The Jay Glazer dilemma

[Dick Whitman]

Columnist takes on Glazer's conflicts of interest, particularly as regards the Incognito interview:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177105/jay-glazers-interview-richie-incognito-was-sports-journalism-its-worst#

I suppose at least FOX discloses this, unlike Sports Illustrated when it runs another Verducci PR piece.

 

[93Devil]

It's Fox.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Columnist also discusses the toy department reputation of sports - and how infrequently he thinks sports journalism actually matters:

The question about whether a sports reporter is an actual, real, live journalist or just a shill for the leagues they “cover”, is as old as sports itself. Most of the time frankly it just doesn’t even matter. Does it really affect any of our lives if we learn "the truth" about whether Wayne Gretzky's wife has a gambling problem or if David Ortiz loves it or hates it when little kids ask for his autograph in crowded restaurants?

 

[93Devil]

Hell, the MMQB had a big splash piece last week with the on-the-record account of a former Dolphin, who oh-by-the-way played college football with Incognito.

Were all of his frat brothers busy?

 

[Alma]

Columnist takes on Glazer's conflicts of interest, particularly as regards the Incognito interview:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177105/jay-glazers-interview-richie-incognito-was-sports-journalism-its-worst#

I suppose at least FOX discloses this, unlike Sports Illustrated when it runs another Verducci PR piece.

Glazer's a celebrity columnist who works in the celebrity industry himself. He conducted the interview perfectly appropriate for him. You can't expect a gadfly like that to do anything more than what he did.

Fox doesn't care how it looked, though. Fox just wanted words. And got words.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Obviously, Incognito would only have talked to Glazer. I guess they traded integrity for access, which wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

We see this all the time ... controversial sports figures grant interviews, but only if they get to pick a sympathetic interviewer.

Ray Lewis gave NFL Network an interview about his "controversial past," but only if it was conducted by Michael Irvin.

When Bob Knight got the Texas Tech job, the only person from ESPN he would let interview him was **** Vitale (after Jeremy Schaap asked him some uncomfortable questions after he was fired by Indiana).

 

[Dick Whitman]

Columnist takes on Glazer's conflicts of interest, particularly as regards the Incognito interview:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177105/jay-glazers-interview-richie-incognito-was-sports-journalism-its-worst#

I suppose at least FOX discloses this, unlike Sports Illustrated when it runs another Verducci PR piece.

Glazer's a celebrity columnist who works in the celebrity industry himself. He conducted the interview perfectly appropriate for him. You can't expect a gadfly like that to do anything more than what he did.

Fox doesn't care how it looked, though. Fox just wanted words. And got words.

It did. And I think that's the dilemma here, right? Glazer's interview was, ultimately, just added value to the real scoop - the text messages. I don't like the methods, either. But I can't argue that they leveraged Glazer's poor journalistic ethics into objectively valuable information for fans.

Zirin's words about sports journalists really stuck with me. We are, largely, shill fanbois 364 days a year, covering a live-action soap opera. Then, on day 365 we're expected to rise to the occasion? Fat chance, assuming his assessment is accurate. I wish APSE posted award-winning pieces. It's not definitive, but it wouldbe a good starting point to assess the real-world importance of what we consider our best work.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Also: The Nation is a partisan rag. At least Glazer gets paid for his whoring.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

At least Glazer disclosed the relationship before they aired the interview. Anybody in the media who follows the NFL knows Glazer, between his MMA work and working out with athletes, has a few conflicts of interest working...

That said, ESPN doesn't disclose it when it has reporters interviewing coaches who share the same agents or agency. Peter King sometimes makes reference that he and an athlete or coach might have the same agent or agency.

Is it a conflict? Yes... Would every network have worked that conflict to it's advantage if it could? Absolutely.

I thought, all things considered, Glazer did a pretty good job with the interview.

 

[YankeeFan]

Columnist takes on Glazer's conflicts of interest, particularly as regards the Incognito interview:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177105/jay-glazers-interview-richie-incognito-was-sports-journalism-its-worst#

I suppose at least FOX discloses this, unlike Sports Illustrated when it runs another Verducci PR piece.

He's obviously right about Glazer, though he's had conflicts his entire career.

His idea of good reporting is just as concerning:

The coverage today that Christine Brennan does about Title IX and women’s sports, makes a difference.

Christine Brennan has an agenda, and bias, just like Brennan. Why is that any better?

I don't want a journalist -- news or sports -- who's looking to "make a difference".

 

[MisterCreosote]

Christine Brennan is a columnist, and what she does is "commentary," not "coverage."

That's the difference.

 

[YankeeFan]

Christine Brennan is a columnist, and what she does is "commentary," not "coverage."

That's the difference.

It's still a bore.

Find, and tell good stories. Sports is filled with them. She's like a dog with a bone.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Christine Brennan is a columnist, and what she does is "commentary," not "coverage."

That's the difference.

And she doesn't have a business relationship with the people she champions. She did write a book with Billie Jean King, I see. So that's a mark against her, but not to the extent of Glazer.

I'd compare Brennan more to The Nation, entities that have loyalties to causes rather than dollars. It's not surprising that Zirin would cite her as an example of journalistic purity.

It's still pretty shocking that Verducci skirts by unscathed. Again, at least FOX discloses Glazer's business interests. Verducci wrote a book with Joe Torre that was a best-seller, and he draws a paycheck from Major League Baseball on the side. Sports Illustrated, to my knowledge, has never once acknowledged this in print, even when he wrote a takedown of the NFL's drug-testing policy as compared to MLB's last year.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Christine Brennan is a columnist, and what she does is "commentary," not "coverage."

That's the difference.

It's still a bore.

Find, and tell good stories. Sports is filled with them. She's like a dog with a bone.

Oh, there's a place for commentary. So I don't agree with that criticism. What Brennan does is different than what S.L. Price or Wright Thompson do. There's a place for both.

Now, if she's poor at that - a "bore" - that's a separate criticism. But she can have a worthy job and do poorly at it.

 

[Boom_70]

I look forward to Zirin taking on MSNBC for hiring David Axelrod with his obvious conflict of
interest.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I look forward to Zirin taking on MSNBC for hiring David Axelrod with his obvious conflict of
interest.

But Axelrod isn't conducting interviews. He's a pundit. He's no different than Bradshaw or Jimmy Johnson or Howie Long. He's an ex-player.

 

[YankeeFan]

Verducci wrote a book with Joe Torre that was a best-seller, and he draws a paycheck from Major League Baseball on the side. Sports Illustrated, to my knowledge, has never once acknowledged this in print, even when he wrote a takedown of the NFL's drug-testing policy as compared to MLB's last year.

Did anyone ever get to the bottom of how this "article" (with no byline) ended up on NFL.com:

Concussion issue continues to grow in Major League Baseball

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000243632/article/concussion-issue-continues-to-grow-in-major-league-baseball

I think that would be a fun article to write, if you could find out what happened.

 

[YankeeFan]

I look forward to Zirin taking on MSNBC for hiring David Axelrod with his obvious conflict of
interest.

But Axelrod isn't conducting interviews. He's a pundit. He's no different than Bradshaw or Jimmy Johnson or Howie Long. He's an ex-player.

Yeah, there are worse examples of this. If he was the host of "This Week" or "Meet the Press" it would be a different story.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Verducci wrote a book with Joe Torre that was a best-seller, and he draws a paycheck from Major League Baseball on the side. Sports Illustrated, to my knowledge, has never once acknowledged this in print, even when he wrote a takedown of the NFL's drug-testing policy as compared to MLB's last year.

Did anyone ever get to the bottom of how this "article" (with no byline) ended up on NFL.com:

Concussion issue continues to grow in Major League Baseball

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000243632/article/concussion-issue-continues-to-grow-in-major-league-baseball

I think that would be a fun article to write, if you could find out what happened.

It has a byline - "Bill Bradley, contributing editor."

And I don't have a problem with it.

I would have a problem if Bill Bradley started writing pieces for Sports Illustrated with his relationship to NFL.com undisclosed.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I'm not shocked that this site doesn't have a huge problem with Glazer or Verducci.

A few years ago, a majority of the site's power-brokers put up an impassioned defense for an MLB.com employee who was judging the APSE awards. Conflict of interest, they said, was irrelevant when the fox in the henhouse happened to be a "good guy."