Deadspin: "The AP Is Gay for Stupid"

Just a poorly written story.

 

That sounds more like a story you'd hear on Fox News.

 

There's a lot to unpack here, so I'll try to address it one-by-one:

1.) What's the definition of "exploitation"? In the NCAA case, we know that a bunch of entities have joined together to form a cartel to suppress wages. In the "free market" case, you seem to assume that because someone else makes money, there is exploitation. But if there is some sort of mutual agreement between the parties in the absence of an artificial restraint, that seems a lot less exploitive. The NCAA literally prevents athletes from receiving money from a local car dealer, let's say, that wants to pay them. (And I'm not really advocating for this system anyway--I think we spend way too much time and money on athletics in this country--I'd abolish college sports if I had the chance).

2.) If we accepted these market will always exist, we could much better regulate it. It would be much less profitable to be a street agent if this sort of behavior wasn't pushed underground--you'd see a lot less shadiness going on. Black markets help create rents for those willing to serve as middlemen. If Joe Cardealer could simply hand QB1 $15K after a game without raising the ire of the NCAA, there would be much less need for street agents.

3.) The NCAA is much, much different than my local police force. The government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force through, in theory, some grant from the people. The NCAA is a private entity that collusively sets prices in a labor market through its market power. There is no reason we need to accept it as a legitimate institution.

4.) I'm glad you think "athletes live a swank life". Perhaps you can then set wages for all other industries, deciding who deserves what.

5.) Baseball and hockey have exploded without the same use of the NCAA basketball and football have, so it's not clear to me you have any proof the NCAA is directly responsible for the "explosion of professional opportunities". Nor do I know why that would be a good thing.

6.) Setting aside all this talk about the merits of paying athletes or not, my point is that reporters present their stories about the issue as "objective" when they're really not. The mere decision to write about a NCAA rules violation is based on many subjective values. As I said earlier, should journalists police every violation of public and private rules? Why the NCAA and not catching speeders? Pot smokers? People taking a long cigarette break at work? One can easily distinguish these cases, but only by admitting you have subjective notions underlying those distinctions.

7.) Just because you write a descriptive story does not mean you're being objective. Pretending otherwise is deceptive to readers. People like Charles Robinson write these stories because of their own beliefs that violations are bad or because they think the NCAA rules are stupid. But they clearly have some "agenda"--journalists could write about all sorts of "truth", yet they have determined only some of it needs to be exposed.

8.) Further, if these stories are really "objective", how come I rarely, if ever, read about how any economist could tell you prohibitions encourage black markets, or how it's pretty odd we allow a bunch of employers to collusively set the price of wages?

9.) The Fairness Doctrine no longer exist.

10.) When did I ever assume dropping the pretense of "objectivity" will lead to the "enlightenment" I prefer? I just want honesty from journalists so I can evaluate their stories on the merits. If you believe the NCAA provides a net benefit to society and have no problem enforcing their rules, then fine, say so. But don't hide behind this veil of "objectivity" and pretend you're not saying something when writing these stories.

11.) Not sure what attacks on "objectivity" have to do with the creation of FoxNews. There has never been any enforcing body that levies punishment upon news organizations that don't act "objectively". FoxNews clearly filled some niche in the market. People always bitch-and-moan about the bias of the news--whether or not journalists think they're practicing objectivity.

12.) Is there any proof people are more or less informed since the advent of Fox News? People have always believed all sorts of bullshit. Now some idiots in suits just get paid a lot of money to blather on about it on TV.

13.) What journalists do now has nothing to do with "objectivity". It's transcribing two sides to an issue and throwing them into a story. If you want to be "objective" then actually evaluate positions on the merits. You might be practicing objectivity within your post, but that's not what most news organizations do when writing an "objective" story.

 

A whole lot of issues -- economic, competition-wise, community-wise -- are affected by whether a program is following NCAA rules. That's news, whether you like the NCAA's rules or not. We are supposed to report on news. Should we just wait until the NCAA sends out a release before covering the issue? Should we not be digging for stories that our readers care about? Were you seriously outraged that Yahoo dug out all the rot going on at Miami? And until a court says otherwise, the NCAA's system is perfectly legal, and players are paid, maybe not in the way you'd like, but they're paid.

And actually, there are small-town newspapers that post every speeding ticket. And there are all kinds of possible stories about excesses or shortages of speeding tickets issued.

Above all, stop shitting on the thousands of hard-working journalists who don't slant the news and report what needs to be reported.

 

When journalists do good work, I applaud them. When they don't, I question. Given their role in society, newspapers should be just as open to criticism as the institutions they cover. If journalists are proud of the way they cover the news without a "slant" and just "report what needs to be reported", they are free to dismiss my complaints (as it appears most people no the board do). It's just grumblings on an anonymous message board.

But to the point: As I already stated, OF COURSE, you can make those distinctions. But those decisions are based upon all sorts of underlying values about what is newsworthy. Write whatever stories you want--just don't pretend you're being objective. Whether intentional or not, seemingly innocuous, descriptive stories can easily come out advocating for a position. You mention stories about "shortages of speeding tickets issued"--that could implicitly suggest the newspaper believes: 1.) speeding laws are good; 2.) speeding laws should be enforced to some optimal level deemed appropriate by the newspaper; 3.) police are not doing their job. You can throw in some cops from quotes about efficiently using the enforcement budget, but the newspaper's decision to "investigate" and publish a story on this issue clearly is based on some underlying belief (maybe not the ones I mention here, but clearly something). To reproduce something I've already written on this topic:

[quote author="lcjjdnh]
As I've said, there certainly is a role for descriptive, just-the-facts reporting. You're blinding yourself to reality, though, if you believe that the editorial judgments that go into publishing an "objective" story don't have quite a bit to say about your underlying beliefs. Journalists can't just cling to "objectivity" as an excuse to disclaim all responsibility for their stories.

Here's an example. Town council passes a law that says you can't wear blue pants on Thursdays. You only have the resources to write one story about it. Among the potential angles are:

Story A: Just-the-facts story on tickets given to people wearing blue pants.

Story B: Just-the-facts story on people the reporter personally found breaking the rule on wearing blue pants.

Story C: Just-the-facts story about police giving tickets to some people wearing blue pants but not others (essentially a combination of stories A and B).

Story D: Story about the merits of the blue pants law, quoting the mayor saying the blue pants are a blight on society, and a concerned citizen worried about his free speech rights being abridged, even though not one person other than the mayor supports the law.

Story E: Story about the merits of the blue pants law, quoting the mayor saying blue pants are blight on society, and nine concerned citizens worried about free speech rights being abridge, because not one person other than the mayor supports the law.

Story F: Story about how the mayor's third cousin runs the biggest green pants factory in town.

Story G: Story about how the mayor was emotionally wounded as a child because of the Thursday in middle school when he was harassed because his parents sent him in blue pants.

Most people would agree that (with the exception of perhaps Story E) all of these would meet the classic definition of "objective" reporting. But isn't also quite clear to see that your decision to publish a story on this law (or none, or 12) makes a pretty big statement, and that the way you frame it makes an even bigger one. The idea that just writing an "objective" story somehow divorces you from that is absurd.
[/quote]

 

A town writing more or less speeding tickets than the norm for cities its size in the region or the state is not a value judgment, it's a fact that may be worth reporting on if a lot of your readers are complaining about the town seeming like a police state with so many cops running radar, or complaining that everybody is treating the Bypass like a drag strip and yet no one's getting pulled over. You report on that without getting into a bunch of existential angst. Nothing would ever get done if we all worried about offending somebody's sensibilities or being accused (giggle) of furthering an illegal cartel. Because most of the time, both sides, or hell, all 10 sides, think you have an agenda against their side.

What would you like, a tagline at the end of the story?

Dooley_womack1 went to a major state university and is in the tank for the N.C.A.A. He had several speeding tickets in the past, so he's out to stick it to the cops. He downloads midget porn, so if there's no news about midget porn, he's probably conspiring to cover it up.

 

What? No one claims that's not a "fact". My claim is the decision to publish that--or expend resources investigating it--is a value judgment. As you say "it's a fact that may be worth reporting". Why may it be or may not it be "worth reporting"?

So newspapers should merely be a community complaint board? Or are their stories worth reporting on even if no one in the community is talking about it? If the latter, what basis do you make the decision about "newsworthiness" on?

I personally think it's pretty cowardly to disclaim any responsibility for the consequences of the "news" your report by hiding behind a veil of objectivity. Should political reporters not feel guilty about the kids that got marched off to Iraq in part thanks to their "objective" reporting on the Administration's case for war? I'm not sure where you get the idea I don't think newspapers should "offend[] somebody's sensibilities"--just admit what you're up to.

Sure. The more information the better. Do you honestly believe whether Charles Robinson believes in the validity of the NCAA rules is irrelevant in evaluating the stories he writes? If so, why is that different than all the other conflicts of interests we care about--even though we don't necessarily know whether or not they have any impact on how the reporter actually thinks about the topic.

 

Bullshit. A writer doesn't owe a reader one iota of his personal opinion. Like the work or don't. Believe it's true or not. It's utter crap that you think newspapers are full of people out to fool you.

And damn newspapers for reporting on atrocities in Nazi Germany and getting all those American soldiers killed.

 

What are you talking about? Do you not see just a bit of distinction between WWII and the war with Iraq? And, in any case, given you clearly view newspapers as having a positive impact when they expose things that lead to good action, shouldn't they also bear responsibility for the negative impact they have when they report on things that lead to bad action?

 

Ah, Camus.

I wrote a response, then erased it. It's just reductive.

I am aware the Fairness Doctrine is no longer in place.

 

People honestly still read -- and care -- about deadspin?

 

Coming in late. Apologies if I repeat.

1. He clearly doesn't know how the the AP works.

AP would have picked that up from a local paper, which may or may not have included the NCAA quote.

2. Calling the NCAA to see if it's OK for a team to do these PSAs is good reporting. You don't know what your source is going to say.

3. To me, the use of "gay" in that headline that way is offensive. Yes, I know they did it to be witty and sarcastic.