WaPo story on web "journalists" recruiting

I don't think my friend is saying Big Brother/government should handle a licensing program. Why not create an organization that vets journalists (checking bylines, references, etc.)?

 

Those organizations already exist. BBWAA, Football writers, basketball writers. Even auto racing writers have at least two organizations that I belong to.

 

I think the people issuing credentials just need to check out the publication that the reporter is representing. Is it a fan site (where there's a good chance of something shady going down once the "reporter" is allowed inside the ropes) or is it a legitimate news site?

There are two kinds of people being granted credentials. One is the actual journalist who is there to report. The other is the kind in this story. The latter simply needs to be weeded out and a background check of their website is one way to do it.

Of course, this won't weed out any real journalist who takes a bribe under the table from a fansite to "recruit" an athlete to said fansite's team or school.

Pretty crazy that the shady deals that have long existed between schools and athletes are now trickling over to journalists as well. Pretty soon, instead of the athlete driving the brand new Hummer around that he "bought", it will be the journalist. ;D

 

Jay,

Whether that's true or not (I tend to lean toward "not"), that sounds like a problem for the schools and the fans running the sites.

It doesn't strike me as something that I (or you, or Bob Gibbons) should be looking to "legislate" about.

It's especially irksome in the case of Gibbons, because his status as an independent recruiting analyst is exactly the kind of thing some media people probably would have liked to "legislate" about 30 years ago, when he was breaking into the business. It strikes me as..."hypocritical" isn't quite the right word, but it may have to do.

 

(Broken up into two separate posts for readability)

Also, I'm also not totally sure that "Gibbons has a point" is, ipso facto, a true statement. The full quote, for context:

Am I crazy to think that the bolded part is the biggest part of his beef? His complaint seems to break down as:

1) "It" has gotten worse. How so? No one in this story provides evidence beyond the anecdotal. It's hard to believe that boosters and such didn't have access to kids at summer tournaments and the like 30 years ago. If anything, "it" has gotten better, from an enforcement standpoint, since the NCAA started restricting coaches' summertime movements.

2) Bob Gibbons used to go to camps and write reports on "the best" players. Now, lots of people are doing that, and using "a whole different set of communications." It seems indisputable that 1,000 recruiting reporters can do a more thorough (we'll withhold judgment on "better") job of covering camps than one. So what's really the problem?

3) There are "multiple problems" that need to be resolved, and Bob doesn't think anyone knows the exact solution. It's unclear what these "multiple problems" are, or even whether they're really problems. Threats to Bob Gibbons' business model, maybe. But problems? The story doesn't really show how or why, and neither does Gibbons.

4) How do you "legislate" people who dare to claim they breathe the same rarefied air as Bob Gibbons? Why should you? Who would draft and enforce this "legislation?"

 

And some of those organizations you can join simply by paying the entry fee. That's not the same as an umbrella organization that would handle licensing.

Sorry, folks, but there are too many people on this board who are too damned lazy/frightened/stubborn to realize that the intergrity of the profession is being eaten away by parasites who can too easily access the host body. Keep your head in the sand and whenever you come up for air look around to see that the beach you were once on is now a vast wasteland.

 

Really? The integrity of this profession is "being eaten away by parasites?" Any actual evidence?

If anything, it's the opposite...most of those Web writers quoted in the WaPo story seemed to be falling all over themselves to say it's not them, heavens no, it's other people who are being so unprofessional. That seems to indicate the the integrity of the profession is not just in good condition, it remains something for amateur journalists to aspire to.

 

The evidence is that anyone with a laptop can call himself/herself a "journalist" and thereby poison the well for anyone who is a journalist. There is little reporting, less vetting and more posting.

I plan to buy a stethoscope and will call myself a doctor from now on. Medical advice posted daily.

 

1. It's getting worse because while the boosters had access to players in the past, now they can do so under the shield of a media credential, blurring the line between those who are there to legitimately report and those who are really there to recruit and/or promote their university to these kids. The latter are supposed to be monitored and regulated by the NCAA, but that becomes difficult or impossible for the NCAA to do while they are disguised as the media.

2. The problem is that some, perhaps many, of these ``recruiting reporters'' come with an agenda to steer players to a certain school. That makes them not reporters but recruiters. The evidence in this particular story might be anecdotal, but it is evidence that this stuff does, in fact, go on, and even if it's only two or three ``reporters'' (and surely you'll concede there are far more than that operating this way nationwide), that's enough for the NCAA to consider action to prevent this from happening. Does Gibbons have a clear agenda? I don't care enough about recruiting to have read a lot of his stuff, but if he does, he is being hypocritical. If not, he has a legitimate issue.

3. The story shows exactly what the problems are. ``Reporters'' setting up phone calls for recruits to talk to coaches of a certain school. ``Reporters'' pushing their school on recruits during non-contact periods. The NCAA has rules regarding who can and can't contact recruits on behalf of the schools and when they can do it. By declaring themselves to be ``media,'' any boosters for any school can get around those rules. So how do you tell who's legitimate media and who is a fan/recruiter? Sounds like a pretty clear set of problems to me.

4. Who drafts and enforces this legislation? The NCAA. Duh. As for why, see above.

 

No, it just says people who think they're accused of doing something shady invariably say, ``No, it wasn't me. It was all those other guys.''

The fact that they are all saying we're above all those other people who are doing shady things tells me there are apparently quite a number of people out there doing shady things. None of those Web guys you noted denied that. They all just said, ``It was them, not us.''

 

I was at a recent showcase event doing a story on the assembled players (lots of blue-chippers) for my rag.

Got contacted by some folks who run one of these "fanboi" websites to see if I had any interest in writing up some evals on three kids in particular. I asked him the name of his site and did a little investigating. Turns out, it was one of these school-specific deals and I had major reservations about publishing anything in my name that could have been construed as helping recruit a player to any school.

I declined, and turned down some pretty decent coin in doing so.

 

This story makes it seem like any Joe off the street can obtain a media credential for any event they seek to attend.

But, this story is based on what happens at summer basketball camps and tournaments, run by people who benefit by media coverage. They don't care if that media coverage originates from a large building with hundreds of reporters or an old lady's basement.

If you haven't been around these events you won't understand, but AAU basketball is the shadiest business I have ever seen.

You think these "amateur journalists" are pseudo-recruiters? Talk to an AAU coach and see how many directions his hands are held out. The amateur journalists are far less a problem than the men (and women) running AAU programs and events.

There's a great story in AAU basketball waiting to be uncovered. Instead, the focus is on the guy in his underwear blogging from his mom's basement.

Many AAU coaches I know have their own scouting service. Those scouting services usually only include information on that coach's players. If a college coach wants to talk to those kids or recruit those kids, he must first subscribe to the AAU coach's service, often for hundreds of dollars.

It is a shame that a handful of "fanboy" sites damages the credibility of the rest--and yes, I'm part of one of them. I can tell you we work very hard to never even come close to crossing the line, even if it means we piss off some of our subscribers. But, the abuse directed towards "fanboy" sites is unfair, much like it would be unfair to assume all journalists plagiarize simply because one is caught doing so.

The Washington Post story, not the first of its kind, is a lame attempt at discrediting the hard work of so many people who take their jobs very seriously and act professionally during their assignments. After all, the Washington Post did contract with a blogger who was guilty of plagiarism. Should I then assume that Mr. Prisbell and Mr. Yanda also are plagiarists?