The Jay Glazer dilemma

Columnist takes on Glazer's conflicts of interest, particularly as regards the Incognito interview:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177105/jay-glazers-interview-richie-incognito-was-sports-journalism-its-worst#

I suppose at least FOX discloses this, unlike Sports Illustrated when it runs another Verducci PR piece.

 

It's Fox.

 

Columnist also discusses the toy department reputation of sports - and how infrequently he thinks sports journalism actually matters:

The question about whether a sports reporter is an actual, real, live journalist or just a shill for the leagues they “cover”, is as old as sports itself. Most of the time frankly it just doesn’t even matter. Does it really affect any of our lives if we learn "the truth" about whether Wayne Gretzky's wife has a gambling problem or if David Ortiz loves it or hates it when little kids ask for his autograph in crowded restaurants?

 

Hell, the MMQB had a big splash piece last week with the on-the-record account of a former Dolphin, who oh-by-the-way played college football with Incognito.

Were all of his frat brothers busy?

 

Glazer's a celebrity columnist who works in the celebrity industry himself. He conducted the interview perfectly appropriate for him. You can't expect a gadfly like that to do anything more than what he did.

Fox doesn't care how it looked, though. Fox just wanted words. And got words.

 

Obviously, Incognito would only have talked to Glazer. I guess they traded integrity for access, which wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

We see this all the time ... controversial sports figures grant interviews, but only if they get to pick a sympathetic interviewer.

Ray Lewis gave NFL Network an interview about his "controversial past," but only if it was conducted by Michael Irvin.

When Bob Knight got the Texas Tech job, the only person from ESPN he would let interview him was Dick Vitale (after Jeremy Schaap asked him some uncomfortable questions after he was fired by Indiana).

 

It did. And I think that's the dilemma here, right? Glazer's interview was, ultimately, just added value to the real scoop - the text messages. I don't like the methods, either. But I can't argue that they leveraged Glazer's poor journalistic ethics into objectively valuable information for fans.

Zirin's words about sports journalists really stuck with me. We are, largely, shill fanbois 364 days a year, covering a live-action soap opera. Then, on day 365 we're expected to rise to the occasion? Fat chance, assuming his assessment is accurate. I wish APSE posted award-winning pieces. It's not definitive, but it wouldbe a good starting point to assess the real-world importance of what we consider our best work.

 

Also: The Nation is a partisan rag. At least Glazer gets paid for his whoring.

 

At least Glazer disclosed the relationship before they aired the interview. Anybody in the media who follows the NFL knows Glazer, between his MMA work and working out with athletes, has a few conflicts of interest working...

That said, ESPN doesn't disclose it when it has reporters interviewing coaches who share the same agents or agency. Peter King sometimes makes reference that he and an athlete or coach might have the same agent or agency.

Is it a conflict? Yes... Would every network have worked that conflict to it's advantage if it could? Absolutely.

I thought, all things considered, Glazer did a pretty good job with the interview.

 

He's obviously right about Glazer, though he's had conflicts his entire career.

His idea of good reporting is just as concerning:

The coverage today that Christine Brennan does about Title IX and women’s sports, makes a difference.

Christine Brennan has an agenda, and bias, just like Brennan. Why is that any better?

I don't want a journalist -- news or sports -- who's looking to "make a difference".

 

Christine Brennan is a columnist, and what she does is "commentary," not "coverage."

That's the difference.

 

It's still a bore.

Find, and tell good stories. Sports is filled with them. She's like a dog with a bone.