Whitlock crushes Thayer Evans and SI

Yes. Noticed it on my twitter feed.

 

"He just said he was with Sports Illustrated, I didn't know it was an interview."

Then you're a fucking idiot.

You gotta love it when newspapers have to try to justify why they got their asses kicked on a story. The South Florida papers did a bit of that a couple years ago when Robinson wrote the Miami scandal story.

 

But doesn't it bother you at all that this guy's saying Evans never took a note or turned on a recorder? Hell, I was talking to an attorney for a notebook item yesterday, took notes and read back to him twice what I wrote down. I just wanted to be doubly sure I heard him accurately. And that was for a note at the bottom of the story. You're going to quote somebody in a massive investigative piece and you're not going write down or record anything? I've got a problem with that.

Sure, the guy should have figured that when SI walks through the door asking questions, you're on the record. But the reporter, for his own sake, should pull out a notepad or a recorder.

 

I always let the people with whom I'm speaking know up front whether this is an interview or whether we're just shooting the breeze. That includes the use of a notebook/recorder/etc.

I don't ever assume they get it. I just want to make sure I eliminate any doubt. Why leave yourself open to second-guessing after the fact?

Mizzou: I think we've all encountered people who don't always understand every aspect of dealing with the media. That includes athletes/former athletes. Doesn't mean their effin' idiots. Especially a youth minister who likely hasn't been "interviewed" since he left school.

 

The guy was the starting quarterback at a major Division I football school and you want to say he didn't understand what it meant to be talking to Sports Illustrated? Jesus Christ. How fucking gullible are some of you guys to take these bullshit explanations seriously. I bet you believe every athlete who ever tests positive just did it the once by accident too.

 

If you want to know part of the reason people hate the media, it's an attitude like this. People may not be stupid, they may simply be a bit naive. The reporter accosted him without warning at work and had no recorder or notebook. It's not unreasonable to believe this guy may not have been aware of the consequences of speaking. You feel comfortable sleeping at night knowing you may have deceived a source---to that source's great detriment---simply to get a story? Rather abhorrent, I think. And another example of why journalism ethics are laughable---much more about protecting the business than actually doing the moral thing.

 

I'll avoid the personal attacks and respond in this manner:

I don't know the individual in question. I don't know what he thought when he was approached by the reporter. I don't know whether the reporter didn't use a notebook or recording device because he is sloppy or because he hoped to convince the individual that it wasn't on the record in the hope of getting something juicy.

I don't know whether the former QB is lying or whether the reporter is an unethical journalist.

All I know is that I make it clear up front who I am, why I'm there and that this is a formal interview and I use a recorder/notebook to make sure the interview subject understands this.

I don't assume anything because I don't want a subject coming back after the fact and accusing me of doing something slimy. I make sure I have audio recordings of everything so if I quote someone I can prove that the quotes are accurate.

Is that really asking too much of a reporter?

Sorry, but my natural skepticism isn't reserved for the subjects of interviews. Sometimes it applies to folks in our field. The reason for that is I've seen some folks operate in a manner that most would agree is unethical.

 

We're assuming the guy is being truthful about the reporter not taking notes or using a recorder. Maybe he's telling the truth, but maybe he's not. I had quite a few instances during my career where someone swears they never said something and I have the recording to prove it. Nobody cares...

Who is lying? The reporter? Or the guy who is being ripped to shreds for talking to SI?

 

Exactly. This isn't some rube who has never seen a reporter before. He was a starting QB at a major school in a major conference. He's probably been to media days. He's probably had media training.

 

Why is identifying yourself the bright-line rule that justifies misleading a source who may not realize the consequences of speaking? As someone else said, why couldn't the journalist be very clear about what his story was about and that he intended to print what this source said? If the reason he couldn't be clear is because the source might not speak, then how is that not misleading? Or at least omitting information the source might find material. Clearly there is a reason that Evans did not show up with a recorder and a notebook.

 

That is, if you believe that he did not actually have a recorder or a notebook. There's some pretty obvious damage control going on here.