Blog: News Wars, Episode 2: The Readers Strike Back

[rtandler]

In TV news, there's a saying that goes, "If it bleeds, it leads," meaning that reports on violence grab viewers. I can't come up with a similar, Jesse Jackon-esque catch phrase for it, but I've found out that nothing grabs the interest of the readers of this blog quite like a story about media coverage of the Redskins.

You can link to the reaction to the blog's reaction to the Skins' reaction to news coverage on the WarpathInsiders.com front page.

Your reaction to the reaction to. . .oh, well, you know what I mean, is welcome.

[Art]

Here's the rest and a direct link. Thanks Rich.

http://redskins.scout.com/2/378066.html

Gibbs: Newsmaker or maker of news? News Wars, Episode 2: The Readers Strike Back

By Rich Tandler Site Editor

Date: May 10, 2005

Tandler's Redskins Blog Ver. 5.10.05--Blogs about the media coverage of the Skins always draw interesting commentents from readers, and the last one about the Skins attempting to cover themselves was no exeption.

You can reach Rich Tandler by email at rtandler@comcast.net

In TV news, there's a saying that goes, "If it bleeds, it leads," meaning that reports on violence grab viewers. I can't come up with a similar, Jesse Jackon-esque catch phrase for it, but I've found out that nothing grabs the interest of the readers of this blog quite like a story about media coverage of the Redskins. I get more emails, see more message board responses, and generate more page hits on articles about the Redskins and the press or, more accurately these days, the Redskins vs. the press, than I do about any other subject. It's not even close.

And there's a clear pattern to the tone of the comments I receive. When I'm critical of the coverage of the team, the vast majority of the messages are of the "right on, you tell 'em" variety. If I am perceived as taking the side of Big Media, I suddenly become a moron. Even somebody as dense as I can be sometimes can see that there is a high level of discontent with the state of Redskins coverage by the media.

The comments about the most recent article about the media that appeared here on Sunday fall into a few main categories.

One is the use of anonymous sources. Some find it unsettling to hear negative reports about the team based on the words of people who won't identify themselves. There's a certain slimy quality to that, to be sure. If you've got something to say, stand up like a man and say it.

Still, anonymous sources are Journalism 101. In fact, they go back earlier than that. An anonymous source probably reported that it was the serpent that talked Eve into taking the bite out of the apple.

There are a lot of reasons why "sources" talk to reporters. They may have an ax to grind with a particular person, they may be trying to push an initiative that they favor along, they may do it as a personal favor to a reporter that they like. They may just want to get what they perceive to be The Truth out there. There is, however, only one reason why sources speak to reporters on the condition of anonymity--to keep their jobs. You can't go telling tales out of school and expect to remain employed.

So, regardless of motivation, the source tells the reporter something on the condition of anonymity and the paper or broadcaster has a choice--report it or not. This is where things get vague. We hear about double checking and trying to find a second source for some stories but the general public really doesn't know what the standard is for deciding whether or not the Post, for example, runs with a particular story based on anonymous sources.

If the Post--or any other reporting entity--wants to improve its credibility, it should put up a boilerplate page on its Website explaining the standard procedure it goes through before deciding to print a sports story that relies heavily on anonymous sources. Are multiple sources required or merely preferred? If the team denies the story, what is the standard for the decision to either print it and carry the team's denial or kill it? It would also be wise to give us a definition of the various levels of sources. Sometimes, for example, a source is characterized as a "team source" and at others it's a "team official. Exactly where is the line drawn?

If we had that information, we could better judge the credibility of a given story. To take it to an extreme, if a "source" could be a grounds keeper who overheard a conversation but an "official" can be only Gibbs, Snyder, or Cerrato, that would certainly help us figure out how much credence to put into a story.

The paper must have a policy, something in writing that defines the threshold for running a story and a standard way that anonymous sources are characterized in print. Giving full disclosure of that policy (a standard that the paper certainly would expect of another institution) would serve its readership well.

Another broad category of complaints have to do with reporters having an "agenda" to run the team down or to run some individuals down by focusing on the negative and by revealing secrets that damage the team.

Certainly, one can detect an arrogance of power on the part of the Post and the Times on occasion and it's likely that, in the short term, stories can take a slant that is intended as payback for personal slights, real or imagined. Still, I have a difficult time in swallowing the notion, as some have implied, that there is some sort of long-term agenda in place that has the purpose of making the Redskins less successful. There are too many compelling business reasons for a paper to see a team become successful. A winning team peaks interest and drives circulation and website hits. If the Redskins go to the Super Bowl, the newspaper's headline is emblazoned on t-shirts and coffee mugs, commemorative books and special editions get sold. Broadcast media’s numbers go through the roof and the announcers

And every reporter who I've heard offer an opinion has said that it's simply more enjoyable to cover a team that's winning. Who wouldn't rather spend all day talking with people who are happy and successful rather than ones who are losing? Why would any publication, in the long haul, have a vested interest in beating down the team it covers?

I'll concede that I'm perhaps being naive here and that there is some compelling reason for the Post or the Times or WTEM to see the Redskins be unsuccessful. If anyone out there could educate me on this, my email address is at the top of the page.

Other comments dealt with the Redskins.com "unfiltered" campaign. Some thought it was great and that it was all the Redskins news they needed. Others were more suspicious, wondering how any organization can be counted on to accurately and thoroughly report on itself.

Those who are willing to make Redskins.com their sole or primary Redskins news source need to realize that what their getting is far from unfiltered, with one exception. The audio broadcasts of news conferences are good, raw information, but content such as that constitutes only a small percentage of what goes up on Redskins.com. The canned interviews and stories written by staff members are not news, they are PR. Such material can be interesting and even informative, but it's not unfiltered, it's just a different filter, a different agenda, if you will.

Again, don't get me wrong here, the additional content and information that Redskins.com seemingly intends to provide are very welcome. And I certainly don't expect that the Redskins should release negative information about themselves. If they did, they would be among the first privately-owned company in history ever to do so. The materials should just be read, viewed, and listened to for what they are.

The future of Redskins.com was an interesting sidebar subject that other readers discussed. The speculation was that it would soon turn into a pay site, with subscribers getting access to the best clips, interviews, and "news" tidbits. My initial thought was that the Redskins couldn't do something on their own, that in the collective that is the NFL everyone would have to be on the same program.

Then I got some information that indicated that the rest of the NFL was headed in the same direction. From Doug Farrar, the editor-in-chief of Seahawks.net, the Seattle sister site of WarpathInsiders.com, on changes on that team's website:

In the last three months, they hired Mike Brown, the former sports director of KJR, our local sports-talk radio station, to do all the “official news”. They do breaking news via streaming video and also hired Mike Kahn, formerly an Executive Editor at CBS Sportsline, to run op-ed pieces three times a week that innocuously spin the team view of things.

So perhaps the league is pushing teams towards moving into the concept of being news sources on their websites.

As if the Redskins needed any pushing.

[Art]

Rich,

The Post does have rules regarding sources.

You can read it here:

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=61244&custom=

Karl Swanson pointed out these rules on today's chat. It seems the Post rarely abides by their own rules when it comes to sourcing out information on the Redskins. Do you find that strange?

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I like his insight into anonymous sources.

[Om]

I'll concede that I'm perhaps being naive here and that there is some compelling reason for the Post or the Times or WTEM to see the Redskins be unsuccessful. If anyone out there could educate me on this, my email address is at the top of the page.

I don't believe it's so much they want the team to be "unsuccessful" as it is they are simply catering to the crowd. They're looking to meet demand and generate traffic in the interest of ratings. The team has been down for a long time, and a great many fans are seriously unhappy about it. The easy---and savvy---thing for the media to do under those circumstances is fan those flames.

I don't think it's any more complicated than that. Right now, negativity simply sells better than the alternative.

The media and the general fan base are reactionary beasts, however, so when the team has strung together a winning season or two, that will no longer be the case. The majority of consumers won't be pissed any more, and won't want to hear about how poorly the organization is being run. Instead, they'll want to hear about what the organization is doing to stay on top, and read about how awful it must be for the OTHER teams to struggle for a change. And I'm willing to wager that's exactly what they'll get.

It's the circle of life.

[TK]

Originally posted by Art

Rich,

The Post does have rules regarding sources.

You can read it here:

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=61244&custom=

Karl Swanson pointed out these rules on today's chat. It seems the Post rarely abides by their own rules when it comes to sourcing out information on the Redskins. Do you find that strange?

Not to mention there's this thread on the subject as well.

[TerpSkin]

I, personally, have never thought any of the media has any kind of long term agenda against the Skins. My main problem has been just bad reporting. When a casual fan makes some ignorant comment about cap implications to me, I can handle that. But when someone whose job is to report on these matters reports deductions he/she has made based on the facts he/she has presented that prove he/she doesn't understand the topic... that is unacceptable.

Nunyo claiming that the Redskins only choices were to release or trade Coles prior to March 2nd were flat out wrong. He didn't portray those thoughts as opinion... the claims were not stylistic or editorializing... these were presented as fact. I don't think Nunyo was trying to make the organization look bad, but he clearly didn't fully understand the issue he was being paid to understand and write about.

As for media bias, you don't have to have an agenda against a team to have your own fan favoritism show in your writing. And I feel much of the national media tends to have a slight anti-skins bias merely because they grew up giants or cowboys fans. But I can deal with that... unfortunately, because Washington is such a transient city, many of our local reporters have similar biases. However, that is something I think we all have to simply learn to live with.

The factual errors and incorrect deductions and opinions reported as fact are unacceptable. I'm more concerned about that than anonymous sources and such.

[SkinsNatsFan]

Originally posted by Art

One is the use of anonymous sources. Some find it unsettling to hear negative reports about the team based on the words of people who won't identify themselves. There's a certain slimy quality to that, to be sure. If you've got something to say, stand up like a man and say it.

Still, anonymous sources are Journalism 101. In fact, they go back earlier than that. An anonymous source probably reported that it was the serpent that talked Eve into taking the bite out of the apple.

There are a lot of reasons why "sources" talk to reporters. They may have an ax to grind with a particular person, they may be trying to push an initiative that they favor along, they may do it as a personal favor to a reporter that they like. They may just want to get what they perceive to be The Truth out there. There is, however, only one reason why sources speak to reporters on the condition of anonymity--to keep their jobs. You can't go telling tales out of school and expect to remain employed.

So, regardless of motivation, the source tells the reporter something on the condition of anonymity and the paper or broadcaster has a choice--report it or not. This is where things get vague. We hear about double checking and trying to find a second source for some stories but the general public really doesn't know what the standard is for deciding whether or not the Post, for example, runs with a particular story based on anonymous sources.

I think the "sources" would be much much less of an issue, anonymous or not, if their information were accurate. Much of the information that has been printed and attributed to these "sources" has been ridiculously inaccurate, misleading, and downright false.

[Om]

And that's the bottom line: they've been wrong so often it's hard to take their "sources" very seriously any more, and by extention, their reporting.

So the question remains as to why they continue to let themselves look so bad? Why do they continue to snipe from afar, rather than making their presence felt at the Park again, try to re-establish a professional working relationship, and try to get back to being a major international newspaper striving to get the whole story, and get it right, rather than allow themselves to become more and more marginalized as a credible news source?

Swanson talked about the lack of Post bodies actually coming to the Park anymore. I keep trying to figure why.

[The Evil Genius]

I blame the Nationals...

and Peter Angelos too...

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Om

And that's the bottom line: they've been wrong so often it's hard to take their "sources" very seriously any more, and by extention, their reporting.

So the question remains as to why they continue to let themselves look so bad? Why do they continue to snipe from afar, rather than making their presence felt at the Park again, try to re-establish a professional working relationship, and try to get back to being a major international newspaper striving to get the whole story, and get it right, rather than allow themselves to become more and more marginalized as a credible news source?

Swanson talked about the lack of Post bodies actually coming to the Park anymore. I keep trying to figure why.

I don't understand either, Om. I also wonder why, after being maligned for getting the facts wrong, they continue to use these unnamed sources. It seems to me that selling papers is more important than getting it right.

[SoCalSkins]

My biggest problem with your original story was your complaining about not being able to get a media credential from the Redskins. In my opinion, it undermined the credibility of the entire article and seemed like sour grapes on your part.

[bird_1972]

Originally posted by Jimbo

I don't understand either, Om. I also wonder why, after being maligned for getting the facts wrong, they continue to use these unnamed sources. It seems to me that selling papers is more important than getting it right.

Is'nt this the kind of thing the ombudsman is there for? For readers as well as reporters to complain about the integrity of the news put out by the Washington Post?