Sun-Times Practices Crappy Journalism

This is the question. How did the person bury this line so far in the story? You are right; cause it was for the Web. If the Sun Times has to go to court over this, I guarantee you there will be a new policy that somebody has to read the fucking stories before they go online. Way too many shops are allowing their reporters to throw up breaking news stories. This is going to increase in the future. Welcome to the court of law, newspapers.

 

Admittedly, this is one way to get something out there that you know is true, but nobody will actually go on the record about.

It is a bad way, but it maybe sort of worked.

 

I would expect nothing less from the most irrational fan base in sports. Well done, nutjobs.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I don't think the Chicago Sun-Times as a whole has an agenda against UK, and didn't mean to imply that. I don't believe in grand conspiracy theories, instead I hold individual people accountable for what they say and do.

What I do believe in is human nature and there are times when personal biases has led to professional journalists abandoning whatever standards the papers they represent are supposed to uphold.

Put another way, I don't believe that O'Brien or anyone else woke up one day and set out to smear UK with lies etc., only that it's a possibilty that their own personal biases or preconceptions about the program may cause them to be more susceptible to believe rumors that are presented to them and more likely to suspend journalistic standards in such a case, where in other cases they presumably wouldn't and would require more concrete evidence before going to print.

(and note I didn't say that a personal bias WAS the reason for O'Brien's article, I really don't know what his motivation is. I only offered it as a potential reason as I've found it to be common in the past among some who I can name.)

I wouldn't agree with the 99 percent, but I do appreciate and agree in principle with your point. Indeed a number of people on this thread have recognized and admitted that the Sun-Times crossed the line and did a poor job. I commend them for that.

Having said that, inside this very thread are also a few examples of people who seem to be more content to whine and complain about UK fans, while being eerily silent about whether they recognize and can admit and admonish the mistakes the writer at the Sun-Times made.

This behavior in a way illustrates my point. Ie, the theory that somehow because it's John Calipari or because it's Kentucky, that it's legitimate to abandon journalistic principles and to print unsubstantiated rumors. And yes, even in light of the Sun-Times follow up I still maintain this is unsubstantiated. (which I can go into more detail later if necessary).

Obviously you can't stop it completely but you (as a whole) can certainly do more than has been done in the past, which is often nothing.

My view on this issue, and I'm going to generalize here, is that the media investigates and criticizes all types of people, all types of professions and industries. Whether it's politics, culture, financial sector, industry, military, religion etc. it's media's right (and I believe) public duty to investigate and criticize. They play an important role in a free and democratic society.

Where they often fall down on the job IMO is taking a long hard look at themselves. (that it until a Jason Blair or Jack Kelley-type scandal takes place but that doesn't seem to last long). So where does that leave us ? If the media themselves are too cowardly or uninterested or whatehaveyou in keeping their own peers in check, then who is responsible for doing so ?

And beyond that, when the media fails to uphold professional standards, who are they hurting ? In cases like this where someone prints accusations based on nothing but rumors, it's just potentially a high school kid who generally has little recourse who gets hurt. I maintain that in the long run, it's the media themselves who hurts their own profession as they steadily erode whatever good will and respect they may have had in the past from the general public. And once the public trust is lost, I ask you where does that leave your industry ?

In other words, the lack of standards and professionalism is causing the whole industry to slowly devolve to the level of anonymous bloggers. To me, who has gone back and studied and relied on newspaper/magazine accounts going back 100 years and has relied on this information for doing historical research, the decline is obvious and a shame.

I don't profess to know the answer as to how to fix the problem. Normally I would have thought that a competent editor is the first line of defense but increasingly I'm finding editors who are just as myopic as the writers they're supposed to be overseeing. (or in this particular case perhaps no editor at all). I'm just an observer. But I do know that whatever's currently in place is not sufficient. (and while I generally don't think lawsuits are the answer for much of anything, if that's the ONLY means available to ensure responsible journalism, then that's what needs to be done.)

Sure, that's part of being a UK fan, even before Calipari. There's always going to be rumors and charges. Just go to a Louisville message board any day, any time and you'll see what I'm talking about. That comes with the territory with such a polarizing program and has for a long time.

But what I don't accept, and never will, is that journalists should be allowed to abandon their standards and principles when reporting, simply because of their preconceptions, biases and/or agendas clouded their judgement.

Let me be clear, I don't have a problem with a journalist being critical of UK in their writing, as long as it's fair, unbiased and accurate. There's plenty of writers who I have respect for, such as Andy Katz, Mike DeCoursey, Jay Bilas, Greg Doyel etc. who have been critical of UK at times, but who do their homework and have always been largely fair and professional. Many others, not so much.

As far as this particular instance, I fully expect there to be rumors of UK paying for recruits to be whispered by rivals fans and rival coaches etc. for as long as they're successful at recruiting, so this type of claim is not unexpected in the least.

Kentucky is in the business of trying to secure the best players for its team, regardless of where they're from around the country (or the world). When Kentucky comes into some school's backyard and plucks a talented player away (which they do often), that's obviously going to lead to ill will. Rival coaches crying and blaming their failures on foul-play (and potentially getting the NCAA interested enough to investigate) is one of the oldest plays in the book. (and that's not to say that paying of recruits is not done in college basketball, I believe it is done some places but not by UK under Calipari for reasons I will go into more detail later).

So again I fully expect to hear wild charges etc. from various people. What I don't expect is for a major newspaper and/or a professional journalist to report such rumors as fact, when oftentimes they're little more than excuses from a rejected assistant coach. (Remember this was printed in a Chicago paper about a local recruit who is also being recruited by a Chicago university at a time just before many people assumed he was deciding to decide on UK. How does the writer KNOW that he's not being played ?)

If anything, the media should act as a filter for determining factual information, not as a propagator of speculative rumors. (which again I maintain the charges currently are. Even with the Sun-Times' follow up story, there's nothing of substance to support that there was any type of agreement between UK (or a third party) and Davis.)

Actually I disagree. I think Kentucky realizes that by doing nothing that people will just assume the worst anyway and this types of yellow journalism will continue and intensify (as more so-called journalists begin to believe that there's no consequences to them for spreading such speculation.)

I actually look forward to this showdown as hopefully it will bring this to a head one way or the other.

On the one hand, as a Kentucky fan who has lived through the probation years of the late 80's, I can honestly say that I want Kentucky to be as successful as they possibly can, but ONLY if they do so within the rules. I expect John Calipari, or any UK coach, to recruit the best players he can, to win games, and to make the University and Commonwealth proud, which includes staying within the rules. This, BTW, was the point of emphasis that UK's athletic director Mitch Barnhart made when the hire was made.

IF it was found out that Calipari or anyone at UK was illegally inducing players to the program, then I would be infuriated and want them out ASAP. Not only would I be infuriated because of the damage done to the program, but I would be infuriated because of how stupid it would be.

And I say stupid because in my opinion, Kentucky is a program that doesn't NEED to cheat to get great recruits. Some may not understand the magnitude of it, but Kentucky has the greatest fan support, outstanding facilties, tremendous national exposure, etc. and a coach with a track record for not only running a system which is fun to play, gets the most out of and develops players games, but is tremendously successful at preparing them for the next level. No other program can match it.

Now, not every player is a good fit for playing at Kentucky. Afterall it is a high pressure place, with high expectations and scrutiny (from UK fans and rivals alike) and not everyone is willing to move away from home to a relatively small community like Lexington. Beyond that, unlike a lot of schools, a talented player at UK is expected to earn their playing time, is expected to be a team player, is expected to play defense, is expected to attend class (a fact a lot of critics don't realize is that it's university policy that a player has to be attending classes regularly to be able to play in games.) etc.

But there are plenty of prospects who would be good fits for UK and are eager to be a part of the program. Calipari is in the enviable position right now that if a top prospect turns UK down, or it turns out he's not a good fit (for whatever reason), he can simply turn to another top prospect. And there's no mystery as to why. Again, Kentucky is a potent mix of great support from the program and great success by the coach in terms of preparing NBA-ready players.

Calipari doesn't need to beg a player to come, and certainly doen't need to illegally induce them either. (and from the prospect's standpoint, if he's good enough to enter the NBA after a year or two of college, why would he jeopardize his college eligibility (and hurt his marketability) by taking an illegal inducement ?)

This explains why I would be so infuriated if this Sun-Times claim were true, and also explains why I have my doubts about the story's veracity; especially in light of the lack of any supporting details whatsoever (such as the name of the supposed third-party, the name of the UK official who would have had to sanction such a deal, the identity of any schools supposedly involved in other negotiations, the lack of any corroboration from any other reporters and the lack of any response to numerous requests for comment by others in the media to the staff at the Sun-Times.)


On the other hand, if this turns out to be a bluff by the Sun-Times and there is no actual evidence of the claim, then I hope they get sued for everything they're worth (which apparently isn't much unfortunately) and it wouldn't pain me to see the Sun-Times, as grand an institution as it may have been at one time, go down the toilet.

It would also be some sort of redress for those kids in high school who may have had their reputations smeared in the past by the media (simply because they're talented basketball players) without any real recourse.

Regardless of how it turns out or who you believe, I hope that this particular episode is a reminder that there still is a place for standards and ethics in journalism, and more importantly it's a reminder that there are (or at least should be) consequences to those journalists who can't or won't live up to those standards.

Jon

 

This actually demonstrates my point probably better than I attempted to above.

If the author KNOWS it's true, he should have come forward with evidence more substantial.

If he KNOWS it's true but can't prove it, then just maybe he really doesn't KNOW it's true as well as thinks he does. Maybe he's let his personal biases, preconceptions, etc. cloud his judgement ? In this case, the mark of a truly professional and gifted journalist would be to dig until he uncovered the evidence, not just throw rumors out there to see if they stick.

Jon

 

As a Sunday update, Rick Armstrong (who it's not clear to me whether he's affiliated with the Sun-Times but he shows up on their website) has a followup to the story.

Armstrong interviews another local Chicago prospect Ryan Boatright. In it, Boatright admits that he 'heard' the rumor about Davis having a deal with Kentucky. Where did he hear this rumor, you ask ?

"I saw it on ESPN last night." Boatright is quoted.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/sports/2576780,2_AU7_Boatright-heard-about-alleged-Davis-.article

There you have it. O'Brien prints a rumor without substantiation which is picked up nationally, which people then hear and another intrepid reporter reports as news that another prospect heard about it on the news.

I'm sorry to those who think I'm lecturing, but to anyone who thinks any of this is acceptable journalism, you truly need a wake-up call. To the many of those who acknowledge it's poor journalism, again my only point is that unless this type of crap is dealt with, it's going to hasten the death of the entire industry IMO.

Jon

 

I completely understand the anger of the Kentucky fan base and the belief that members of the media/rival coaches are spreading such rumors in an effort to bring down the program.

No reasonable person would suspect Kentucky basketball, with its long track record of integrity and following NCAA regs, would somehow be involved in using cash to land players.

And Calipari? John never would allow it. He'd resign first.

 

I doubt there will be a showdown. This more likely ends with UK backing down from their bluff. I don't believe for a second that the S-T's legal people would've permitted that second piece to be published without strong confirmation that O'Brien did indeed have the sources. And, as long as his sourcing is solid, filing suit would be a huge blunder: a) UK spends a fortune; b) the S-T's attorneys have a good ole time publically dredging through UK's dirty laundry; c) UK loses. I'd think someone down there has enough common sense to realize it. If they don't, if they think that second article was just a gigantic bluff, I'd guess they're in for a rude awakening.

As for the portion of your post detailing why UK doesn't "NEED" to cheat because it's such an incomparably superduper-special destination "that no other program can match", you can save that self-fellatio for the UK fanboi blogs, nobody's buying that argument here. Elite program status certainly didn't prevent Kentucky and UCLA basketball from cheating in the past, it didn't prevent Alabama and USC football from cheating in the past. Nobody "needs" to cheat, but plenty do anyways, and the elite programs at every bit the rate of their perceived inferiors.

I will say that, unlike many UK fans, you come across as polite and rationale (albeit long-winded and a bit condescending). Nonetheless, your posts still emanate in softer words the same themes of self-grandeur and paranoia that your oddly cult-like fanbase has become known for. Any time anything bad happens to Kentucky basketball, it's because other programs are jealous, everybody wants to bring UK down, etc. There's always a goddamn conspiracy afoot somewhere. It can never just be what it appears to be.

 

To Jon -- your post is a little long for the screen. Could you FedEx me a hard copy? I think the school has an account. Please enclose money in case I have to pay shipping costs.

 

How do you know know he didn't? So his sources don't want their names published. That doesn't mean they're not solid and credible sources. That doesn't mean he didn't do his homework.

Indeed, I'd say the fact that the S-T responded to UK's threat by repeating the allegations in greater detail suggests that they're quite secure with what they've got here. If threatened with a defamation suit when you're concerned about source credibility, the logical response is to comply with the demand and pull the story to avoid the lawsuit. But when you're confident in your sources, you respond as the S-T did: call the bluff and DARE the other guy to sue.

 

Jon:

I thought the initial story was an absolute joke. Should not have run in the manner that it did -- internet or in print.

That said, I agree with others here that the fact the paper came back with three sources eases my concerns as a journalist.

The second story should have been the first.

And I believe the second story more than I believe the parent or Kentucky.

 

If John Calipari and the kid's father held a PC tomorrow and admitted everything, that the father "sold" the kids's services, and that Kentucky was the highest bidder, etc., you know that at least 80 percent of the UK fanbase - and I'm sure Jon included - would still think Cal and Kentucky were completely innocent.