Tressel-gate and the Decline of Journalism
by Maize n Brew Dave on Mar 8, 2011 2:13 PM CST
in Michigan Football
Email
Print
(Beware, cursing contained herein. If you've got delicate sensibilities, go elsewhere.)
There is an old Arabic and Chinese proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." If you are a sports fan it's hard to think of a saying that rings truer or, in practice, is more correct. We hate the same team? We must be friends. Think about the outpouring of support for Texas fans after their trip to Columbus from Michigan and other Big Ten fans. For one glorious week all of college football was joined in detest of Ohio State and their cooler filling fans. So, when the news broke that Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel was allegedto have know about Terrell Pryor and four other members of the Buckeyes' football team selling their merchandise, you'd probably think I'd be dancing a jig, helping to dig their grave, and drinking as much booze as possible with which to micturcate on their coffin before the dirt was refilled.
You'd be wrong.
The recent Yahoo! Sports "exclusive"is appalling and a shameless attempt by their writers try Tressel and Ohio State in the court of public opinion with the decency of allowing them to respond to the allegations contained within the story. How do I know this? Two things. The first is the text of article itself, wherein Charles Robinson and Dan Wetzel state:
Tressel and athletic director Gene Smith were unavailable for comment.
The second is a twitter post by Charles Robinson stating:
Three hours? Oh. Well then. Everything is okay. Wait. What!? Three hours? You're accusing a respected head coach of a top five program of NCAA rule violations serious that (if proven true) could not only vacate the 2010 season but get him fired, and you ONLY GAVE HIM 3 FUCKING HOURS TO RESPOND!? You couldn't wait a day, maybe (God forbid) two days to allow the Coach to respond in writing. You couldn't wait a day to ensure that your article was complete and had allowed both sides to comment on the allegations contained therein?
This is chickenshit journalism at it's worst. You'll excuse my profanity on this one, but Yahoo has a history of pulling this kind of crap and it's just as inexcusable now as it was when they ran the USC Basketball story. I'll say it now so that I'm not painted as some kind of Tressel apologist or weirdo defender of the College Football status quo: If the allegations that Tressel knew about this and hid it are true, yes, he should be punished and probably fired.
But let's be equally clear, that's a big "if".
The Yahoo! story is based on a single, anonymous source. The premise of this story is even weaker than the USC story I eviscerated back in '09, where Yahoo! relied on the constantly changing story of a convicted felon. At least they named their source. Here, we've got nothing. Nada. Zip. There is nothing else with which to base their allegations. There's no paper trail. There are no recordings. This is all they've got:
According to a source, a concerned party reached out to Tressel last April, alerting the coach that memorabilia transactions had taken place between Rife and a handful of Buckeyes players, including Pryor. The selling of items violates NCAA eligibility rules. The source said Tressel was troubled by the information, and the coach indicated that he would investigate the matter and take appropriate action.
There is no truth to the rumor that Brian Cook was the concerned source (I'm kidding. It could totally be him.).
But that's it. That's the sum total of their evidence. The rest of this hack job is a rehashing of the original story that the United States Attorney’s office notified Ohio State of the sale of goods by the players had come up in their investigation of Edward Rife. The surprising call for temperance when reviewing these allegations comes from our friends at Eleven Warriors:
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that either Charles Robinson or Dan Wetzel would risk their reputations on a piece of investigative journalism that they didn't believe was accurate and authentic. Yahoo! Sports is a legitimate reporting organization, and whatever you think about either Wetzel or Robinson, no editor with a shred of sanity or professionalism would allow such a damning story to go live without at least something behind it. Some OSU fans have pointed out that the story cites only one anonymous source, which is fair criticism, and if that source continues to be unnamed and the only supplier of information to this story, then its credibility should be put in doubt. But keep in mind that Yahoo's track record with regard to investigative sports journalism is anything but shaky, and that it is probable that Wetzel and Robinson have not played every card in their hand. - (emphasis mine)
I appreciate that our friends are in a no win scenario here. They can't say what I'm saying here without being accused of being homers or something worse. But come on guys. There are no consequences for Wetzel or Robinson. There is no loss of license. There is no loss of a job. There is nothing. This loss of reputation stuff is nonsense. Exhibit One: Michael Rosenberg, Detroit Free Press. Second, Yahoo's reputation (in my eyes at least) is crap. They have no trouble publishing half stories and half truths in an effort to garner hits. Their editors are no better than the Free Press's and will okay whatever they think can be marginally supported in order to get people to read their page.
Over the past few hours I've seen all kinds of people and writers reading anything and everything into the few quotes or tweets that are out there. There's a constant refrain "Why haven't they just denied it?" You know as well as I do that Ohio State will announce they're investigating tonight and report anything to the NCAA and that the public will be informed as events warrant. An institution like Ohio State can't just respond from the hip when someone writes something stupid. They must take time to deliver a measured response. Otherwise they simply provide more fuel for the speculation fire.
I am not blind to the possibility that Wetzel and Robinson could be right. They very well may be correct that Tressel knew about this months in advance. If that is the case, then I owe them an apology. One that I will graciously make provided their story is confirmed. However, what will happen if and when their piece is confirmed as nonsense? Will we get a long apology to Coach Tressel? Somehow I doubt it.
My problem is this: If you are going to make these kinds of accusations you need more than a single, anonymous source. I'm sure you believe him or her, but to make accusations of this magnitude in court without proper evidence will get your case dismissed and in some jurisdictions get you censured or worse. "But we're not in court." So what? It's not okay for people to throw mud or make accusations about people without proper support simply because they're not under oath. If you're a "legitimate reporting organization" then you should be held to a higher standard than a 12-year-old kid.
If Tressel was that stupid (something I seriously doubt), he should be fired. But I'm not grabbing the firing gun until I see more evidence that something happened. Maybe they've got it. But until I see it in print, I'm going to assume it doesn't exist. For Yahoo! to make allegations like this without anything more than a single sentence and a single anonymous source is absolutely reprehensible.
Maybe next time they'll give their target more than three hours to respond to something. But you know what? I doubt it.
[Update: I'm aware of this:
While this does mean, if true, that I owe Wetzel and Robinson apology for saying they're full of shit, it doesn't change my overall outrage at their conduct in breaking this story. If they've got more in their quiver than what they indicated, fine. But I think it's incumbent upon the accuser to put forth more than the cursory allegation they included in their piece, and it remains ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE that they only gave Tressel three hours to respond.]
Our buddies at Along the Olentangy have more on this story.
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Complete Agreement
There are way too many news stories these days based on a single undisclosed source. The livelihoods and reputations are in the hands of these “journalists” and they treat a single source as enough evidence to destroy someone’s career. I’m glad someone else is speaking up about this.
Is the USC article you’re referring to the one that sparked the investigation that got them heavy NCAA sanctions?
This is the article you “eviscerated”? Good…….job?
As far as your complain about them “only” getting a few hours: why put the timetable in the hands of the subject of your story when getting scooped is a tremendous concern? Why allow them to delay and drag on?
http://www.wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
My point is this
The Wetzel piece is prefacing itself on the premise that it gave the people accused of doing something outside the rules a fair chance to respond. They took “Two Months” to come up with this story and they only allowed the coach they’re accusing 3 hours to respond?
That story was written and going live regardless of what Tressel said or how he responded. The decision to publish the story in its present form was already made before they even contacted him. That’s why the three hour issue is such a large one. They’re implying that their story may have been different had Tressel responded. But it’s clear whatever time for comment they gave was set AFTER the story was finalized and ready to go live. It is completely and totally disenginous of Yahoo to claim that they gave the people they’re accusing time to respond. Two months compared to three hours. It’s obvious the three hours given were the ones after the story was done and ready to fire.
They left the line “Tressel and athletic director Gene Smith were unavailable for comment” in there to infer guilty by silence, but they never gave Tressel or Smith enough time to respond to their allegations. And to answer your question, I think 24 hours is appropriate. Three hours to respond when you’ve already made the desicision to publish the finish process is complete are utter crap and disengenuous.
And I’m sorry, the ticking clock argument holds no water. It’s better to get it wrong and be first than to get it right or to actually support your article with facts? The only clock that was ticking was the countdown until they published it, not until they finished it.
That’s part of my problem with Yahoo’s “work” on this one.
As for the responses from Mac B and Musket, if you think the 3 hour aspect is the only part of my argument then you obviously didn’t read the piece. I’m pissed that the only thing supporting their allegation is a two sentence paragraph citing an anonymous source. That’s it. There’s no allegation of a paper trail. There are no allegations of tapes or corroborating witnesses. Nothing.
If they’ve got information, why are they holding it back? If you’re going to write this piece and you’ve done a “two month” investigation, why is it that you’ve got TWO SENTENCES backing up your “investigation”? That’s garbage. Support your piece like the professional you claim to be.
You guys are welcome to your opinion on this one, but I think pieces Wetzel’s are complete garbage because they make serious accusations without supporting them with hard facts. You can say that journalists don’t have to do these sorts of things, but my counter argument is that makes no sense whatsoever. If a kid told you that someone smashed your car window, but they wouldn’t tell you how they knew, wouldn’t you be suspicious of the kid?
And Musket, the Yahoo piece on USC had to do with Yahoo’s reliance on a witness who regularly changed his story regarding the basketball program. It had nothing to do with the football team.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Mar 8, 2011 3:57 PM CST up reply actions
What are you talking about?
Decline of journalism. Point me to a Wetzel story that was EVER wrong. If the man uses anonymous sources you can probably take it to the bank. And let’s not act all appalled about a three hour window for comment. You don’t get forever, once a reporter informs their subject on what they have the clock starts ticking till someone else gets it. Yahoo is a business too and they aren’t going to wait around and get scooped. If OSU wants to comment to them they could have easily asked for some time. The fact that they had nothing and continue to have nothing to say about this means they are completely unprepared to respond and the compliance folks are working to uncover the truth.
Why don’t you blast them with your second rate understanding of journalism?
by mac b from tennessee on Mar 8, 2011 3:14 PM CST reply actions
Being unprepared to respond is the point here
If it took them 2 months to get this story, 24 hours isn’t going to get their story taken. It’s an unnamed source, their source, so how would someone take it?
The last part…I don’t know if you are delusional from butt hurt of what…Why would he blast a university for with a second rate understanding of journalism? Are you having a stroke right now and just stringing together sentences? Does it currently smell like a color in your room?
What does OSU need to be blasted for in their response? They didn’t have one prepared? Uhh that probably means their didn’t see this coming which in the scheme of things, is probably better than the alternative.
I was criticizing his second rate understanding of journalism and now I’m criticizing your second rate reading comprehension.
by mac b from tennessee on Mar 8, 2011 6:08 PM CST up reply actions
Complete Disagreement
So, lemme get this straight. You “eviscerated” a completely legitimate piece of journalism that was proven to be factually correct and resulted in major sanctions for a football and basketball program for doing what the NCAA deemed to be “cheating” and because of this you disagree with this piece and are ardent in your defense of the subject of a new cheating scandal not being given “enough time” to build a rebuttal? Nice soapbox, brah.
by Musket Rebellion on Mar 8, 2011 3:14 PM CST reply actions
No where in the Yahoo article
do they state it was an anonymous source. It’s actually an unnamed source and that’s a huge difference.
fair enough
I’m equating anonymous with unnamed. Either way, the source they are using remains unknown and unnamed. No one reading the article has a clue how trustworthy this person is or what kind of information they actually have.
I’m sure there’s a “journalistic” differentiation, but as a reader of the piece there is none. We don’t know who he/she is and have no means with which to weigh the allegations being made.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Mar 8, 2011 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
You have to realize...
An anonymous source would be someone where the journalist doesn’t even know who it is, making it impossible even for the author of a news story to assess their credibility impossible.
An unnamed source, however, is just one that WE don’t have the name of after reading the article. The journalist knows who it is. Journalists are not welcomed everywhere (“Hey! Hey! I’ve got stuff to tell you!”), so Wetzel probably had to promise confidentiality to his source until a later date in order to be able to even talk to him or her. Ethically he’s REQUIRED to keep the source confidential and entitled to do so.
Suppose Wetzel’s unnamed source is correct. In that instance, why would they not publish the article? For fear of “some people will question the credibility of our source, I guess we shouldn’t publish”? I want to know this information when it’s available, not when the journalist feels like he won’t be criticized about his sources.
Finally, Tressel or osu could easily have responded within a three hour window. Imagine this, you’re Gene Smith. You get an email/voicemail from wetzel with the allegations. Your response: “holy SH – I need to react to this.” Call Wetzel: “we can’t comment right now, give us 24 hours and we’ll formally respond.” He’ll probably give you that much time.
But it should be understandable when you’re livelihood hinges on bringing out news first, you can’t wait around and give the subjects of your investigation much time. Yahoo loses the thunder of their 2 month investigation if they wait for a response, and osu responds with a press release of their own. Until no one makes money when news stories break (read: never), there will be pressure to release a story when it achieves the minimum amount of corroboration required as an evidentiary matter to justify breaking the story.
I think some of you who are accusing Dave of missing the point are missing his. He’s not saying that the story is wrong, he more than once has stated that it may be true that Tressel is at fault. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but the thesis to me seemed to be that with one source (just one they’ve let us know of, so maybe there will be more and maybe it is a very reliable source) they’re have just, at the least, damaged a man’s reputation and credibility.
If nothing comes of this, if Tressel is found to have had no prior knowledge to what we learned in December, there will always be a cloud of this event hanging over him all so that Yahoo and some reporters don’t get scooped.
It’s not about business.. sometimes its about integrity, and maybe if you have none its just easier to piss on someone else’s.
well said
You summed it up quite well.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Mar 8, 2011 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
"court"
People do not get censured or kicked out of court for relying on one person’s testimony. There is no rule that “you must have more than one person corroborate something” (except for federal treason, which does require two witnesses, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States).
That said, if courts don’t require more than one witness’s testimony, neither does reporting.
Also: there is no law against factually incorrect statements. If Tressel truly is damaged by the story, he can see redress in the court system (libel/slander/etc.).
Just so we're clear.
An anonymous witness to an occurrence who will not testify is not grounds for a suit. Unless you can provide competent testimony supporting your allegations, you have no suit. Treason has nothing to do with it. My point was that we hold journalists to too low a standard, no whether Tressel can seek redress in the courts.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Mar 8, 2011 7:48 PM CST up reply actions
Give OSU a chance........
to respond. My betting money says there is, indeed, trouble in paradise.
My sources indicate there is indeed trouble
I think what’s lost here is that if OSU is guilty, I want them to pay the price. But I don’t want people blindly accusing anyone of wrong doing without proper support. I just have no tolerance for that.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Mar 8, 2011 4:23 PM CST up reply actions
The internet
http://twitter.com/#!/elevenwarriors
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on Mar 8, 2011 4:54 PM CST up reply actions
Lol at Chitown
It’s not bad journalism to rely on an anonymous source if you have absolute faith in that source after a lengthy investigation. That Yahoo was (apparently) absolutely right suggests their faith was well-placed. Their “blind accusation” did have proper support, and it’s irrelevant what OSU did, did not, could, or could not say about it. Further, the reader had full knowledge of the source – it was called “unnamed,” and a reader can and will draw his own conclusions about how valid such a source is.
What Yahoo didn’t want was to get scooped (easy in 2011, even just by Twitter), or to lose news value if OSU released a general statement instead of talking to them before the story went live (a real possibility). They gave them a meaningful amount of time to respond – if something happened, the response means little, if it didn’t, a blanket denial is easy, and either way, a “we’re looking into it” takes seconds. OSU’s response has nothing to do with the credibility of the story or source. Your complaints make very little sense. Sorry.
That was aimed at Dave, of course
Unclear from the subject and replying to Chitown – my fault.
Ok.
Dude, it’s Yahoo. You expect award winning journalism? Please. The Michigan Daily is Pulitzer next to these idiots…
Lee Corso is the village idiot... rarely right, but always funny.
Regardless of the veracity of this report...
If you feel that Yahoo! is a reputable journalistic source, you’re smoking weed. Sorry. It just simply isn’t true.
When you look up sensationalist in the dictionary, a picture of Dan Wetzel’s face appears nearby. The chumps at Y! will do anything for a story.
The way you word your comments...
I can’t help but wonder if you are somehow related to Yahoo! as an employee, etc.
What’s this based on? They’ve nailed several instances of NCAA violations. Correctly.
http://www.wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
The problem is....
If you throw enough nets out there, you’ll catch some fish. People don’t remember how many nets you cast, just which fish you caught. That’s not journalism, that’s publishing every rumor you hear. Some rumors are true, hence the OSU story. But to call that journalism? I’m sorry…
Lee Corso is the village idiot... rarely right, but always funny.
While that may be true, I do not think that charge can be applied to this particular journalist.
by blue-imafreak on Mar 9, 2011 8:29 AM CST up reply actions
Well...
I think I understand where you’re coming from Dave, but I think you’re missing the forest for a rather small and insignificant tree…
Compared to what Michigan had to endure from the Free Press from a journalistic-integrity standpoint, I have a REAL hard time finding any sympathy for Tressel or OSU. That program has walked a fine line with this sort of stuff ever since he showed up there and made his famous “You’ll be proud of our young men…” declaration. I don’t have any problem with how Yahoo! is reporting this, nor do I think they “owe” Ohio State or Tressel in particular any sort of prolonged waiting period for them to craft a response to a story of this nature.
Again, I get the idea, but in this instance…. ESPECIALLY in this instance, I don’t think it’s relevant.
We stated again and again and again during the Freep WITCH HUNT that we’d love to see another program have that fine a comb run through their records/practices… This Yahoo article doesn’t remotely approach that affront of journalism integrity that Michigan endured, but that’s just my 0.02.
GO BLUE! http://www.maizenbrew.com/
From 11 Warriors site
Direct quote:
“It is highly unlikely that either Charles Robinson or Dan Wetzel would risk their reputations on a piece of investigative journalism that they didn’t believe was accurate and authentic. Yahoo! Sports is a legitimate reporting organization, and whatever you think about either Wetzel or Robinson, no editor with a shred of sanity or professionalism would allow such a damning story to go live without at least something behind it. Some OSU fans have pointed out that the story cites only one anonymous source, which is fair criticism, and if that source continues to be unnamed and the only supplier of information to this story, then its credibility should be put in doubt. But keep in mind that Yahoo’s track record with regard to investigative sports journalism is anything but shaky, and that it is probable that Wetzel and Robinson have not played every card in their hand.”
The Scarlet & Gray are Singing the Buckeye Blues
Seeing the Buckeyes squirm is a little flare of warmth on a cold winter night. Really, though, I’ve always had a lot of respect for Jim Tressel, ever since he was at Youngstown St. I don’t want to speak for anyone on this issue. I think basing a damning accusation on one unnamed source is dangerous. But I don’t think “journalists” are required to give a their target—er, the subject—of the article a chance to respond before it’s published. The three hours is a courtesy Yahoo didn’t have to give.
It seems like a whole lot of hullabaloo about nothing. Or at least about little. But I think if the NCAA wants to come down on him, they’d have a case. I think the NCAA’s propensity to have their nose in everything makes it likely they will not buy Tressel’s reasoning. And he didn’t explain it very well in the press conference.
by PreachinTotheChoir on Mar 8, 2011 7:11 PM CST reply actions
I think now we know why Yahoo! published the article three hours after OSU declined to respond. After the press conference last night, it does not appear to be the case that OSU couldn’t get a response together in time. Since, they’ve released documents and self sanctioned already, it appears they would have held that same press conference even if this article had not been published.
OSU’s response WAS the press conference. If Yahoo! hadn’t published, OSU would have scooped them.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
