I had a fleshed out thought about the want from many Brewers fans, myself included, to lock up the young "star" Brewers to long term deals, but the stupidity of Tom Haudricourt yesterday threw me off track. So 2-for-1, a little less flesh on both items.
As a former wannabe sports journalist with an actual journalism degree (which is why I'm in graduate school for accounting), I found it absurdly irresponsible of Tom Haudricourt yesterday to post an unfounded rumor by an unknown "blogger." Really, all the ethics of responsible journalism were discarded just so Haudricourt could avert being "scooped" by a combination of the words "Yost," "fired," "reliable source." Haudricourt is the guy actually paid to cover the team, to report the goings on, and to dispel or feature prominent news items … one would think he has a few phone numbers of sources within the organization he could call prior to posting a wishy-washy news-unworthy "blog" post concerning a human being's employment.
I logged on yesterday morning with a bowl of cereal in my hand and immediately deemed it to be yellow journalism. Even though it was a "blog" post, Haudricourt has a huge audience and, like I said before, gets paid to cover the team … unlike us random thought spewing faceless fans. Haudricourt has a higher threshold to live up to and he failed miserably. Now his reputation is tarnished (and I think even lower of him now than before, which is saying something).
There seems to be a sea change in the sports writing world this month from old media to new media, kicked off by Buzz Bissinger's crazy speak on Costas Now, Tony Kornheiser's buyout from the Washington Post, and Bill Simmons' long slow waltz away from ESPN, among other things. I don't think Haudricourt's missive has anywhere near the impact as the previously mentioned, but it's part of the scale tipping toward the internet world of journalism and how out of touch old media types are.
Related:
Excellent recap by roguejim @ BCB
Deadspin coverage on Yost "firing"
6 comments:
The accounting degree makes sense when i read graphs like this:
Really, all the ethics of responsible journalism were discarded just so Haudricourt could avert being "scooped" by a combination of the words "Yost," "fired," "reliable source." Haudricourt is the guy actually paid to cover the team, to report the goings on, and to dispel or feature prominent news items … one would think he has a few phone numbers of sources within the organization he could call prior to posting a wishy-washy news-unworthy "blog" post concerning a human being's employment."
"All ethics" are unlisted and the theory that he doesn't want to be scooped is based on what?
Anonymous, thanks for actually finding this site and caring enough to post. Really, I have no idea how many actually read this thing.
In answer to your question: Journalism Ethics
When I speak of ethics in this situation, I point to two of them:
1) Check sources
2) Check to make sure it's true before going to print (almost a libel thing)
I'm stating that Haudricourt should have either considered the source of the rumor or checked with his contacts (preferably both). What he did amounts to he said/she said second hand info and now Haudricourt's reputation is wounded.
He may have different thresholds of truth for his blog postings and what he puts in the paper, however the casual reader see no difference. He is one of the few independent mainstream voices on the Brewers in town ... the announcers, both TV and radio, are employed by the team, and the official website is controlled by MLB, so indirectly the Brewers. People believe in what he posts as news, not opinion (like this blog), so he immediately has a higher standard to live up to. In this case, I feel he was irresponsible.
My theory on the reason for the post is just that, theory. Conjecture. The situation was plausible, with the owner and Melvin in attendance in Boston, a day off Monday, the team playing terribly, increased calls for Yost's firing ... so I think Haudricourt wanted to be on top of the situation. Simple as that.
Perhaps I should have been more clear on the points, but at no point was I expecting an anonymous internet poster asking for clarification on the argument.
TFS: I agree. Good writers fact-check. It's what makes their writing worth reading. And I agree Hardricourt has a large enough readership that he ought to live up to "good writer" standards.
Your post was an opinion post, so you get to write whatever you want. Hardricourt should have a different standard.
And, for what it's worth - some of the most articulate and thoughtful writers I know are accountants. Seriously.
That's ok. I received my first piece of anonymous hate mail when I was 17, I can handle it.
You can still fact check. The blog still has the post up. It is factual. You also assume that management will respond to questions of Yost's fate when history and logic would tell you otherwise.
You said "all ethics" yet you still haven't named one.
You didn't state that you had a theory, you stated it as fact. You could have fact checked that as well. Tom responds to email and blog posts. And it also shows your ignorance of Haudricourt's history. I doubt you can find anyone at any time who would describe him as the type of person who would do that.
Still no listing of the ethical violations. Goodness, that is disappointing. Have you called Badger Blogger on the phone? It took about two minutes to find his cell phone number. You're really missing an opportunity to stand up against all the awfulness of Haudricourt and the despicable mainstream press. Or you could do nothing and whine and cry and call names and then run off.
Post a Comment