Whitlock crushes Thayer Evans and SI

It's really not that shocking. Dismaying, yes, but not shocking.

 

As I've said many, many times in the past, I don't care whether something is "textbook journalism" or the "ethical standard." I care about why it is the standard. Because in many cases, it has nothing to do with protecting sources, serving readers, or even getting at the truth. It's about journalists protecting themselves and justifying otherwise immoral things.

So once again I ask: why is the bright-line rule you've created the appropriate ethical standard? What makes it ethical? Or should we also simply blindly follow rules created by other people who haven't justified them?

And again, why wouldn't Evans use a notebook or a recorder? Unless his memory is perfect---which is extraordinarily difficult to believe---there is no way his accuracy would not be improved by using these tools. So the only reason I could see for not using them is an attempt to deceive the source into forgetting that his comments might be published verbatim. And that certainly seems like a more plausible explanation than that Evans possesses perfect recall.*

* Or he just doesn't care about accuracy.

 

And I find extraordinarily dismaying how supposedly skeptical journalists are always so willing to defend certain journalists despite the many, many flaws of the media.

 

As opposed to blindly believing the athlete and assuming that the journalist did something unethical.

 

Thayer Evans has many platforms on which he could publish a response. He has yet to do so. Until he does, I'll assume that this is the truth.

And, in any case, many of you are defending Evans's actions even assuming the allegations are true.

 

I'm not "defending" anyone, much less a "certain journalist" whom I'd never heard of until a few days ago.

I'm being a skeptical (actually, cynical) journalist in relation to the "Oh, my God, I didn't know!" claims of an interview subject who, again, does not like that he has ended up at the centre of controversy.

Too bad you won't or can't see it from that point of view. You're too hung up on the "many, many flaws of the media."

Not that the media and its members aren't flawed, mind you. And if it turns out that Thayer Evans misrepresented himself or misquoted Pogi because he didn't record the interview or didn't take proper notes, then by all means let's rake him over the coals.

But I'm not going to do it based solely on the words of a guy who's clearly in damage control mode.

 

Interesting. Yet many people would find it unethical to pay sources for stories, even though that would serve readers by providing more of the "truth". One wonders if this is so that journalists may extract the profits from stories for themselves, rather than allowing the profits to accrue to people that actually have the useful information people are interested in reading.

So you believe a journalists is never under any obligation to protect a source, if not anonymous? A journalists should rest easy knowing he provided the truth, even if it will lead a source to be physically attacked?

But that is not "reasonable" when the journalist takes other steps to hide his true intentions. Again, please tell me why, assuming what this person says is true, Evans would not have used a tape recorder or notebook at the interview. I have no plausible reason that would explain this except deception.

 

The crux of this issue is going to be if he had a recorder or notebook.

If he didn't have either, that's inexcusable.

If he didn't have a recorder, on a story of this magnitude, knowing it would get picked apart, he's an idiot.

Again, IF he didn't have either, that makes me think something fishy is going on here. Why wouldn't he want a record of this conversation?

 

He may very well have had a recorder.

That doesn't mean Pogi is lying about not seeing one.

 

You do like to assume, don't you? And you know what happens when you assume.....

 

Sources almost always have something to gain from talking to the media, so if we're taking the default posture that a source with some other motivation is lying, then we should often be assuming that stories in various publications are not true.