TMZ breaks NCAA violation story

[Jake_Taylor]

http://www.tmz.com/2010/03/18/oklahoma-basketball-star-keith-gallon-ncaa-scandal/#ixzz0iXACdqVg

I have to say, I wasn't expecting them to break news like this.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

Can't believe Hausinger didn't want to talk to TMZ.

Good work by the site. This is going to lead to an interesting issue: Are we going to have to start paying sources? Especially in the seedy world of the NCAA, people won't think twice about giving TMZ the scoop instead of traditional media if it means some cash.

 

[Football_Bat]

I'm practically at ground zero and it's all anyone's talking about.

TMZ doesn't have to worry about ruffling the feathers of a local coach, double-checking sources, catching the wrath of fanbois, etc. That gives them an advantage over a reporter who's working the story on the local end.

Plus, it doesn't have to worry about being wrong. When it is wrong (and trust me, it will be), it can hide behind the fricking defense that it's a gossip site.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I'm wondering how TMZ got the document that detailed the wire transfer into the bank account. You'd think there would be privacy concerns if you're the kid and his mom.

 

[Football_Bat]

I'm wondering how TMZ got the document that detailed the wire transfer into the bank account. You'd think there would be privacy concerns if you're the kid and his mom.

I'm sure they paid somebody for the tip. Another edge they have, ethics be damned.

 

[jlee]

I'm personally fine with TMZ breaking stuff because readers have to come to us to see if it's true.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I'm wondering how TMZ got the document that detailed the wire transfer into the bank account. You'd think there would be privacy concerns if you're the kid and his mom.

I'm sure they paid somebody for the tip. Another edge they have, ethics be damned.

They don't get a pass in terms of breaking the law however (If, in fact, they have).

 

[Alma]

I'm practically at ground zero and it's all anyone's talking about.

TMZ doesn't have to worry about ruffling the feathers of a local coach, double-checking sources, catching the wrath of fanbois, etc. That gives them an advantage over a reporter who's working the story on the local end.

It doesn't have to give TMZ the advantage.

What - you don't think newspapers in Oklahoma couldn't write about NCAA violations? Maybe not this one, but others? They could. They choose not to pursue it. Not worth it. Not because it won't attract readers...it'll attract readers. Readers are suckers for the truth, especially when it's scandalous.

It comes down to, quite simply, will. Mettle. Intestinal fortitude. Work ethic. Drive. Newspapers will abdicate their responsibility for covering these issues to TMZ and the like because - and it pains me to say it - beat writers would rather eat their gameday buffets, bull**** with the coach in the offseason and appear on radio stations and TV shows.

I know that's harsh and hits below the belt. I hope it hurts a little. Beat writers - the people best equipped to write these stories, with the best training and ethic - need to wake the **** up.

 

[Ace]

I'm practically at ground zero and it's all anyone's talking about.

TMZ doesn't have to worry about ruffling the feathers of a local coach, double-checking sources, catching the wrath of fanbois, etc. That gives them an advantage over a reporter who's working the story on the local end.

Plus, it doesn't have to worry about being wrong. When it is wrong (and trust me, it will be), it can hide behind the fricking defense that it's a gossip site.

On the other hand, if you do have an agent wiring $3,000 to an NBA prospect's bank account and they player and his mom can't explain it, you shouldn't worry about making coaches, sources and fans mad.

One of the problems on chasing these NCAA violations stories is that many reporters don't want to stick their hand in the hornets' nest and also don't think it's all that big a deal of a kid gets some cash on the side, NCAA be damned.

Oh, yeah, and what Alma said.

 

[WaylonJennings]

I'm practically at ground zero and it's all anyone's talking about.

TMZ doesn't have to worry about ruffling the feathers of a local coach, double-checking sources, catching the wrath of fanbois, etc. That gives them an advantage over a reporter who's working the story on the local end.

It doesn't have to give TMZ the advantage.

What - you don't think newspapers in Oklahoma couldn't write about NCAA violations? Maybe not this one, but others? They could. They choose not to pursue it. Not worth it. Not because it won't attract readers...it'll attract readers. Readers are suckers for the truth, especially when it's scandalous.

It comes down to, quite simply, will. Mettle. Intestinal fortitude. Work ethic. Drive. Newspapers will abdicate their responsibility for covering these issues to TMZ and the like because - and it pains me to say it - beat writers would rather eat their gameday buffets, bull**** with the coach in the offseason and appear on radio stations and TV shows.

I know that's harsh and hits below the belt. I hope it hurts a little. Beat writers - the people best equipped to write these stories, with the best training and ethic - need to wake the **** up.

It's not a back-end problem, i.e. beat writers staying away from scandalous stories in order to take the path of least resistance.

It's a front-end problem, i.e. sports just not attracting the kind of reporters that will pursue these kinds of stories in the first place.

Let me make this very clear. I don't mean anything against the reporters on the Oklahoma beat. It is very likely that this story just got dropped into TMZ's lap, which is going to happen occasionally. Everybody gets beat. Part of the gig.

I also don't mean to say that there are not incredible reporters working beats in sports. There are. I've worked alongside them. I've worked with them. Just as there are community college students who could wax someone at Princeton (think "Good Will Hunting.")

But I think it is safe to say that the recruiting pool for dogged sports writers just isn't as big as it is on the hard news side. Part of the disparity is what you say - path of least resistance, compliance out of habit, etc. But I think the larger part is that very few ambitious writers and reporters end up pursuing sports beats to begin with, comparatively speaking. The beat just isn't important enough or meaty enough. It can be, of course, particularly when large public universities are involved. But very few potential Pulitzer winners are willing to endure 200 sports press conferences a year for the opportunity to work a beat where even the most important stories, like this Oklahoma one if it turns out to be true, don't really affect many people in the grand scheme of things anyway.

 

[slappy4428]

I'll be impressed when they finally dig up the goods on Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo and USC gets the death penalty

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

Dan Wetzel had an interesting tweet this morning. He feels the NCAA should be very nervous about a website willing to pay sources because he's lost stories by refusing to do so.

 

[Ralph Waldo Henderson]

I'm practically at ground zero and it's all anyone's talking about.

TMZ doesn't have to worry about ruffling the feathers of a local coach, double-checking sources, catching the wrath of fanbois, etc. That gives them an advantage over a reporter who's working the story on the local end.

It doesn't have to give TMZ the advantage.

What - you don't think newspapers in Oklahoma couldn't write about NCAA violations? Maybe not this one, but others? They could. They choose not to pursue it. Not worth it. Not because it won't attract readers...it'll attract readers. Readers are suckers for the truth, especially when it's scandalous.

It comes down to, quite simply, will. Mettle. Intestinal fortitude. Work ethic. Drive. Newspapers will abdicate their responsibility for covering these issues to TMZ and the like because - and it pains me to say it - beat writers would rather eat their gameday buffets, bull**** with the coach in the offseason and appear on radio stations and TV shows.

I know that's harsh and hits below the belt. I hope it hurts a little. Beat writers - the people best equipped to write these stories, with the best training and ethic - need to wake the **** up.

Um ... really? I ask this honestly, not in an asshoolish way: Are you a beat writer now? I am, and I know the stories are there. I chase them. But I don't break them (at least not yet) because of reasons other than wanting to be able to eat gameday buffets and pow-wow with the people I cover. I don't break them because I can't get enough proof, or sources don't cooperate, etc. You think I'd choose gameday buffets and being close to sources over breaking a major story and writing a ticket to a better job?

You should be better than that Alma.

 

[Ace]

I'm practically at ground zero and it's all anyone's talking about.

TMZ doesn't have to worry about ruffling the feathers of a local coach, double-checking sources, catching the wrath of fanbois, etc. That gives them an advantage over a reporter who's working the story on the local end.

It doesn't have to give TMZ the advantage.

What - you don't think newspapers in Oklahoma couldn't write about NCAA violations? Maybe not this one, but others? They could. They choose not to pursue it. Not worth it. Not because it won't attract readers...it'll attract readers. Readers are suckers for the truth, especially when it's scandalous.

It comes down to, quite simply, will. Mettle. Intestinal fortitude. Work ethic. Drive. Newspapers will abdicate their responsibility for covering these issues to TMZ and the like because - and it pains me to say it - beat writers would rather eat their gameday buffets, bull**** with the coach in the offseason and appear on radio stations and TV shows.

I know that's harsh and hits below the belt. I hope it hurts a little. Beat writers - the people best equipped to write these stories, with the best training and ethic - need to wake the **** up.

Um ... really? I ask this honestly, not in an asshoolish way: Are you a beat writer now? I am, and I know the stories are there. I chase them. But I don't break them (at least not yet) because of reasons other than wanting to be able to eat gameday buffets and pow-wow with the people I cover. I don't break them because I can't get enough proof, or sources don't cooperate, etc. You think I'd choose gameday buffets and being close to sources over breaking a major story and writing a ticket to a better job?

You should be better than that Alma.

I think a lot of beat writers are so busy with the daily grind that the prospect of delving into a story about NCAA violations is not something they relish.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

But I think it is safe to say that the recruiting pool for dogged sports writers just isn't as big as it is on the hard news side. Part of the disparity is what you say - path of least resistance, compliance out of habit, etc. But I think the larger part is that very few ambitious writers and reporters end up pursuing sports beats to begin with, comparatively speaking. The beat just isn't important enough or meaty enough. It can be, of course, particularly when large public universities are involved. But very few potential Pulitzer winners are willing to endure 200 sports press conferences a year for the opportunity to work a beat where even the most important stories, like this Oklahoma one if it turns out to be true, don't really affect many people in the grand scheme of things anyway.

So . . . sitting through 200 city council meetings while waiting for that police or mayoral scandal isn't a deterrent there?

I get your point, but for a different reason.

I do agree that there is a lack of sports journalists who want to do investigative work, but it's not because of ambitious people going elsewhere or the grind of the beat. It's because on all levels of sport coverage, from the smallest paper in Podunk to yes, The Worldwide Leader, sports - like, say, Arts and Entertainment - attracts an inordinate number of individuals who get into the journalism aspect because they're fans. They are not interested in anything that puts the people or events they cover in a negative light because, well, that's just not what they signed up for. And doggone it, that takes effort.

Go re-read the Tiger Woods scandal thread. Some people on there arguing about "why is this news?" and "this isn't what I got into journalism for!"

This isn't about how the ambitious supposedly don't want to be sports journalists. It's more a situation where they're ambitious, but not ambitious enough to make a hero look bad.

 

[goalmouth]

Can't believe Hausinger didn't want to talk to TMZ.

Good work by the site. This is going to lead to an interesting issue: Are we going to have to start paying sources? Especially in the seedy world of the NCAA, people won't think twice about giving TMZ the scoop instead of traditional media if it means some cash.

Bang-on. But, TMZ will also deal with over-the-transom crap that people routinely dangle as bait.

 

[apseloser]

AMEN, Alma.

And what a copout, the paying sources argument. How do you explain a few ESPN guys' domination of local stories then? They don't pay.

How do TWO big Dallas-area papers not have Ron Washington doing coke, many months after it happened? If I was a Rangers beat writer, I wouldn't want to leave my house today.

There are certainly some good beat guys left at newspapers, but they're getting scooped more and more — by the national guys, now TMZ, etc. It's pretty rare anymore to learn something new about any NFL team from the newspaper beat writer anymore. MLB is getting that way, too, and Schlabach and Katz sure have a lot first on colleges. (Newspapers' saving grace is Joe Schad, who got scooped by an NFL guy, Mort, on the Notre Dame stuff. If Schad's on the story, the local beat guy has a good chance).

I was in N.C. visiting family a couple times the past few weeks when big stories came down: Jake Delhomme gets cut by the Panthers (nothing in that day's Observer), the UN-CC coach, Lutz, gets canned (ditto).

It's not about time — the ol' "I'm blogging and writing and don't have a spare second to chase records" argument — but rather source development, relationships, the kinds of things beat guys and gals clearly aren't doing these days. Jay Glazer gets a scoop just by sending a text to a source who likes him. It's not like he's working his tail off, camping out at athletes' houses.

I covered an NFL team for four years. I broke stuff because I got to know the assistants, the secretaries, the equipment managers, everyone associated with the team.

 

[WaylonJennings]

But I think it is safe to say that the recruiting pool for dogged sports writers just isn't as big as it is on the hard news side. Part of the disparity is what you say - path of least resistance, compliance out of habit, etc. But I think the larger part is that very few ambitious writers and reporters end up pursuing sports beats to begin with, comparatively speaking. The beat just isn't important enough or meaty enough. It can be, of course, particularly when large public universities are involved. But very few potential Pulitzer winners are willing to endure 200 sports press conferences a year for the opportunity to work a beat where even the most important stories, like this Oklahoma one if it turns out to be true, don't really affect many people in the grand scheme of things anyway.

So . . . sitting through 200 city council meetings while waiting for that police or mayoral scandal isn't a deterrent there?

I get your point, but for a different reason.

I do agree that there is a lack of sports journalists who want to do investigative work, but it's not because of ambitious people going elsewhere or the grind of the beat. It's because on all levels of sport coverage, from the smallest paper in Podunk to yes, The Worldwide Leader, sports - like, say, Arts and Entertainment - attracts an inordinate number of individuals who get into the journalism aspect because they're fans. They are not interested in anything that puts the people or events they cover in a negative light because, well, that's just not what they signed up for. And doggone it, that takes effort.

Go re-read the Tiger Woods scandal thread. Some people on there arguing about "why is this news?" and "this isn't what I got into journalism for!"

This isn't about how the ambitious supposedly don't want to be sports journalists. It's more a situation where they're ambitious, but not ambitious enough to make a hero look bad.

Hmmmmmm .... Lots of thoughts there to think about.

I have been kind of one of the ones beating the Tiger drum a little bit. But it's not a fanboi thing. It's more like ... it just starts to feel like celebrity/entertainment journalism to me, not much different than what the National Enquirer or Perez Hilton does. You're covering people not because it is in the public interest in any real way, but because they are famous and the news is titillating.

I've had to do these stories. Drunken college kids most of the time. And I never flinched. I knew it had to be done. I understood that it was what the players - like Tiger - signed up for. But there was always a part of me thinking, "I'm a smart person. Why am I spending my time chasing around Starting QB's campus incident report?"

Your city council meeting point is well-taken, especially at college town newspapers where you can cover national in sports.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a reason that guys like Mark Bowden and Jones gravitate from sports to news. There's a reason that there's no sports Pulitzer. There's also a reason guys like Halberstam and Maraniss like to dabble in sports - because the dramatic tension, from a writer's standpoint, is built-in.

And news does draw its own fanbois - called pundits. But what you say is certainly the case, that sports are likely to draw fans instead of journalists, and that might assist in watering down the talent pool, as well.

 

[Small Town Guy]

I'm practically at ground zero and it's all anyone's talking about.

TMZ doesn't have to worry about ruffling the feathers of a local coach, double-checking sources, catching the wrath of fanbois, etc. That gives them an advantage over a reporter who's working the story on the local end.

It doesn't have to give TMZ the advantage.

What - you don't think newspapers in Oklahoma couldn't write about NCAA violations? Maybe not this one, but others? They could. They choose not to pursue it. Not worth it. Not because it won't attract readers...it'll attract readers. Readers are suckers for the truth, especially when it's scandalous.

It comes down to, quite simply, will. Mettle. Intestinal fortitude. Work ethic. Drive. Newspapers will abdicate their responsibility for covering these issues to TMZ and the like because - and it pains me to say it - beat writers would rather eat their gameday buffets, bull**** with the coach in the offseason and appear on radio stations and TV shows.

I know that's harsh and hits below the belt. I hope it hurts a little. Beat writers - the people best equipped to write these stories, with the best training and ethic - need to wake the **** up.

So let's compare how many substantial stories, in the last six months, year, whatever, have been broken by TMZ compared to newspaper beat writers. I don't know, I'm guessing the beat writers are going to have dozens, hundreds, compared to...one. And maybe TMZ's only started concentrating on sports recently, so let's start keeping track from now until the end of the year and keep a scoreboard. Again, it will be a rout.

 

[Shaggy]

College coaches are sweating bullets today. TMZ, with money to pay sources, will have no shortage of dirt on college athletics. It's a filthy place.