Team Paranoia strikes again

[da man]

Many years ago, I was covering a coach search. A bunch of reporters were waiting outside a room in which a search committee meeting was being held, when a writer came over and told us that he stood by the room's back door and could hear everything that was being said. Naturally, we all ran over, listened and took notes. After awhile, one of the committee members happened to open the door and caught us. They shooed us away, but we had names and comments, and yes, we used them (we asked the committee people about them afterward and received no comments, as I recall). Later, the guy who was doing the pre-interview legwork drove up and went into the meeting. Walking by his parked car, we noticed an airline itinerary sitting on the passenger seat. We took note of where and when he was flying -- the where matched one of the candidates whose name we heard -- and reported that, too.

OK, like I said this was a long time ago, and I have spent some time since then wondering if what we did was ethical. I have to say that while I'm still not 100 percent sure if it was, I would without question do it again in a similar situation. The story was relevant and the information was 100 percent accurate.

What do all of you think?

 

[Point of Order]

Many years ago, I was covering a coach search. A bunch of reporters were waiting outside a room in which a search committee meeting was being held, when a writer came over and told us that he stood by the room's back door and could hear everything that was being said. Naturally, we all ran over, listened and took notes. After awhile, one of the committee members happened to open the door and caught us. They shooed us away, but we had names and comments, and yes, we used them (we asked the committee people about them afterward and received no comments, as I recall). Later, the guy who was doing the pre-interview legwork drove up and went into the meeting. Walking by his parked car, we noticed an airline itinerary sitting on the passenger seat. We took not of where and when he was flying -- the where matched one of the candidates whose name we heard -- and reported that, too.

OK, like I said this was a long time ago, and I have spent some time since then wondering if what we did was ethical. I have to say that while I'm still not 100 percent sure if it was, I would wuthout question do it again in a similar situation. The story was rleevant and the information was 100 percent accurate.

What do all of you think?

I'm all for it, especially in the case of something as big as a coaching search. Old media protocol and professional courtesy is one of the things killing the old media.

 

[HeinekenMan]

I'm squarely in the unethical camp.

As shotglass noted, you could burn a source. And what's the next step? Putting a tape recorder in the trash can before the meeting?

Even if you just swung the blinds open to see whether practice had ended, I'd say that you should approach the matter cautiously and get someone involved to spill the beans without revealing that you peaked. There are some fairly dumb athletes out there. It couldn't be that difficult to get someone to slip up if you ask the proper questions.

 

[Cosmo]

Interesting conversation, and as much as Petty can come off as an instigator at times on the board, he makes very good points about reporting only what the organization wants you to report on. At some point, you become the PR voice of the team, not a reporter covering the team, and that ain't good.

On my college beat last fall (I-AA team), I kept leaking parts of the next year's football schedule mostly because I had a source within athletics who was telling me what contracts were on the table and had been approved, etc. I'm at the golf outing at the conference's basketball media days when the AD comes up to me and tells me about how they're playing a second I-A team next year. I report that in a notebook, and I hear from the SID that the AD is running around the office going, "we've got to get to the bottom of these leaks. That should have never been in the paper."

To which the SID says, "uh, sir, YOU are the leak."

A lot of times, people don't know if they're on the record or off the record. I'll respect it if someone says, "Can I tell you something off the record?" before he/she speaks to me. But if they don't say anything about off the record, then all bets are off.

***

What do you think of this scenario, one that actually happened to me? Big-name transfer is down at my school working out during basketball season and I hear he's at the team's practice, so I head on over and ask the head coach if I can chat with him. My brain wasn't working, and I wasn't thinking about NCAA regs that say recruits can't speak to the media while on official visits. (For some reason, I wasn't thinking of a transfer checking out a school as an 'official visit.') At the same time, the coach and player were nice enough to facilitate an interview, but they were very worried that they had blown NCAA rules and had gotten in trouble.

I had the transfer's cell phone number and called him back later on just to check on things, and that way I was able to say that I got the information about the transfer from a phone interview, not at his official visit. It might have seemed a little underhanded for me to report it that way, but I still broke the story without blowing my trust with my sources. It didn't seem worth it to hang my sources out to dry and potentially get them in trouble with the NCAA because neither one of us realized that NCAA rules were being broken.

 

[goalmouth]

The Trailblazers have also announced that henceforth any important papers on executives' desks will be turned around in order to prevent nosy reporters from reading them upside down during meetings when said executives leave the room to pee.

 

[Moland Spring]

One thing Maestro: if you interviewed a recruit on his official visit, there is an NCAA recruiting violation. But YOU did not commit it. The school did. You are not under the NCAA's umbrella (or whatever). You can hold off the interview, or disguise it, as part of beat management. But don't worry about "getting in trouble." I've run into this issue, too.
Also, let me be clear: I am not against breaking protocol to report big news or burning a source to report big news (if you know for a fact that you're right) or following tail numbers on a plane in a coaching search and reporting that....
My only thing is, it better be worth it.

 

[Cosmo]

Moland: Yeah, I knew I wasn't in trouble. But it was a good-hearted gesture by the coaching staff to facilitate the interview (and they didn't realize it was a no-no until talking to their compliance person), and burning them by saying in a story he was interviewed on campus didn't seem like the right way in going about things. It's a give-and-take ... I would have gotten the story by calling the kid, so there was no sense getting the sources in trouble, especially if I wanted those sources to remain in my good graces for the future.

 

[write then drink]

A bunch of reporters were waiting outside a room in which a search committee meeting was being held, when a writer came over and told us that he stood by the room's back door and could hear everything that was being said. Naturally, we all ran over, listened and took notes.

on a competitive beat? why would the dude help out the competition and show 'em where they could listen from?

once the coach of the NFL team I was covering refused to identify his starting quarterback. practice was closed Wednesday, so we couldn't see who was practicing with the first team and nobody was talking. so I snuck into the stadium across the street, climbed to the top of the bleachers with my binoculars, watched practice, saw who the starter was. wrote the story. we've all got stories like this. it's always fun doing stuff like that. but why share it?

 

[e4]

I'm sorry e4, but you must not be a beat writer.
There is always a time to give a **** you to team you cover -- a player arrest, a failed drug test story based on sources, a coach is about to be fired, a team meeting where a coach rips the owners, etc. But it better be worth it.

I'm not a beat writer, but I understand the relationships you need to build on a beat and the risks-rewards involved in breaking certain stories. As I said before, I realize this was a pre-draft workout, meaning the stakes were not high compared to, say, an arrest, failed drug test, coach firing or coach tirade. Would I have written this story? My guess, probably yes; it seems more newsworthy than anything else that happened that day.

My original point, however, questioned the perception of unethical. To reiterate my take, Where's the problem? If Quick had looked behind the blinds and saw the players brawling, a coach smacking one of them in the head, a player choking a coach, a player doing 'roids or smoking a J instead of shooting one, or anything of the like, would he not report these because the team said the practice was closed, that he saw something they didn't want him to see? This is a case where reporting what the writer sees is up to his or her judgement and willingness to go with it and potentially strain source relationships. You cannot make this call with a blanket statement.

To call Quick's original actions unethical is both inaccurate and insulting. (Per SportsJournalists.com protocol, I don't know Quick and I live on the opposite coast.)

The press-at-large took a huge hit in credibility regarding the presence of WMD's in Iraq and this country's motivations for going to war. (And before you start complaining about how I'm comparing the Jailblazers to War, remember I'm arguing the action, not the situation.) In the case of Iraq, people have argued that the press didn't do its job, that it went along with what the government was telling them instead of digging for more info, confirming info, trying to find out what went on behind closed doors. What if a White House reporter looked through a pair of blinds and saw the President in a teleconference with bin Laden, would that reporter be considered unethical for looking through a pair of blinds in plain sight, or would the reporter actually be doing his or her job?

Try to look at the action separate from the discovery of news, and realize that it is an important and necessary action for the discovery of any type of news.

Sure, it is surprising that Quick ran with this story given the risk-reward payout (then again, maybe not given his existing relationships), and he sort of did have an FU attitude in his blog post, which made it more personal than it needed to be. Those points are debateable, but considering he didn't break any laws, I consider the action and his ethics to be solid.

 

[silvercharm]

The ban has been lifted. You may now resume your regularly scheduled peeping and prying of Blazer activity.

 

[micropolitan guy]

Quick didn't burn any sources. Nobody leaked anything to him, he didn't out anyone, he alone suffers any consequences, which now apparently seem minor.

As far as burning bridges goes, perhaps he's cognizant that the Blazers' top management is living on very, very borrowed time and won't be around long enough for there to be any fallout, or that he holds the hammer here because the Blazers (again) looks like idiots with the media, or that he's confident enough in his ability and that the paper will back him to the wall that he felt comfortable taking a shot back at an organization that has turned from one of the best in the NBA to one of the worst.

I think he knows what he's doing.

Do you think Cuban would have pitched a fit about something like this, instead of concentrating on what is really important?

Maybe that's why the Mavs, who were the polar opposites of the Blazers when he tok over, are now among the NBA's model franchises and the Blazers have devolved into (old) Clippers North.

Just sayin.' ;D

 

[accguy]

I just don't understand why Quick told everybody that he looked through the blinds. With as paranoid as the Blazers are, wouldn't it be more fun to just report what happened, not tell that you saw through the blinds and watch the team freak out?

 

[micropolitan guy]

he felt comfortable taking a shot back at an organization that has turned from one of the best in the NBA to one of the worst.

 

[area313code]

Canzanos blog on the issue explained more. I was not aware that the Trail Blazers had registered the domain name johncanzano.com. Wtf?? Jeezus, with all the BS the team is busy doing how did Portland's basketball franchise have energy left over to win 20 games this year?

www.oregonlive.com/canzano

 

[Starman]

Canzanos blog on the issue explained more. I was not aware that the Trail Blazers had registered the domain name johncanzano.com. Wtf?? Jeezus, with all the BS the team is busy doing how did Portland's basketball franchise have energy left over to win 20 games this year?

www.oregonlive.com/canzano

Insane. The Knicks have a challenger. :

 

[area313code]

I think the Knicks are in second place on this one. Must be.

 

[Twoback]

Jason Quick is one of the strongest NBA beat writers, partially because his hatred for the organization spurs him to dig up muck.

Is this what we mean by "unbiased reporting"?

 

[Tom Petty]

I'm sorry e4, but you must not be a beat writer.
There is always a time to give a **** you to team you cover -- a player arrest, a failed drug test story based on sources, a coach is about to be fired, a team meeting where a coach rips the owners, etc. But it better be worth it.

I'm not a beat writer, but I understand the relationships you need to build on a beat and the risks-rewards involved in breaking certain stories. As I said before, I realize this was a pre-draft workout, meaning the stakes were not high compared to, say, an arrest, failed drug test, coach firing or coach tirade. Would I have written this story? My guess, probably yes; it seems more newsworthy than anything else that happened that day.

My original point, however, questioned the perception of unethical. To reiterate my take, Where's the problem? If Quick had looked behind the blinds and saw the players brawling, a coach smacking one of them in the head, a player choking a coach, a player doing 'roids or smoking a J instead of shooting one, or anything of the like, would he not report these because the team said the practice was closed, that he saw something they didn't want him to see? This is a case where reporting what the writer sees is up to his or her judgement and willingness to go with it and potentially strain source relationships. You cannot make this call with a blanket statement.

To call Quick's original actions unethical is both inaccurate and insulting. (Per SportsJournalists.com protocol, I don't know Quick and I live on the opposite coast.)

The press-at-large took a huge hit in credibility regarding the presence of WMD's in Iraq and this country's motivations for going to war. (And before you start complaining about how I'm comparing the Jailblazers to War, remember I'm arguing the action, not the situation.) In the case of Iraq, people have argued that the press didn't do its job, that it went along with what the government was telling them instead of digging for more info, confirming info, trying to find out what went on behind closed doors. What if a White House reporter looked through a pair of blinds and saw the President in a teleconference with bin Laden, would that reporter be considered unethical for looking through a pair of blinds in plain sight, or would the reporter actually be doing his or her job?

Try to look at the action separate from the discovery of news, and realize that it is an important and necessary action for the discovery of any type of news.

Sure, it is surprising that Quick ran with this story given the risk-reward payout (then again, maybe not given his existing relationships), and he sort of did have an FU attitude in his blog post, which made it more personal than it needed to be. Those points are debateable, but considering he didn't break any laws, I consider the action and his ethics to be solid.

e - also remember this is an organization that once drafted bowie instead of jordan. pre-draft workouts are, indeed, a touchy subject to the few fans the trail blazers still have.

 

[Del_B_Vista]

once the coach of the NFL team I was covering refused to identify his starting quarterback. practice was closed Wednesday, so we couldn't see who was practicing with the first team and nobody was talking. so I snuck into the stadium across the street, climbed to the top of the bleachers with my binoculars, watched practice, saw who the starter was. wrote the story. we've all got stories like this. it's always fun doing stuff like that. but why share it?

Hope I'm not outing someone, but folks on the Saints beat talked about life in the Ditka era. He'd closed practices, but they realized they could go to adjacent Zephyrs Field and watch practice from the press box. Saints found out and raised holy hell with the Z's, who shut off access to the press box.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

It's real simple. If a team is hiding something, but doesn't do it well enough, they have no beef with ANY tactics the reporter used to find out. If the GM had an extramarital affair and a reporter found out by looking in a window, was it the reporter's fault tghe blinds weren't drawn? Talk about a weak line of defense.
They bought Canzano's potential domain name? I really do not know the answer to this question. Does Paul Allen still own the Blazers. I have a good friend who worked for Allen for awhile and he's a sensible soul for a billionaire genius. Were I the publisher of the Portland paper, or even if I was Canzano, I'd look to set up a nice non-confrontational lunch with the owner and point out the franchise is succeeding only in blackening his name.