TMZ breaks NCAA violation story

How did Jay Glazer get a source to like him? How did you get to know the assistants, secretaries, et all?

Time. Fact is, there isn't as much time to devote to reporting as there used to be. When you covered the NFL for four years, were you scrambling to post every bit of news on the web as fast as you could so your editor could get a hard-on because your paper had it up on their web site two minutes before everybody else? Were you walking around with your head buried in your I-Phone tweeting, and reading tweets, or could you actually stand on the sideline during practice and shoot the shit with an equipment guy? After you filed your gamer and notebook, were you writing another 750 words to post on your blog, or could you actually go out and grab a beer with some people who might one day develop into sources? When you travelled, were you staying in the team hotel, and drinking at the team bar, or did your budget make that impossible? During the offseason, did your paper have enough money to send you wherever you needed, even if the benefit would only be realized a year or two down the road?

Were you competing with Jay Glazer, who works for one of the NFL's biggest rightsholders, and might get to sit in on production meetings that include the coach and star quarterback?

Maybe you really did cover the NFL at some point over the last 10 years. And maybe you really were one of the beat writers who were able to overcome some of the obstacles that I listed. I'm not making excuses for beat guys. There are some really shitty ones out there. And there are also some really good ones (of course, most of the good ones - let's take Gordon Edes and Adam Schefter, for example - end up working somewhere that will pay them more money than newspapers).

But my over-riding point is that there simply isn't as much time to devote to cultivating sources and pursuing stories as there used to be. Maybe the Oklahoma basketball beat writer was so busy doing a job that used to be done by two people that he simply did not have time to completely vet every incoming recruit.

Frankly, covering a college beat is the work of at least two people -- one to handle the on-the-field stuff, and one to handle the off-the-field stuff. I bet the Oklahoman would break tons of stories if it had a person strictly devoted to covering the off-the-field side of the basketball team. Instead of trying to get the coach to whisper in his ear about new verbal committments, he could be out doing background checks on each of the players, calling AAU coaches, visiting hometowns, etc.

 

A lot of people would, and frankly do. They're perfectly happy with the job they're in, for one thing.

You know that Freep series on the Michigan coaches making the kids practice too long, and punishing them unjustly for performance voluntary workouts? About 300 newspapers could write that story, sourced and everything. They don't. Why?

How about that Columbus post-dispatch series on asking each of the public universities for information that should be public - flight manifolds, player jobs, etc - only to have universities hide behind an educational rule that doesn't apply? 100 newspapers could write that. They don't. Why?

If a SE actually challenged his or her staff to go and find these kids of stories - treat athletics like, oh, city government, just for one year, a single year - and told them "your job is on the line" to produce, I think you'd see amazing results. Necessity tends to produce quality.

Instead, and I have no bones saying it, you have a lot of talented writers and columnists spending their free hours writing conference rankings and notes packages and appearing on some far flung ESPN radio station in Gastonia, NC, to talk about in June who could win the ACC Coastal in the fall. (I'm not implicating anyone, BTW, just trying to use a vivid example).

 

I should hope so. TMZ ain't exactly ESPN.

But, I'll tell you what: You go find the stories where beat writers did good work and post it on this site, and, presuming it's correct and well-written and all that (which I'm sure it will be) I'll applaud it.

Maybe you think I believe TMZ is a good organization. It's not in the least.

 

No, he's working as an MMA trainer for some of them during the offseason. Which is I think is a big conflict of interest.

 

Agreed on Glazer. He can get away with it at Fox.

 

Beat writers still have to play by rules that TMZ doesn't care about. It's like our Army trying to fight terrorists who hide behind civilians. One side plays by rules. The other side has no rules.

 

Checkbook journalism isn't limited to TMZ.

The network morning & magazine shows have been doing it for years. Sure, they pay for "pictures" or "documents" and not interviews.

Check out this story: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/slay_rap_mom_fJ2PMfOVnwc3cuShYan1jJ

ABC gave a baby killer $200,000. (Yes, I realize the interview never materialized.)

TMZ is a gossip site. I'm a little more worried about CBS, NBC, and ABC.

 

If the typical random person has some dirt on an athlete, what media outlet might they call or e-mail?

Talk to a radio call-in show and it will get pooh poohed.

Talk to a newspaper and it will disappear for the time it takes to run down proof.

You probably won't even get the TV folks on the phone.

Go to a national Web site and, chances are, you'll see it online before the day is over, whether or not they send you any cash.

Not a good thing, just the way it is.

 

Bingo. I think, more often than not, THIS is the reason why more stories aren't broken. Fewer resources, less time because of a heavier workload, et cetera.

 

By the way, TMZ completely wrong on Tiger making his comeback at Tavistock Cup.

 

An education reporter or a city hall reporter have maybe two or three standard things a week they have to do. Go to a public hearing, maybe sit in on a committee, put together an overview story, etc., boom you're done. They have the rest of the week to chase enterprise and project stories that really dig down into some hard, hidden news.

Those of us in sports, however, are out every other night covering basketball games, track meets, tennis tournaments, etc. We're at college signings, blogging about coaching changes at one of 20 high schools we cover or at one of the 15 sports programs at the college we cover. We're compiling statistics, putting together season previews and All Area teams. I mean, really, the list goes on and on. There just isn't a window for us to devote the time and resources to dig deep and find something too far below the surface unless our editors say that's the priority and are willing to deal with the phone calls when the daily coverage slips. Or pay us 10 hours of overtime a week.

So I don't think it's a skill-set issue or a want-to issue in most cases, it's just a practical issue of not having the time to do it in the middle of the daily grind.