ESPN Ombudsman clears the air

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3699581

She clears the air regarding Holtz and his "Hitler" comment. She also explains the non-reporting of the Glazer scoop regarding Favre and the Lions.

 

[slappy4428]

meh...

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Vince Doria is a *****.

 

[slappy4428]

Vince Doria is a *****.

Ya think?

 

[21]

I don't know if we have enough bandwidth to discuss this:

Doria, who issued an internal "DO NOT REPORT" memo about this story that was leaked to other news outlets, understands how it looks.

"We can't win the perception game on this," he told me.

OK, but perception game aside, what was his reasoning?

"This wasn't about not respecting or not wanting to credit Jay Glazer," Doria said. "We have credited Glazer on many stories. If this had been a routine trade or injury story broken by another news outlet, we would have run it, attributed it to the other outlet, then tried to confirm and advance the story. But when a story involves criminal allegations or issues that impugn character, and when there is no track record of similar behavior by the individual targeted by the story, we don't report it without further confirmation on our part.

"We felt this story called Favre's character into question, and we couldn't confirm it. Favre had a text exchange with [ESPN senior NFL analyst] Chris Mortensen, saying it wasn't so, and the Lions said they had no knowledge of it. We couldn't go to Glazer's sources, because he didn't name them, and the original lack of detail about what was said suggested to me they were secondary sources. They could have been anybody in the NFL."

Why didn't ESPN just report Favre's denial to Mortensen?

"When allegations are made against somebody," Doria said, "with no confirmation or evidence on our part, and you go to the person and get a denial, and then use the denial to you as justification for putting the allegations out there -- to me, that has always seemed an unethical way to get a story out if it involves a matter of character."

 

[Twoback]

Frankly, this is journalism as it should be.
ESPN deserves applause.
Predictably, it gets none. It gets "meh."

 

[SF_Express]

I don't know if we have enough bandwidth to discuss this:

Doria, who issued an internal "DO NOT REPORT" memo about this story that was leaked to other news outlets, understands how it looks.

"We can't win the perception game on this," he told me.

OK, but perception game aside, what was his reasoning?

"This wasn't about not respecting or not wanting to credit Jay Glazer," Doria said. "We have credited Glazer on many stories. If this had been a routine trade or injury story broken by another news outlet, we would have run it, attributed it to the other outlet, then tried to confirm and advance the story. But when a story involves criminal allegations or issues that impugn character, and when there is no track record of similar behavior by the individual targeted by the story, we don't report it without further confirmation on our part.

"We felt this story called Favre's character into question, and we couldn't confirm it. Favre had a text exchange with [ESPN senior NFL analyst] Chris Mortensen, saying it wasn't so, and the Lions said they had no knowledge of it. We couldn't go to Glazer's sources, because he didn't name them, and the original lack of detail about what was said suggested to me they were secondary sources. They could have been anybody in the NFL."

Why didn't ESPN just report Favre's denial to Mortensen?

"When allegations are made against somebody," Doria said, "with no confirmation or evidence on our part, and you go to the person and get a denial, and then use the denial to you as justification for putting the allegations out there -- to me, that has always seemed an unethical way to get a story out if it involves a matter of character."

21, are you saying you don't buy Doria's reasoning? A lot of what he says makes sense.

When I was 22, I wrote a whole column about how a New York Times writer called me at my small paper to try to work on some story about some unethical behavior by sports team executives involving some guy who was trying to start a "fan union." And how they were going to smear him to get him to stop what he was doing. And when we didn't get anything to support those allegations, I wrote a column about the whole thing. The headline was, I'll never forget this, "We don't have a story." Named all the names and everything.

I think that was pretty damned unethical, even though every word was true. So I understand Doria's thinking in this case: Do you really run the "I don't beat my wife" denials in order to report a story you yourself can't get in the first place?

(As an aside, by the way, the NYT reporter at the time: Tony Kornheiser. )

 

[Giggity]

Well CLEARLY it would be more scintillating if T.O. was discussing it instead of Le Anne Schreiber.

 

[SF_Express]

I'm extremely happy to report on the Hitler front that I apparently was NOT the one who provided the incorrect context cited in her column, although my original post did reference the Michigan program. But I got the quote right:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/62518/

 

[slappy4428]

Frankly, this is journalism as it should be.
ESPN deserves applause.
Predictably, it gets none. It gets "meh."

Actually, I was referring to her column. Was disappointing this month. Lacked its usual punch overall.