Texas A&M, the SEC, and ESPN's questionable journalism

I said that before you did.

 

It's one thing to report before it happens, it's another thing to completely condradict every quote in your story. If the quotes build the story, then that should never happen. The original piece looked like every single quote kept screaming "SLOW DOWN! This isn't a done deal, in fact it likely won't happen".... yet the writer kept trying to recoup and keep the story alive. And then there's the anchor who said "Sources confirm that Texas A&M will move to the SEC." Sure, you could blame it on one bad source. But for that writer to sit there with those 4 quotes, and honestly build a story that it's "a done deal".... that's bad journalism.

Just my thoughts.

 

From what I've heard -- from afar on the interwebs/radio etc. -- it seems like this is a matter of when not if. That the biggest stumbling blocks would the 14th/16th team(s) and getting A&M to make sure it can get out of whatever tv contracts/legal commitments it has with the Big 12. So no they couldn't say come on over today, it was more of a get your poop in a group first and then come on over. Again, no point in going down the road with Clemson/FSU/Mizzou before A&M has its house in order.

I don't blame A&M for being tired of being stuck in the shadow of the Longhorn and in the case of the way the Big 12 appears to have been run the last few years asked to bend over at will to appease them. Is the rivalry petty and beyond reason at time? absolutely. But that's what makes it a great rivalry. Unfortunately if/when this all goes through it likely means the end of one of the great Thanksgiving traditions -- at least for me and my family up here in Canada, and many in Texas.

This thread for whatever reason, reminds me of the quote from the end of the movie The Paper:

Alicia: We're not exactly the Washington Post, okay?
Michael McDougal: No, we're not. We run stupid headlines because we think they're funny. We run maimings on the front page because we got good art. And I spend three weeks bitching about my car because it sells papers. But at least it's the truth. As far as I can remeber we never ever, ever knowingly got a story wrong, until tonight.

The key part of that is the knowingly get a story wrong part. It comes down to going hard after something to be the first to get, driven by an industry that thrives on being first and it extends to all branches of journalism. Problem is they ended up putting the cart before the horse in this case. Was it intentional? I don't think so. I also don't think they are blatantly wrong, outside of the talking head who announced it was a done deal. But that's my take. Also being the WWL it makes them an easy target for questioning their integrity for many legitimate and obvious reasons.

 

Well-played, sir.

 

I don't really blame Gottlieb if he indeed had good sources (ADs, presidents, whatever) giving him information. It's how it was handled. The headline simply did not match the tone of the content. Hell, neither did the lead. It was: Headline implies this is going to happen, lead implies it, it gets sourced and then let's follow that with 25 reasons why it won't happen like we just told you it would.

Yeah, I have a problem with the presentation.

 

The Big 12 said last night it's sticking with 12 teams. And all that hullabaloo. ...

Look, certain old people who have been in the business a long time, like myself, still believe you run with a story when you have it locked down. The Internet, with ESPN leading the charge, have changed the way the game is played. What its players will do now is quietly walk away from the crime scene whistling innocently while moving on to the next could-be story. No accountability.

This is a different age yes, and the rules of engagement obviously have changed also. But getting shit wrong time and again don't cut it. It's the way it is now, but it's wrong. No excuses.

 

What's sad to me is ESPN could have sold the story just as well without making it out to be something it wasn't. If Gottlieb had his sources, and let's assume he did, the very fact that A&M might soon leave the Big 12 for the SEC was interesting enough. But present it that way. A&M possibly on the brink of leaving, but it's very much uncertain. Present the complexities. Present the fact that some feel strong enough that it's going to happen to say it's going to happen, but at the same time there are huge obstacles to getting it done.

I would have no problem if there wasn't so much other information to go with the story with an A&M official saying they are intending to bolt. But, once you start getting all that other contradictory information, that should change the way the story's presented.

 

It doesn't have 12 now. Unless you mean the Big 10 would stay at 12 or the Big 12 would stay at 10. And the Atlantic 10 stays at 14 (15?).

But the Big 12 could sue Texas A&M to remain at 10. There's a clause in its contract with ESPN that allows the WWL do back out the deal if the conference has fewer than 10. So either the Big 12 sues A&M to keep them in or goes on an immediate search for a new 10th team in order to keep the contract valid (unless ESPN decides to continue with the deal despite the loss of A&M).

Now if A&M and one other school leave ... then the Big 12 is dead for sure. It's hard enough to think of one new school that would be a logical fit. But two? Louisville and BYU? Memphis and Tulsa?

 

I guess where we differ, and it's fine, is what "intending" means. To me, it's just a school saying it wants to go. Not that it's going to happen.

 

It may not be top 1,000, but it is symptomatic. I can guarantee you that behind the scenes the real reporters at ESPN - not ex-players now analysts, like Gottlieb - were shaking their heads and/or calling their bosses saying "Why the hell are we running this story?"

Beyond the fact that it was thinly-sourced, it was also unnecessary: By that time Texas A&M to the SEC was almost a foregone conclusion, so ESPN was putting themselves out there to confirm something that didn't need confirming. Yes, I know they wrote "intends" to go to the SEC; that adds to the need not to go with it. Who didn't know that by then?

The journalism "get" at this point is getting somebody ON THE RECORD to say Texas A&M wants in the SEC, or vice versa. But the Gottlieb report smacked of a) an ex-jock analyst trying to show his journalistic bona fides, and b) the editing structure at ESPN not roping him in, or c) the editing structure saying, "Yeah, we're ESPN, we have to lead on this story and the authority on everything, so let's say it's done and then advance it."

That aside, the worst part was the Missouri/Florida State/Clemson thing. Who knows, maybe it'll end up being true. But it was also getting way ahead of what was actually true at the time. It was essentially taking educated speculation - the source probably told Gottlieb "here's what I think will happen" - and then presenting it as fact.

Again, there was no need for the Gottlieb story. I at least give ESPN credit that they kept updating the story with the reports that contradicted it. Not doing so would have been sticking by its story and not letting its readers know the contradictory information. But all that contradictory information went to show that the original report was at best premature, and at worst wrong.

 

You mean the real reporters like Joe Schad and Andy Katz, both of whom contributed to "this story?"