1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Browns beat writer booted over tweet

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by TheSportsPredictor, Jan 25, 2012.

  1. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    No, it's what we forgot from journalism school. And I wouldn't exactly be celebrating it.
     
  2. Editude

    Editude Active Member

    It's still a word medium, and words matter. Pathetic? Why would that even be used in an IM or text? Being informed and influenced by reasonable perceptions is one thing; simplified negativity passing as who-asked-you judgment is something else. And if a professional approach doesn't fly in 2012, I guess many of us will be grounded.
     
  3. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Regarding "objectivity", it may not be equivalent, but to the extent it's not, it's only a difference of degrees.

    The fear of "bias" skews coverage positive, I'd submit. No one would scream bias if a writer called a player "smart". Plenty would if he called him "dumb"*. One could argue that, as an empirical matter, negative comments are more likely to reveal a true bias, as opposed to a perceived one. But I haven't seen that sort of nuance.

    * The language of "professionalism" reinforces this too. Many negative words would be viewed as "unprofessional" while their positive equivalent would not.
     
  4. Fran Curci

    Fran Curci Well-Known Member

    Given the union's strength at Plain Dealer, it would be tough to fire a writer over this. But they could assign him to cover Cleveland State or high schools.
     
  5. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    About 15 years ago a longtime college beat writer at a local paper is a guest on a radio show. A caller calls in and mentions they saw the legendary football coach the previous night at his son's basketball game.

    The writer says, "Really, I thought the only time his kids see their dad is when they drive around town and see his face on the used car billboard."

    The coach in question was listening and called the managing editor and said, "I can handle being criticized for anything I do as a coach, but when someone goes on the air and insinuates that I am a bad parent, I can't ever speak to that guy again."

    The beat writer, who had been on the beat for at least 15 years, was fired three hours later.
     
  6. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    That's why newspapers are failing.
     
  7. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    You joke, but this story proves the validity of the Deadspin, Bill Simmons, stat geek, basement blogger, etc. model. Proof that journalists must sugar the truth in order to preserve access. That is not to endorse this off-handed remark about the coach's parenting*, but rather there are limits to what you can say and still preserve access. This coach happened to have a very high tolerance for criticism--which this writer crossed--but other players and coaches don't. Even minor comments could set them off.

    * Although perhaps readers would get a truer picture of the sporting world if they knew the emotional toll high-stakes sports placed on competitors and their families.
     
  8. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    He can if he brings facts to support whatever his "honest" statement is.

    But saying something like "world's most pathetic billionaire" when there are all kinds of nefarious billionaires all over the world shows that he's hopelessly biased (not to mention completely uninformed, which is even worse). Heck, two drug traffickers have appeared on Forbes' list.
     
  9. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Solid interpretation of something he never said.
     
  10. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    PD managing editor went on the radio today to talk about it:

    http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/01/26/plain-dealers-thom-fladung-discusses-grossi-reassignment-on-kiley-booms/

    He says ...

    * Grossi not disciplined other than taken off Browns beat b/c tweet was inappropriate and unprofessional and not kind of opinion a journalist covering a beat can express.
    * If Grossi had written a column that said Lerner's lack of involvement with Browns and resulting disappointing record had made him irrelevant as an owner, that is defensible.
    * That saying Lerner is pathetic and irrelevant billioinarie is an insult not an opinion. Host says it is an opinion.
    * Browns part of Cleveland newsroom business was working. Grossi was a good beat writer and why would he want to step in and do anything to mess it up? But Grossi crossed the line.
    * Many readers were offended by Grossi's tweet and question his credibility. People also emailing him calling him spineless coward. But that's not determining factor.
    * Determining factor is, don't do something that offends your value as journalist or value of your newspaper or perception of such.
    * He, the editor, and sports editor are the ones who made the decision. He has never had contact with any Browns executive.
    * Hopes it will not have any effect on any other Browns reporter asking tough questions.
     
  11. Thanks for the recap.

    Regardless of where we fall on this issue, can't we agree that -- on a personal level -- it's unfortunate that one of our outstanding colleagues has been demoted because of a mistake many of us have made (if not to the same degree)? Or is there too much grave-dancing to even acknowledge that?
     
  12. Dan Feldman

    Dan Feldman Member

    Seven days ago, Grossi thought Lerner was pathetic. Six days ago, Grossi thought Lerner was pathetic. All of a sudden, it's a problem?

    The only difference is readers learned Grossi's opinion. That's better serving readers, who can judge Grossi's articles with more information. There is no "objective" way to write an article, and all the time, writers must decide what's worthy of being published. I'd rather read Grossi's work knowing what he believes.

    If Grossi had made the same comment to his boss while they were in the newsroom chatting, would Grossi have been removed from the beat? Should he have been? What's the difference?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page