My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University is on the fallout from the Dr. V putter story in Grantland.

Here’s an excerpt.

********

I’m fortunate, I guess.

For various reasons, I didn’t get around to reading Caleb Hannan’s story in Grantland on “Dr. V,” the mysterious inventor of a radically different putter in golf, until Sunday night. When I finally did read the entire 7,700-word piece, it was through the prism of criticism that had erupted since late Friday. My experience was markedly different than others.

If I hadn’t gotten sidetracked from reading the story on Wednesday, shortly after it was released, I likely would have been among the people spreading the word about this “gem” at Grantland. So I was spared from having to go back and retract my endorsement once tougher scrutiny cast the piece in a different light.

Others weren’t as lucky.

What stands out for me is the number of journalists, superb journalists, who initially had no problem with Hannan’s reporting and writing of this piece. In his apology on Grantland, editor Bill Simmons wrote, “The piece had been up for 56 hours before the backlash began.”

Think about that. 56 hours. The story was out there for two-plus days before it went from gold to meriting a mea culpa by the editor.

I initially heard about the story while listening to sports talk radio in the car. Dan Bernstein of WSCR-AM 670 in Chicago, hardly a golf guy, talked up the story on his show, directing listeners to his Twitter feed to find the link. Even though Bernstein and I once had differences, I consider him one of the smartest people in sports talk radio. If he is recommending a story of this nature, I want to read it. I’m not singling out Bernstein. Rather, this is an example of the initial reach of this story.

Indeed, when I got home, I saw similar words of high praise throughout Twitter from many people I respect in the business. The names have been well documented.

My point is that Grantland and its editors weren’t alone in failing to detect the ethical questions in the story. Many others were just as culpable with their endorsements.

How is this possible? Bruce Arthur, a columnist for the National Post in Canada, had this explanation. After initially lauding the story to his 144,000 followers on Twitter, he pulled back. In a tweet, he talked about being “mesmerized by the storytelling,” adding, “but I didn’t think it through.” In another tweet, he said: “The story was fascinating, even irresistible at first, and well-pursued. But.”

Richard Deitsch of SI.com had a similar view in his Monday column: “I think I was so enthralled by the reporting and whodunit aspect of the tale – and the skill of a talented journalist – that I failed to recognize some vital issues about the piece.”

Indeed, as journalists, we all had admiration for the highly unusual nature of the story and the reporting by Hannan to uncover the false credentials of the inventor. And then in the end, we learn this woman scientist had once been a man. As Arthur said, it was mesmerizing if you looked at it from merely that perspective.

*******

Here’s the link to the rest of the column.