'How Sports Illustrated Botched the Michael Sam Story'

It wasn't a Freudian slip. We are - some of us - talking as ex-journalists. Like they say about the Marines: Once a Marine, always ...

I get that you despise the business. I get that you think people in it are clueless and behind the times. And we're often in agreement on that. But, well, to me, breaking news seems to be a function that lives on. I don't have to hate the PRACTICE of journalism because I don't like the business model.

 

OK. But it seems to be the kind of topic that would be discussed at a place where journalism is discussed.

I mean, I'll sleep soundly tonight still, knowing that Jon Wertheim sat in a story.

 

Then check out of the thread.

IMO, putting this on Wertheim is wrong. He works for SI. It's SI -- its leadership -- that could have said "we want a seat at the Michael Sam table, so put out another plate. Dinner's for four."

What SI did instead is frankly the result of the PR guy's shortsightedness. Instead of letting SI in on the story -- which, let's face it, would have cost the firm nothing -- it allowed SI to change the story within hours of its release.

SI botched the story? Eh, not quite, Slate, unless Slate doesn't believe in the free will of journalists exploring all angles, not just the ones a PR firm plotted for weeks.

Do I like that all the sources in SI pieces were anonymous? No. But the overuse of anonymous sources is a way bigger problem than just this story.

 

I hate this argument because you can use it with just about anything.

 

Then I would follow it with the qualifier "...and the public doesn't have an absolute right to know about it."

There is a difference between "the public is interested" and "the public has a right to know." You don't sit on the latter, but you don't have to beat everyone to the punch on the former.

 

Only in the complete absence of anything resembling critical thinking skills.

 

SI handled it in a way that the stories that everyone was talking about the day after the Sam news broke were the two SI stories.

That's not to say they were being praised, but if it's all about getting clicks, I'm guessing SI accomplished that.

 

I think that this is a distinction that matters. But, at the same time, I think that it starts to tread dangerously close to paternalism: "We'll tell you what should matter to you."

It's interesting to me that this particular trait, homosexuality, is the one that now receives protected status. At least for athletes. At what level can you out someone? We have determined that it was not in the public interest - or, at least, not enough so to counterbalance privacy concerns - to out Michael Sam, even hours before it was confirmed that he was about to out himself via a roll out. However, some non-mainstream sites looked into Elena Kagan's sexual orientation, finding nothing. Most objected. What about a gubernatorial candidate? What about a presidential candidate?

Sexuality in general doesn't seem to be protected in the same manner. Adulterers aren't protected. Gary Hart. Bill Clinton. John Edwards. All were outed as adulterers even before legal entanglements resulted from their behavior, am I right?

 

Being gay is on the same level as adultery?

 

Only in that both represent private sexual behavior. One is protected from mainstream media coverage. The other does not seem to be. At the very least, it is situational.

 

The case I'm most familiar with is Jim McGreevey's. I'm sure there are reporters who knew when he appointed Golan Cipel to his administration that he was gay, if only through looking into the guy no one had ever heard of.

I'd have no problem outing the governor if he was appointing unqualified people to positions in his administration based solely on their sexual relationships. That goes for gay or straight relationships.

However, he cut Cipel loose pretty quickly, and truth be told, the post was fairly meaningless anyway. I think I'd have dropped it at that point.

You can't be serious.

Adultery in and of itself has direct negative impact on the character of the candidate. Homosexuality does not.

 

Oh, there are still plenty of people in America who believe that homosexuality has a direct negative impact on the character of the candidate. Looking at old Gallup trends, in 2001, only 40 percent of Americans thought that homosexual relations were morally acceptable. In 1977, only 13 percent of people thought that homosexuality was something people were born with.

What I'm saying is that the "no outing" policy seems to predate our current slight majority opinion that homosexuality is not reflective of poor character.