t forget the media now works in a world where the deadline was five minutes ago. It does put a premium on going with what you’ve got now.

Obviously, the lesson here is the age-old notion of making that extra phone call. Easier to say now than prior to Deadspin publishing its story.

And speaking of Deadspin, the writers don’t get that story without receiving a tip. Otherwise, they had no reason to believe Te’o’s girlfriend was make-believe.

Deadspin did a superb job of running with what they got. It was a good day in journalism for them.

However, to condemn everyone else isn’t fair. The reporters who worked on this story didn’t have the benefit of hindsight.