NYT on Jay Glazer's conflict of interest

Agreed.

 

Pearlman weighs in ...

http://jeffpearlman.com/?p=5591

 

Glazer was on Dan Patrick saying that teams have been calling him for a reference on Leinart.

 

Glazer has always been an interesting case to me about the new world. I don't mean to say the conflict of interest is irrelevant, but the fact is he is the best provider of NFL information of anyone working on TV today. (No, I am not Jay.) When I am watching pregame shows, I always flip back for his Fox segments because there's a much better chance he's going to have something. And the information itself is good and accurate; it's just the methods of acquiring it that are in question, but I don't know if anyone outside the industry gives much thought to that issue anymore as long as the info pans out.

Yes, there's an agenda. And in this case, the good information (Matt Leinart is on the trade block, though I suppose that's not exactly a scoop) must be sorted from the chaff (Glazer's belief in Matt Leinart as a starting quarterback). I suppose they could do more with disclaimers. But whether it's Leinart or Strahan or whoever gave him the Spygate tapes, Glazer is delivering new material that people haven't heard or seen previously. It's definitely a new way of doing business, kind of like Simmons, and like Simmons it seems to be working well for the audience.

Also, at least Glazer's agenda is somewhat on display, unlike the hidden agenda governing Mortensen whenever he repeats what Tom Condon or Bus Cook spoonfeeds him.

 

Are those GMs expecting an honest evaluation or do they realize Glazer is "best buds" with Leinart?

 

I find Glazer breaking a lot of stories. Might not be National scoops, but he has a lot of info first and sometimes only. Too many people just go to ESPN, and Glazer gives excellent alternate information. Conflict of interest? . But if it comes down to getting the info, or not getting the info, then I err on the side of getting the info.

Has Glazer been wrong or fudged a story to protect his business interests? I can't think of a case.

This is a case where someone sees a potential conflict perhaps possible. He's well-connected and an asset. That's how it's done.

I don't have a problem as long as the info is correct, unfiltered and accurate with no agenda behind it.

 

"Hey Matt's a great guy but he can't play worth a shit. If he can't play with the Cardinals and their receivers he can't play anywhere. He'll be good guy to have in the clubhouse though".

 

So you'd be OK with paying sources?

 

No. Why? there is a reason it's a no-no to pay sources and it's practical. When you pay someone for information, the accuracy of the information comes into question. So, if a reporter had to pay someone for a tip, I would find the information problematic. What happens if he is making up the story or hamming it up for money?

So, paying for a source really makes me question the veracity of the info. I would have to confirm it elsewhere, and then what's the purpose of paying for it?

I had a J-school teacher who would throw around $10 for a tip to the janitor sometimes early in his career (old days when having tipster for cash was I guess a little more common). He would then go out and confirm the story with two sources. It was a tip, not a source he paid for. He said he stopped doing it not because the info was bad, but because he couldn't anyone to tell him info for free.

But, is it any different than having a great source in an AD department who you take out to dinner at the end of the year and talk as friends?

I would never pay. It hurts credibility. But, the National Enquirer, OK! or US Weekly? If I was working there, absolutely. I think you have to. It's part of the job.

How do you think TMZ destroyed every major media outlet on the Tiger Woods story? They go where we aren't comfortable going.

 

So paying sources is wrong, but being an athletic trainer for a source and giving recommendations about him to prospective employers is OK?

 

Penis is a brand?



Oh. yeah. I see what you did there.