Topic: When you're right -- and then you're wrong

[SF_Express]

I started to post this on the Richie Rodriguez thread, but I figured it might make a pretty good sustained discussion here and wouldn't get so lost. So I'm starting something here.

Columbo got it going in my mind when he said something to the effect: "Whether it was right in the first place, if it's wrong at the end, then it's wrong."

And in terms of the readers view things, he's 100 percent right. In fact, although we were on the edges of the Rodriguez story, we did have one piece written based on the fact it was a done deal -- and then, it course, it wasn't and we're now hearing it in feedback.

But this is going to be a problem we wrestle with all the time in this environment. And we're going to have some hard choices, to either hold stories until the official announcement, or report things we've got cold and then live with the circumstances if things change, or both -- depending on the importance of the story, the source, etc.

We had a very similar case at our place two or three years ago. One of our main beat guys was told by a source that a big-name coach was leaving one place, and going someplace else, and that it would be announced the next day. The source: the coach.

We reported the story, and overnight, he changed his mind. And we got roasted for it.

So here's one thing: Somebody said on the Rodriguez thread that if that happens, then you out the guy -- he lied, and he deserves it.

But a couple of things: 1) In our case, he DIDN'T lie. When he said it, it was true. He had a change of heart. 2) If we start outing sources when the circumstances turn on us, we're going to stop having sources. Some might think that's a good thing. But media outlets that don't trust sources in this sports environment are going to get their asses beat regularly. Maybe we shouldn't mind that, either.

Bottom line: In this 24/7 digital and broadcast environment, we're going to be doing this high wire act all the time, and if you want to play with the big boys, you're going to get burned from time to time.

I certainly think we're going to have to start being a lot more circumspect about using "a friend close to a source close to the program" crap. But when you've got one of the two principals in a deal saying it's done, it's very had to say, "Gee, we need more." WHAT more? The new employer or the new employee says it's done. You're going to sit on that every time just in case they change their minds?

Sorry, that's the nature of our business now. We don't have the built-in lag that we used to have when it was strictly print, time for things to cool off and shake out, and minds to change. And that's just the way it is.

Unless you want to sit out altogether. And then, believe me, if everybody's got a story but you, readers are going to notice -- then might not compare the times things are posted. But if every site but yours -- or every local paper site but yours -- has a story and you don't, that'll register.

Discuss.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

One lesson worth relearning is be careful exactly what you report. There is a difference between "Rodriguez will be Alabama's next coach" and "Rodriguez appeared to have a deal in principle late Thursday night" or "a source said Alabama officials think Rodriguez will accept" or whatever. I think too many reporters don't hear what their sources are telling them, and they try to make the info fit into the preconceived notion of that big headline that should go with the story they want to write.

A TV station here reported nine days ago that LSU would play in the Rose Bowl (no conditions, no "if USC wins," etc.). Stupid.

 

[SF_Express]

One lesson worth relearning is be careful exactly what you report. There is a difference between "Rodriguez will be Alabama's next coach" and "Rodriguez appeared to have a deal in principle late Thursday night" or "a source said Alabama officials think Rodriguez will accept" or whatever. I think too many reporters don't hear what their sources are telling them, and they try to make the info fit into the preconceived notion of that big headline that should go with the story they want to write.

A TV station here reported nine days ago that LSU would play in the Rose Bowl (no conditions, no "if USC wins," etc.). Stupid.

All good points. Maybe it's simply a matter of more restrained language. "Unless circumstances change drastically, it appears Rich Rodriguez will be the next football coach at Alabama." And report it that way until the welcoming press conference.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

It happens. It's minor compared with the people who write anything all the time and don't care that they're wrong 80 percent of the time.


BRADLEE
Once when I was reporting, Lyndon
Johnson's top guy gave me the word
they were looking for a successor to
J. Edgar Hoover. I wrote it and the
day it appeared Johnson called a
press conference and appointed Hoover
head of the FBI for life... And when
he was done, he turned to his top
guy and the President said, "Call
Ben Bradlee and tell him **** you."
(shakes his head)
I took a lot of static for that--
everyone said, "You did it, Bradlee,
you screwed up--you stuck us with
Hoover forever--"
(looks at WOODWARD
and BERNSTEIN)
--I screwed up but I wasn't wrong.

 

[SF_Express]

It happens. It's minor compared with the people who write anything all the time and don't care that they're wrong 80 percent of the time.

Always loved that part of the movie.

And we KNOW people in the business who throw everything and anything out there an hope it sticks. But I'll bet you a lot of people reporting this Alabama people were "right" ... and then, of course, they weren't.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

I still maintain some of these guys need to be named. Heck give them a chance to explain why they were wrong and such, but you make me look like an ass and I'm not protecting you. Otherwise I look like the uncredible one, instead of the guy just reporting what someone supposedly credible has to say.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Well if they're just wrong, give them a chance to explain, but put it on the record. I've never covered a college beat before, but if it's just boosters and donors and stuff who like to feel like they're in the know, you can't let them have it both ways. I just can't help but feel that there is a lot of transparency needed, and too much willingess to ignore that need.

 

[shockey]

isn't this similat to the ny daily news-torre to be fired by steinbrenner story? the old "he changed his mind" routine.

all you can do is report it with the proviso, "barring a last-minute change of heart...."

 

[SF_Express]

isn't this similat to the ny daily news-torre to be fired by steinbrenner story? the old "he changed his mind" routine.

all you can do is report it with the proviso, "barring a last-minute change of heart...."

Yes, I agree...until the paper is signed, there has to be some mitigating language in there....I think...but...no, that's right...I guess we should all learn.

 

[awriter]

I still maintain some of these guys need to be named. Heck give them a chance to explain why they were wrong and such, but you make me look like an ass and I'm not protecting you. Otherwise I look like the uncredible one, instead of the guy just reporting what someone supposedly credible has to say.

Do that and no one will talk to you again. You agreed to give that person anonymity, and that's the risk. Sometimes, you get burned. But we also need people who are willing to talk off the record.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

No, you give them anonymity under the assumption that what they're telling you is right and truthful. If they simply thought it was, well, give them a chance to explain. If they were bull****ting you from the get go, well why would you protect and want to talk to a guy that does that to you? If you're using unnamed sources, at least use reliable ones. Why would you want to talk to unreliable ones?

 

[Columbo]

Great points and I'm glad there is a separate thread for this... When I was covering colleges, I reported once that a kid had committed. I had quotes from the kid's dad and his coach... Two days later, he committed somewhere else...

Was I wrong, or did an 18-year-old just change his mind?

If you have those sort of people quoted, then it isn't the same issue as the Rodriguez coverage.

And... you can say he lied till you're blue in the face.

Readers don't believe you.

They think all the writers were wrong... never had it.

 

[leo1]

recruiting is a whole different animal. you're dealing with 17- and 18-year-old kids. even giving a hard and fast commitment means nothing now that he can "decommit" which is a word i never heard until i had to start covering recruiting. i'm not even sure if it's in the dictionary. god how i hated covering recruiting.

 

[awriter]

No, you give them anonymity under the assumption that what they're telling you is right and truthful. If they simply thought it was, well, give them a chance to explain. If they were bull****ting you from the get go, well why would you protect and want to talk to a guy that does that to you? If you're using unnamed sources, at least use reliable ones. Why would you want to talk to unreliable ones?

If the source was bull****ting you, of course, you don't use him or her again. While it's tempting to out that person the next day, there's a good chance trustworthy people will be reluctant to talk to you if you do that. In which case, you lose.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

isn't this similat to the ny daily news-torre to be fired by steinbrenner story? the old "he changed his mind" routine.

all you can do is report it with the proviso, "barring a last-minute change of heart...."

Well, that's a tack that has its own challenge, and I think it helps define the difference between "reporter" and "writer." Your example is a reporter's way of handling it, but writers are taught to use decisive, declarative sentences, and they get criticized when they don't. Worse, the equivocations are edited out so the story reads more decisively. When you start throwing equivocations in there, whether you're right for doing it or not, someone is going to step up and say, "hey, grow a pair. Write what you mean and dispense with the provisos." Clearly, as this situation points out, we write decisively at our own peril, but we do the opposite at our own peril, too.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

There's more peril in turning a story into something it's not than in letting it be what it is. Just as you have to resist some of the pressure to be "first," you have to resist the urge to sexy it up.

I could post on here in about 12 hours and say, "The sunrise here is beautiful." Of course, it would still be dark, but in a few hours I could say I was right. My post would have sounded a lot better than "I expect the sunrise here today to be beautiful," but it would have been premature. So would "The sunrise here this morning will be beautiful."

Oh, and ...

Source: "Coach Smith is all but signed, sealed and delivered. We expect to name him tomorrow. We agreed in principle. Expect a press conference at about 1 o'clock."

Writer's first lede: "State U sources said late Thursday coach Bill Smith agreed in principle to a contract and is expected to sign it today. School officials plan a news conference."

Editor: "Can't we say Smith is taking the job?"

Writer: "Well ..."

Editor: "Isn't that what we're really saying here?"

Writer: "Well, no it's not ..."

Editor: "Let me see your notes."

(later)

New lede: "State U officials expect to hold a news conference today to announce Bill Smith agreed to a contract to coach the Tigers and will sign it today."

Headline: Smith taking State job

Online bulletin headline: State hires Smith!

 

[novelist_wannabe]

You're right JD. I wasn't suggesting that we take the "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" approach. I was pointing out that in addition to the pressure of getting it first, we often have to fight a battle over how it's worded, as well.

Here's an example: I've done a number of high school coach hiring stories in which I got the information from both the coach and the school, but it won't become official until the next school board meeting when personnel decisions are approved. That might be three weeks away, and none of us is going to sit on that story that long. I always throw a pending board approval in there, and about half the time it has been cut out. That's a scary place to be if your name is on the story. Not exactly the same thing as the Bama/Rodriguez situation, but the bottom line is you better be right, and if you're not, the way your copy is written better give you an out.

 

[SF_Express]

I guess the consensus that we take from all this is that until the contract is signed, we need to be a little more careful about using mitigating language to give ourselves an out for either outright lying or "changes of heart."

 

[Rockbottom]

This thread is educational to me on a couple different levels ...

As for moi, and my mindset during coaching searches (you mean, there is one going on right now in Alabama? Really?), I approach it thusly: I trust about three people -- my two writers who are/would be assigned to tracking it, and the one person they are/would be relying on for "unidentified source" information. You just have to do it that way. Here in the home of Podunk U., there are so many unqualified "sources" leaking misinformation out of Podunk U.'s sparkly new football building, it would make me uncomfortable if some of those doofuses (doofi?) would want to tell me the sun was rising in the East tomorrow.

I am also blessed, frankly, that the two reporters I have who are/would be chasing this are armed with enough common sense not to go listening to every cockamamie "source" out there. Also, that my bosses share this overriding philosophy: Be accurate first, and first if you can, but don't sacrifice the accuracy for the "*BREAKING NEWZ*". I'll let the folks down the road feel like they got lied to all day long, and let readers decide whether they can get trusted information from said outlet or my outlet.

rb