Random Thoughts

July 01, 2009

Strong Words From NASCAR's Jim Hunter About Mike Mulhern

More than once I've questioned in this space how Mike Hulhern, who covered NASCAR for years for the Winston Salem Journal and is now an independent blogger, has been able to get away with publishing stories containing rumors and speculation with very little sourcing or accuracy. While a lot of fans including myself almost immediately dismiss any rumor that comes from Mulhern, there are just as many fans who feel that he's a legitimate source of news and information - scary.Mulhern recently wrote a story on his website that stated that the situation in the Truck Series is so dire that NASCAR may fold the series after this season, a story which apparently doesn't have any truth to it according to Jim Hunter, NASCAR's Vice President of Communications, who had strong words about Mulhern, "There's no truth to it whatsoever," Hunter said.

"It's total B.S. The demise of the truck series is the figment of one person's imagination. (Mulhern) has a history of fabricating false stories and this is another example of it. We're very aware that (the Camping World Truck Series) is affected the hardest during this economic recession. We're currently looking at options. We've never given up on a series and we're not going to start now."

Good for Hunter for finally doing what was long overdue - calling Mulhern on the carpet for frequently publishing stories that appear to have very little truth to them. That rumor if taken seriously has the potential to be extremely damaging to a series already suffering due to the economy and sponsorship woes because it may cause sponsors and fans to be leery of spending money on the series if they think NASCAR is on the verge of shutting it down. That doesn't mean that the problems that the series - or the sport - is facing should be ignored but it's essential that a reporter strive for accuracy.

My biggest problem with Mulhern besides how inaccurate a lot of what he writes often seems to be is that he usually doesn't have much sourcing or quotes in his stories. I give him credit in the story about the Truck Series because he actually included a quote from Ramsey Poston, NASCAR's spokesperson, who says that the series won't be cut next season. But he has nothing to support the idea that the amount of races will be reduced next season or that the series will disappear all together. Yes, it's often difficult for a reporter because they are often working with sources who won't speak on the record. But there are ways to handle anonymous sources so that readers can put things in context and feel like information is coming from somewhere legitimate instead of being pulled out of thin air.

What's most unfortunate about Mulhern is that I think fans don't trust what other media members who cover NASCAR write because they think a lot of the reporters are as unreliable as he is. But there are many reporters who regularly cover this sport who take great pains to get things right even if it means they aren't the first to report a story - Bob Pockrass from scenedaily.com, Jim Utter from thatsracin.com and The Charlotte Observer, Nate Ryan from USA Today, Marty Smith from espn.com and Jenna Fryer from the Associated Press are a few that come to mind. These are the journalists who fans can depend on for accurate information about the sport and the people who are in it.

As someone else wondered on Facebook, now that NASCAR has called Mulhern out publicly for reporting false stories whether they'll continue to let him have a hard card and media access especially now that he's an independent and isn't working for a newspaper.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:52 PM | Comments (0)

April 28, 2009

RIP David Poole

I was in the midst of working on an entry about last night's episode of This Week in NASCAR but I've just heard the shocking and extremely sad news that David Poole, the veteran motorsports reporter, who covered NASCAR for The Charlotte Observer and who was the co-host of The Morning Drive on Sirius has passed away from a heart attack at 50. Apparently he was found this morning in his home by his wife just after he completed this morning's edition of TMD. It's almost impossible to believe. I listened to the TMD today as I did every day - he was still fired up about the events this past weekend at Talladega as well as having seen way too many manfeet (men in sandals) on his way back to North Carolina from Talladega. I can still hear him saying "Hooves to the left of me, hooves to the right of me!"

Poole was highly opinionated and said exactly what he thought all the time in his own way. He loved to debate with his callers, those who emailed with him and apparently just about everyone he encountered. I didn't always agree with him, and at times I felt he complained too much but I always enjoyed hearing his opinions. I learned from him and he made me think. It's a major loss to the motorsports community in so many ways - I will very much miss hearing his opinions every morning on my way to work and reading his articles. Thoughts and prayers to his friends and family. RIP.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:14 PM | Comments (0)

December 12, 2008

Mike Mulhern Let Go From Winston-Salem Journal

In an effort to make up for lost revenue the Winston-Salem Journal is cutting twelve employees including Mike Mulhern who has covered Nascar for the newspaper for the last 34 years. I never like to hear about people losing their jobs, especially when they've been in one position for so long and even more so in this poor economy which makes finding a new job very difficult. However, I will not miss Mulhern's coverage of Nascar. He's being praised right now for telling-it-like-it-is and how honest he was in his opinions but to me Mulhern reported what he thought was happening or would happen, rather than what was actual fact. For every fan who is lamenting that the loss of Mulhern articles there are just as many who have long rolled their eyes at much of what he's reported and not believed it until a more credible source was reporting it. Problem is that is that it seemed like a lot of what Mulhern wrote as fact was in reality speculation or rumor and a lot of it never came to pass. Another issue for me is that he often didn't provide any kind of source, even the vaguest of anonymous sourcing like "a source within DEI," to back-up what he reported. Nor did seem to go back and correct the record when he got something wrong. Eventually I really stopped paying attention to what he wrote.

It was so bad that David Poole actually made a comment one morning on Sirius that was something along the lines of how 50% of what Mulhern reported couldn't be believed and Claire B. Lang also made reference to his crazy speculation, though she had him on her show anyway. Most newspapers have a code of journalistic ethics of some sort and I often wondered how he got away with some of what he did given that the code usually addresses the use of proper sourcing, giving subjects an opportunity to respond to what's being written about them and other things that I though Mulhern didn't seem to pay too much attention too.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:50 PM | Comments (0)

December 10, 2008

DirecTV Hot Pass Will Not Return in 2009

More bad news for Nascar as this morning brings word that DirecTV Hot Pass won't be back in 2009. Hot Pass offered fans a way to watch a channel dedicated solely to one driver, featuring in-car video and audio, as well as commentary from a team of broadcasters who covered that driver almost exclusively. Apparently this decision stems from the poor economy and there likely weren't enough subscribers to make it profitable enough. I would have subscribed since I think it would have been a terrific alternative for watching the race even though my favorite drivers were never one of those featured but since I live in a condo I'm not able to get DirecTV That may be true for a lot of people - Hot Pass likely would have had a lot more subscribers if it was able to be offered through cable systems.

It's sad news for all those who are going to lose their jobs as a result of this decision and I can't help but think of Tony Rizzuti who only a week or two ago expressed concern in his blog over his job prospects in the sport if Hot Pass wasn't around. Aside from being a friend to Michael Waltrip and Michael Waltrip Racing where he used to work, Tony is a positive voice in the media and the sport needs more of those people not less. It's not that Tony didn't give his opinions or is never critical, but he didn't seem to focus on the negative or sensationalize things like some do. Following on the heels of likely not returning to Sirius (boo!!) this isn't good for Tony, but is also disappointing for those fans who really like him. Maybe he'll return to doing PR but I hope that another media opportunity becomes available to him.

Fans are also really losing out with this. There is quite a bit of unhappiness with the broadcasts of Cup races, particularly by ESPN/ABC and this gave fans another way to watch races. Although I've never watched myself from what I've heard most of those who subscribed seemed to really enjoy watching races via Hot Pass. Some didn't even stick with one driver's channel but would instead switch around to get different perspectives of the race. All in all it offered fans a unique way to watch the races.

It's also a loss for sponsors because DirecTV was an additional way for them to get exposure. As more and more avenues for sponsors to reach fans and get exposure are cut back or eliminated all together the harder it's going to be for sponsors to meet their goals and achieve the amount of exposure they're looking for. It hurts the teams efforts to find and keep sponsorship as well - even those teams that weren't regularly featured on one of the channels specifically devoted to a driver might still be a part of Hot Pass since fans were able to vote for an additional group of drivers that would have their in-car audio available via Hot Pass. I believe Michael Waltrip had his audio on Hot Pass for every single race except one and now there's one less way for fans to listen to him.

Although I'm realistic and call things as I see them so I definitely don't stick my head in the sand about anything, I would also prefer to focus on the positive. However, at times lately it seems like it's very hard to remain optimistic about what's happening in Nascar. I continue to be optimistic and look forward to 2009 for Michael and MWR since I think they have a lot of good things happening on the competition side but otherwise it seems like every day brings more bad news for the sport.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:10 AM | Comments (0)

November 04, 2008

SPEED Celebrates Halloween... in Costume!

On Friday during the pre-race for the Truck race SPEED had a little fun since it was Halloween. They had their entire broadcast team of Michael Waltrip, Rick Allen, Phil Parsons, Adam Alexander, Ray Dunlap and Krista Voda dress in costume as characters from the Wizard of Oz. It was clear that a lot of time and effort was put into the whole thing. Since I had to work I missed seeing it on TV but based on the photos Michael was a terrific lion! He even had full face make-up as did the others. Apparently they were out on pit road and conducted interviews in costume which had to have been pretty hysterical to see not only for viewers at home, but anyone who was there in person. Fans loved every minute of it! I think it was a terrific idea that SPEED had to do something for Halloween and I applaud their creativity! There's some great photos on Speed's website including some that shows them getting their face make up put on.

What astonished me is that yesterday on "The Morning Drive" on Sirius, David Poole said how awful it was that SPEED had their broadcasters dress up in costume, I guess because he thought it was ridiculous and unprofessional. He particularly didn't like that some of the men like Ray Dunlap were dressed like women. Poole has complained in the past about how much he can't stand Rutledge and some of his stunts so maybe this is just an extension of some of the long-standing issues he has with Speed and their Nascar coverage but I think Poole was completely off-base in his criticism. Just exactly what's so wrong with having some fun? There's so much about racing that is serious and even more so now with worries about the economy, sponsorship woes and teams possibly folding at the end of the season. I'd like to see more people in the garage area loosen up a little, have some fun and show some personality!

There are definitely times to be serious such as during the actual race broadcast which is exactly what the SPEED team did since they took off their costumes when the pre-race show was over. In Poole's role as a reporter for The Charlotte Observer and thatsracin.com where he usually covers hard news he needs to be more serious and mindful of being professional. But on SPEED it's a different story. People are tuning in to be informed but also to be entertained. Ticket sales are down and fan dissatisfaction with the sport seems to be at an all-time high. I think doing unexpected, fun things to engage the fans is a good thing. It makes them laugh and more importantly it keeps them watching.

SPEED does an outstanding job with their coverage of the Truck Series - their race broadcasts are far superior to those that ESPN/ABC and FOX do for the Nationwide and Cup races and SPEED is likely working with a much smaller budget, as well as less resources. Michael, Rick and Phil do an outstanding job in the booth - I think they've developed into an outstanding team and I hope they continue to work races together for years to come. I like that SPEED is willing to think out-of-the-box and take advantage of opportunities to do something different like they did with having everyone dress up for Halloween.

It occurs to me that other than the SPEED broadcast team, I haven't seen any other photos of anyone else from the garage area dressed up in costume or otherwise acknowledging that it was Halloween. Surely there were some Halloween parties and people who got dressed up - or did everything think like Poole that it was unprofessional or that it was beneath them? I hope that's not the case. In some ways it's a catch-22 because fans like the fun side of the sport but they also get offended and upset easily. This fan though would rather that there was less concern about image and doing/saying the exact "right" thing all the time. I guess that's one reason I like Michael so much - he definitely knows how to have fun and keep people entertained!

Posted by silverdsl at 10:08 AM | Comments (0)

August 19, 2008

Chris "Mad Dog" Russo to XM/Sirius

Not to happy right now. It was announced today that Chris "Mad Dog" Russo will be hosting a show on XM channel 144 (as well as Sirius 123) from 2-7 p.m. every weekday starting September 15. The first problem with that is that Claire B. Lang's Nascar show "Dialed In" is on from 3-7 every weekday. To say that I would be upset if her show was canceled as opposed to just being moved to a different time or channel would be an understatement. Claire does an outstanding job of covering the sport and I've found that there's no better source for interviews and information - that's factual - than Claire. She is also incredibly fan-friendly and always willing to exchange emails with fans and try to get the drivers they ask to hear from on the air.

The second problem, for me at least, is that I can't stand Mad Dog. I used to listen to "Mike and the Mad Dog" on WFAN in New York but I got so sick of him that I stopped listening years ago. I think he's nothing more than a loud mouth blowhard and I definitely won't be listening to his show.

Really not too happy about this news.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:13 PM | Comments (2)

May 08, 2008

Is There Really Favoritism Show Towards Some Drivers by the TV Broadcasters?

Yesterday on XM much of Claire B. Lang's show, "Dialed In," was devoted to taking fan calls about how more than a few fans believe that there is favoritism or a bias shown to some drivers by those in the TV booth during the various race broadcasts. Much of the discontent among fans is due to all the attention that's being given to Kyle Busch lately, but it's also come up in relation to the way ESPN covers Steven Wallace in the Nationwide Series and about how some fans feel that Darrell Waltrip, doesn't objectively talk about his brother, Michael.

There are times when I share the concern that some fans have in relation to potential bias on the part of those in the booth. Almost all of those who work for the various networks seem to have some sort of tie to a driver, team, manufacturer or sponsor. DW is Michael's brother, Rusty Wallace is Steven's father, Phil Parsons is on the board of Michael Waltrip Racing, Jeff Hammonds is one of the owners of Red Horse Racing, Kenny Wallace races for Jay Robinson Racing and Michael for his own organization, Dale Jarrett just retired from MWR, the list goes on and on. I've wondered at times about the appropriateness of certain broadcasters talking about drivers or teams they have an business or personal interest in. However, I think for the most part as long as those interests are disclosed so that the audiences is aware then it's not much of an issue, especially since in general I don't usually see the same issues that a lot of other fans seem to see in relation to supposed favoritism being shown towards some drivers and teams.

That Kyle Busch is getting a lot of attention seems to be the biggest bone of contention right now for fans. But the reality is that he deserves that attention since he's won multiple races in all three of Nascar's highest series this season. In addition, he's been involved in quite a bit of controversy. I don't like Kyle much myself but even I can recognize that he has a tremendous amount of talent, the way he races creates excitement and that what he's doing is worthy of being talked about. The greater wrong in my opinion would be if the media ignored Kyle because he isn't very popular with fans.

Some fans have even convinced themselves that DW or others are getting paid by Toyota or have a Nascar directive to talk about Kyle so much. Because some fans don't like Kyle and can't acknowledge his ability behind the wheel they seem to think that no one else should either so they have to come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories about how the broadcasters are forces to talk about Kyle when they don't want to. But they are going to talk about anything that impacts the action on the track or is otherwise a storyline or newsworthy and Kyle is definitely that.

Both DW and Rusty are in a particularly bad position when it comes to them commenting on their relatives. If they are as critical as fans want they run the risk of hurting the feelings of people they care about, but if they avoid saying anything bad about Steven or DW some fans are upset. So they're pretty much screwed either way. I find that at times DW makes subtle negative remarks about Michael and that may be his way of playing to those who feel he shows favoritism to his brother. Or it may be what he truly thinks. Problem is unless he's either completely bashing Michael or ignoring him, some fans are going to be unhappy no matter what he says.

The thing is that there's also a bias that exists on the part of the fans that influences how they perceive what the broadcasters say. A fan called into Claire's show yesterday and said that DW talks too much about his "no-talent, field-filler" brother. Well, obviously that fan doesn't like Michael and has a bias against him so no matter what DW says about Michael that's unacceptable to him. Also, no one is going to like it when something bad is said about a driver they like so to some fans that comes across as a broadcaster being biased against that driver when in reality it might simply be a broadcaster giving an opinion. There is no way that the coverage is always going to be positive for every driver all the time - but some fans seem to expect that.

I agree with those fans who aren't happy about how the TV broadcasts sometimes seem to focus on the same drivers over and over again and don't always do a good job of informing the audience about what's going on throughout the field, though I don't think it's because of any kind of favoritism being shown to certain drivers. It's a problem for fans because it's hard to know what's happening with their favorite drivers but also for sponsors because they aren't getting much exposure unless they're with certain teams that are guaranteed to almost always get coverage. The solution I have to the problem of my favorite drivers not getting talked about much is that I use Trackpass to listen to the radio communication of the drivers that I like - usually Michael's - so I always know what's happening with them. Of course that isn't possible for everyone, but it definitely enhances my enjoyment of the races and makes me feel more informed.

That said, I think fans have to be reasonable in their expectations It's okay to wish that a wider variety of drivers and teams were discussed more regularly but also understand that the TV broadcast is always going to give the most attention to those drivers who are racing up front and therefore have the best chance to win, as well as the most popular drivers. It's also hard to talk about what's happening at every point in the race for every team and driver, particularly if there isn't anything of note going on with those teams. There may also be directions given to the broadcast team by producers or limitations due to time. Some Steve Park fans are upset that an interview that Steve did with Speed at Greenville-Pickens wasn't used during the broadcast of the race yesterday. But apparently the race was condensed into an hour which really isn't a lot of time so Speed isn't going to be able to use every piece of footage they got that day.

I guess I'm just not bothered by a lot of the same things as many of my fellow fans when it comes to the broadcasts of the races, but what else is new - it often seems like I'm not on the same page in terms of my opinions as many other fans.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:40 AM | Comments (1)

On Michael Waltrip and the Lack of a Richmond Interview

One driver who has never shied away from speaking to the media is Michael Waltrip. Although I'm not sure that Michael enjoys dealing with the media any more than any other driver does, he recognizes it's an opportunity to get his sponsors exposure and "speak" to the fans. He's also very good at it which is why he's a regular on This Week in Nascar, the Truck Series broadcasts and has his own XM show. However, even Michael is going to have times when he can't or won't speak with the media. Last weekend after Michael retaliated against Casey Mears and got parked for it, there was no interview with him on FOX during their broadcast. Michael did give a comment to a reporter from Nascar Scene that night, discussed it on TWiN, answered questions from reporters about it during testing at Charlotte and will presumably also talk about it on the XM show this evening. However, that's apparently still not good enough for some.

John Daly, from The Daly Planet wrote a column in which as the discussion evolved in the comments section he implied that Michael refused an interview with FOX. Daly feels that Michael as a high-profile driver, car owner and media personality owed it to fans and everyone else to give an interview to explain himself to FOX since it was a national broadcast, and the implication is that by not doing so he did something wrong. I've seen that same sentiment echoed by a number of fans as well. This in spite of the fact that neither Daly, nor anyone else, can seem to come up with anything to show that Michael was available to be interviewed, that he actually refused an interview request or that FOX was even interested in speaking with him.

In fact, based on what two people who were working members of the media that night have said Michael couldn't have given an interview to FOX even if he wanted to. For one thing, Nascar had him in virtual lockdown in their hauler from immediately following the incident when they summoned him to after the race when they got done talking to him. I suppose Michael might have refused an interview on the way to the Nascar hauler but can you blame him? Aside from the fact that he would still be trying to gain control of his emotions at that point, he can't exactly tell Nascar to wait on him because he has to give interviews. Once he was with Nascar he can't tell them to shove off so he can go speak with FOX. By the time he was released from Nascar's version of jail, based on what these people have said those that had waited around for Michael to get a comment from him had left to chase some even bigger stories - Denny Hamlin intentionally bringing out a caution and the Dale Earnhardt, Jr. - Kyle Busch incident. In addition, it's not like Michael refused to speak at all that night - Nascar Scene got a quote from him. If FOX wanted to speak with him, and I'm not sure that they truly did in light of what other storylines they had to follow, where were they went he was talking to the reporter from Nascar Scene?

Some seem to think that Michael or his public relations representative should have chased down FOX but let's get real. It's hard for teams and drivers to get coverage under normal circumstances let alone during a limited post-race show when there were other major stories. Beyond that once a race ends the drivers and team members are all in a rush to leave the track as quickly as possible. Michael isn't going to want to hang around any longer than he has to, and especially not to give interviews on a negative topic, particularly one that was a little embarrassing for him.

It should be noted that I do think that drivers should speak with the media even about negative news. The fact is that when drivers give interviews to the media that's their way of speaking to the fans. Many fans don't get to the track and don't get the opportunity to speak with the drivers themselves. So their only way of knowing what the drivers have to say or what they're thinking is through the media. The drivers also have a responsibility to their sponsors to get them exposure via interviews and media appearances. Plus, Nascar requires top finishing drivers to speak with the media. In the past I haven't been too thrilled with Tony Stewart for shirking his responsibilities to the media, nor do I care for his adversarial attitude at times. But that's not what Michael did on Saturday. He spoke with at least one reporter, then gave more extensive comments during the week.

It's really hard for me to see what Michael did that was wrong on Saturday in relation to the lack of an interview, particularly when not all the circumstances in relation to whether he spoke with FOX or not was in his control. What's ironic to me is that once Michael did comment at length on TWiN a lot of fans were upset about that too. Some weren't happy with what he said about Casey (he was perhaps a little harsh but that was how he felt at the time) and others felt that he should have been more apologetic (I thought he made it clear that he was embarrassed and knew that he did something wrong). So even when he does comment some people are still unhappy. I think the problem is for some is that he didn't say exactly what they thought he should but the reality is that Michael has his own point-of-view and opinions and he has to say what he's thinking, not what will please the fans or others.

It's been said to me before that no matter what Michael does, and for that matter all the other drivers, no matter how well intentioned they might be, no matter how many good explanations there are, there are still going to be people who find fault and get upset. Don't get me wrong, fans shouldn't be expected to agree with or like everything that a driver says or does. They also should have the right to express their opinions both positive and negative - I certainly do in this space, and I realize at times that I'm too critical of Steve Park for some people's tastes. It just seems sometimes that there's such a focus on the negative, almost to the point where some are looking for any excuse to rip into a driver for some perceived wrong. To some fans nothing lives up to their lofty standards and no matter what a driver does it's wrong. How frustrating that must be for the drivers sometimes.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:11 AM | Comments (0)

March 25, 2008

Drivers vs. the Media

David Poole, who normally covers Nascar for The Charlotte Observer, Thatsracin.com and Sirius, was covering the NCAA basketball tournament this weekend. So this morning on Sirius, as well as in a column on Thatsracin, Poole stated that if 19- and 20-year old college basketball players from both the winning and losing teams are able to give polite and professional interviews after playing a game then so should Nascar drivers like Kyle Busch or Tony Stewart. In a perfect world, yes, the drivers should always be polite and cooperative when approached for an interview by a member of the media but the circumstances under which a driver is approached is very different than the circumstances under which an NCAA basketball player or other athlete is.

For one thing in almost every other sport, while the media might have full access to both teams locker rooms, there's a cooling off period of 10-15 minutes between when the game or sporting event ends and when the players meet with the media. That allows the players to calm down if they're emotional over something that happened in the game and they have an opportunity to collect their thoughts and prepare for the questions from the media. However, drivers in Nascar don't have that luxury. As soon as they get out of the car, they might be swarmed by members of the media looking for a comment. There's no time to calm down or collect one's thoughts. And then some wonder why some drivers react the way that they do? Of course there will never be a cooling off period in Nascar, though I very much think there should be, since all the drivers are in a rush to leave the track and get to the airport as soon as possible so none of them want to have to stick around for an extra 10 or 15 minutes.

In addition, in most other sports members of the media can't chase the players through the halls of the stadium - or even the locker room, since many teams have areas of the locker room that are off-limits to members of the media where a player can hide if they need additional time or don't want to talk to the media at all. However, at the track media members can chase driver through the whole garage area if they want, and while drivers can escape to their hauler or the motorcoach lot, media members seem to have a lot more leeway in terms of where they can go and what they can do. I'm fairly certain that at the NCAAs if officials allowed the media to chase members of the losing team through the halls of the arena to try and get a quote that those players might also give some less than courteous interviews. No one wants to be chased down, and especially when things have gone bad. In general, while there are many rules and guidelines in Nascar that the media have to follow, there seems to be even more control in other sports as to when and where the media can approach the players.

That said, I definitely think that speaking with the media is an obligation that the drivers need to live up to. Frequently, interviews are the only way that fans hear from their favorite drivers so when a driver dodges interviews, they're also dodging their fans. Also, the drivers have obligations to their sponsors to get exposure for them which is another reason why the drivers should be doing interviews. I also think that the drivers should make every effort to be cooperative and pleasant with the media - not only is that showing common courtesy for another human being, in the long-run things will go a lot better for them in terms of the kind of coverage they get if they have a good working relationship with the media. It bothers me that Tony Stewart is routinely rude to some members of the media and not just under trying circumstances. Tony seems to have problems even being courteous during routine Q&A session with the media. I don't like when other drivers like Kyle Busch are rude either.

However, I also understand where the drivers are coming from. There's a lot of emotion in not just racing but in all other sports. When the drivers aren't given an opportunity to gain control of their emotions then it should be expected that they might not always react perfectly. Athletes, the drivers included, aren't robots, they're human beings with flaws who experience the full range of emotions that anyone else does. The drivers are also constantly being swarmed, not only by the media, but by fans, sponsor reps and others who don't always understand proper boundaries or that they might be having a bad day. The drivers probably feel like they're in a giant pressure cooker and it has to be very difficult to deal with at times.

If there's a story to be told then the reporters have to do their jobs and try to get a comment even when someone is having a bad day. But if there's nothing to be gained other than footage of a driver giving short answers that are nothing of substance as they try to get away from the media member as quickly as possible and the media outlet and it's journalists know that's what the likely outcome is, at that point are they still pursuing the driver to get the answer to their questions or is it an effort to get footage that makes a driver look bad that create drama and draw attention? I feel like that's what happened to Kyle Busch at Nashville where it might not have been so much of an effort to get an interview as an effort to get something that made for good TV.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:14 AM | Comments (0)

January 28, 2008

David Cone To Broadcast 50 Yankees Games for YES

There really hasn't been all that much to get me excited about the upcoming season for the New York Yankees... until now. The reason for my excitement? David Cone, my all-time favorite Yankee, will be in the YES booth for 50 games next season and will also host the weekly show, Yankees on Deck! David has never feared giving his opinions openly, to the point where it's gotten him in trouble in the past, and he's also very good with the media. I expect that he will have a lot of good insight to share during the games he works, and overall I expect that he will be an asset to YES this season. After David left the Yankees there was a falling out between himself and George Steinbrenner because Steinbrenner took offense to David trying to restart his career with the New York Mets and that prevented David from returning to the Yankees fold sooner. But now Steinbrenner's sons are in charge and David is welcome at Yankee Stadium once again much to the delight of the many fans that David still has!

David is my baseball version of Michael Waltrip - someone who I will always be a fan of no matter what they're doing, whether they're still actively involved in their sport or not, someone who will always have a special place in my heart. It's likely because there's some similarities between David and Michael. Both are incredibly fan-friendly, have a way with people, very media savvy, and both have magnetic personalties. Michael and David are both unafraid to give honest opinions, though David never had sponsors or a conservative garage area to worry about so he likely said what he thought openly even more than Michael does. David has had much more success than Michael over the course of his career, but like Michael, David has had his share of problems to endure, including a horrible 2000 season that I don't even like to think about it was so painful to watch during which he appeared to lose the ability to pitch. But just as Michael and his team showed up weekend after weekend to race even when they failed to qualify for any number of races in a row and had other issues to worry about, David kept going out to the mound, never gave up and kept fighting to help his team win. If I could pick any two athletes to invite to dinner, it would surely be Michael and David, though given how gregarious both are, I doubt that I'd be able to get a word in!

Even though I haven't been overly excited about baseball this off-season, of course I was still planning on watching and cheering for the Yankees just as much as ever - but now I have something to be excited about and I'm really looking forward to the start of the baseball season even though it's still a few months away!

Posted by silverdsl at 01:14 PM | Comments (0)

October 12, 2007

Where do Some Writers Get This Stuff From?

Nothing irks me more than shoddy journalism where reporters don't use proper sourcing, don't follow-up on leads, don't allow those involved with a story a chance to comment and don't do much fact-checking. It seems that there's a rush to be the first to report something rather than wait to make sure what's being reported is accurate. Tim Tuttle has an article on SI.com in which he reports that anonymous sources have told him that Jeremy Mayfield is taking over the #44 with the UPS sponsorship at Michael Waltrip Racing once Dale Jarrett steps out of the car after the first six races in 2008. Tuttle writes this article as if it's already a done deal that Jeremy will be in the #44. There's only one problem - it appears it's completely inaccurate.

As widely rumored for quite some time now, David Reutimann confirmed to a writer from a Tampa Bay newspaper that he's going to be the one taking over the #44 after the first six races next season. Given that there's actual quotes from David in that article, I'm thinking the chances of that being accurate are a lot greater than the SI article which doesn't have a single quote from anyone involved. How did the SI writer possibly get things so wrong? Well, it appears there's some truth to the story. Some fans who spoke with Michael this week said that he confirmed that he's talked with Jeremy about giving him a ride next season (though he also said that he didn't think it was going to happen). However, the writer's source appears to have gotten everything else about the story wrong. Maybe Tuttle has used this source before and he's always had accurate information in the past leading Tuttle to trust what he was saying. But it seems to me that if Tuttle has been paying attention to the rumor mill at all, that what this source was telling him was a lot different should have given off some warning bells.

I think what really gets me is that there's not even a single mention of David in the article at all. Does this writer even know that David re-signed with MWR? That's a pretty big piece of the puzzle that he left out. In addition, later in the article Tuttle talks about how Jeff Green is leaving Haas-CNC Racing and has a done deal with another team, likely either Joe Gibbs Racing or Richard Childress Racing. Tuttle talks about Green leaving Haas as if it's a done deal but there's been no announcement to that effect and when Green was asked about his future at Haas recently he seemed to indicate it was still up in the air. In addition, Green left RCR on bad terms so it's unlikely he'd be going back there, and both RCR and Gibbs have indicated they aren't likely to have fourth teams next season.

I have to wonder if Tuttle bothered to contact anyone at MWR, Jeremy, Jeff or anyone else to find out if any of what he was reporting was remotely correct. Of course he might have gotten little more than a "no comment," but I'm thinking that someone would have likely pointed him in the right direction, even off-the-record, regarding what the situation was going to be with the #44. I also have to wonder who Tuttle's source was. He gives absolutely no indication, not even a "sources involved with the negotiations say" or "a highly placed source at MWR says." For all his readers know, his source is a fan with a vivid imagination, a crew member who saw Jeremy talking to Michael or just about anyone other than someone who is directly involved at MWR or with Mayfield.

It wouldn't be surprising if Jeremy does end up racing for MWR. He's an available driver who knows how to win on the Cup level, and assuming the sponsorship is there, the #00 will be an open ride after the first six races next season. However, it would be surprising if Jeremy ended up at MWR in the way Tuttle says he's going to.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:50 AM | Comments (0)

October 04, 2007

Ray Dunlap Suspended Again

It was just about a year ago that Ray Dunlap from Speed was suspended for offensive comments he made on em>Tradin' Paint about Hispanics. At the time I said that Dunlap is lucky that he still has a job after those comments, which he followed up with some mumbling in German which may have also been questionable. Well, apparently he's now been suspended again by Speed for undisclosed reasons that I hope are made public. If Dunlap didn't learn his lesson from his last suspension and made more offensive and inappropriate comments, I question why he's still employed by Speed as on-air talent.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:35 PM | Comments (0)

May 31, 2007

It's hard for me to understand the fascination with the personal lives of athletes or any celebrities for that matter. Sure, I pay a little attention to who's dating who, and read some gossip columns on occassion. But for the most part I think the personal lives of those that I'm a fan of isn't really much of my business, unless something happens that's especially newsworthy or effects the way they race, play the game or otherwise go about their chosen career path. I also accept that athletes cheating on their significant others is common and an accepted part of many athlete's lifestyles. To be clear, I don't agree with people cheating on their significant others, and that's not a choice I would make in my own life. However, I also accept that not everyone is going to live their lives the way I would. I also suspect that if I stopped being a fan of everyone who ever cheated on their significant other, I might have a hard time finding anyone to cheer for.

But a lot of people don't see things as I do. To many fans the recent stories in some of the New York area newspapers about Alex Rodriguez being spotted with a woman who wasn't his wife is big news. Not that anyone actually knows who this woman is, or what kind of an arrangement A-Rod might have with his wife, but that hasn't stopped any number of people from leaping to all sorts of conclusions. Some of which may very well be true, but it seems to me that the status of A-Rod's marriage is something that's between him and his wife. Not that I like it, but I can understand why a photographer followed A-Rod and his lady friend, as well as why the Post printed the photos since they knew it was going to sell a lot of papers. Still, I think it's very unfortunate that A-Rod's private life is suddenly a topic of discussion as much as how he plays the game.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:12 PM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2007

Mike Davis Lashes Out at "Lazy" Journalism

One of my pet peeves is when members of the media don't properly fact-check, source or follow-up to confirm the accuracy of the information in their articles. That's often a by-product of the rush by some journalists to be the first to get a story on-air, in print or online, because taking the time to make sure a story is 100% accurate might mean that another media outlet could break the news first. So when the media found out that Nascar's most popular driver, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., would be holding a press conference the following day to announce that he was leaving DEI at the end of the season, many outlets rushed to print or air with what they were "hearing" as opposed to what was actually true. At first that really bothered me, but on reflection, I wonder if there was really any other way to handle this story?

On Wednesday evening it was reported by a number of media outlets, including Dave Moody on Sirius, Claire B. Lang on XM, Jerry Bonkowsi of Yahoo! Sports, and Nascar. com that Junior would announce at the press conference that he was leaving DEI along with teammate Martin Truex, Jr. and that they'd both be racing for the company that Junior owns, JR Motorsports, with support from Hendrick Motorsports. As it turned out the only part of that which was true was that Junior was going to announce that he was leaving DEI. And Mike Davis, Junior's PR person at JR Motorsports isn't happy about it. He wrote in his blog,

"It made for humorous conversations between myself, Dale Jr., and Martin Jr., but in the grand scheme of things, it's pitiful when these journalists refuse accountability by saying, "I was only going on what my sources told me. Time to check your sources, guys. It's bad journalism, bad reporting, and bad ethics."

I agree with Davis... to a point. It's extremely poor journalism, and sometimes unethical, when reporters just throw news on the air or in print when it's poorly sourced, no one's given a chance to respond, or there's a lack of fact-checking with no follow-up to correct mistakes. However, if reporters get information from sources who have been reliable in the past, it's understandable why they might run with a story. I also think most of the media who went with the original story framed it properly in the context of that was what they were hearing was going to happen as opposed to what they knew was going to happen, and there was truth to what was being reported - Junior was in fact going to announce that he was leaving DEI.

I don't have a problem with rumors being reported as such. It's when a rumor gets reported as fact, like what Bob Dillner did when he reported on Speed that Nascar had found violations on the cars of Jeff Burton and Kevin Harvick after a race last season on the basis of what a source told him when there was little to no truth to what he was reporting. in Dillner's haste to scoop everyone else, he failed to check with anyone involved but the members of the media who covered this story did their due dilligence to follow-up and find out what was really going on. Several hours after the initial story broke, David Poole and Claire B. Lang, and likely others as well, were clarifying that Junior was only going to announce that he was leaving DEI, not what his plans were for 2008, based on having spoken with those closer to the situation than the intial sources were. So how exactly is it bad journalism for members of the media to report on what might be going on, then follow up to correct the inaccuracies in the previous stories (something Dillner never did)? I think it's expecting too much to think that every member of the media is going to sit on one of the biggest news stories in Nascar in years - wouldn't that be doing a disservice to their audience? And the fact of the matter is that there was some truth to what was being reported - maybe Davis is unhappy because the news leaked out before they wanted it to?

Davis also wrote,

"My problem isn't with the "little men" who start crazy rumors in a self-absorbed attempt to feel important."

Well, why not? If he's upset with those who reported rumors, then shouldn't he be upset with those who start them too? People like to gossip. People also like to start rumors, sometimes to start trouble or because they have an agenda. Shouldn't Davis be angry at those people since as I'm sure he's well aware rumors can damage Junior or JR Motorsports reputation, or possibly have an effect on Junior's search for a new ride depending on what people belive. After all, just because something's denied in this sport doesn't mean that it doesn't eventually happen anyway, so some may think that Junior just wasn't ready to announce that he'd be partnering with Hendrick and racing for himself.

Given the nature of this story, and how many effects there's going to be in the garage area from Junior's choice of a new ride, there's going to be constant rumors reported about what Junior's plans are - in fact several TV stations reported last night that Junior already had a deal with Richard Childress Racing, something that's been denied. As much as I strongly believe that the media has an obligation to make sure that the news they report is as accurate as possible, I also feel that they need to report what they hear, as long as they do their due diligence to follow-up, fact-check, allow the involved parties to comment, check sources, and correct inaccuracies. I think for the most part that was done here.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:04 PM | Comments (0)

April 10, 2007

Don Imus Suspended for Two Weeks

Imus has been suspended by both CBS and MSNBC, and he should consider himself lucky that he wasn't fired. I've seen some, including Imus, try to excuse away his comment because it was in the context of a joke, or say that people are too sensitive and politically correct, but to me calling the Rutgers Women's basketball players a bunch of "nappy-headed hos" is indefensible. The comment is inappropriate no matter what to begin with, but what makes it even worse in my mind is that he was saying it about a bunch of college students. Not professional basketball players, though the comment would have been idiotic regardless of who he was talking about, but young women who at most are 21 or 22-years old. These women should be celebrated for their successes, not insulted. How awful these women must feel that their achievement in reaching the finals of the NCAA women's basketball tournament has now been overshadowed by Imus's idiotic comment and the ensuing controversy?

I think what bothers me the most are how some feel that it's acceptable to insult others if it's a "joke." And that comment was funny how exactly? I don't see one ounce of humor in a remark with racist overtones. Of course to some, it's my fault for being offended. I'm too politically correct or too serious. Well, I believe that people need to have respect towards each other and to be tolerant of each other's differences. I believe in freedom of speech, though that doesn't really apply for Imus since CBS can do whatever they want to their employee, but I also believe that just because someone can say something doesn't mean that they should. Imus should have had the sense to stop himself before he crossed the line but he didn't and now he has to deal with the consequences.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:41 AM | Comments (0)

November 03, 2006

Marty Smith to ESPN

There's not been an official announcement yet, but last night on "Jimmie Johnson: Not What You Expected" on XM, Marty Smith confirmed rumors that he would be leaving Nascar.com to work for ESPN/ABC. Mostly Smith will be working on the TV end, but he'll apparently also be writing a weekly column for ESPN.com. I really enjoy Smith's columns, so I'm glad he'll be continuing to write. However, I hope that ESPN will discourage Smith from writing about Johnson. Given how close the friendship is between Johnson and Smith, I don't see any way that Smith can really be unbiased and objective when he's writing about the #48 team. As much as I like reading Smith's perspectives on the sport, I think that's a real weakness for him, because every time he writes about Johnson, Chad Knaus or the #48 team, I have to wonder how much of what he's writing is influences by the friendship he has with Johnson.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:51 PM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2006

Harvick, Bowyer Have Words for Bob Dillner

It's pretty obvious that Kevin Harvick and his Richard Childress Racing teammates aren't going to let "Wheelgate" go away quite so easily. Not only did Harvick confront Dillner during Cup practice today, but both he and Clint Bowyer took shots at Dillner after the Busch race. Unfortunately all that's surfaced from the Dillner-Harvick showdown are some photos by Mark Reblias, who is probably beside himself with happiness that he was in the right place, at the right time, to capture this confrontation. Inquiring minds would surely love to know what was said during that discussion and thus far no one is saying, but I'm guessing that Harvick wasn't complimenting Dillner on his skills as a journalist.

Today's Busch race was an outstanding one for RCR, as Bowyer ended up in Victory Lane, his first win since last October, and Harvick finished third. During post-race interviews, both Harvick and Bowyer had a little something to say to Dillner. Harvick said,

“I just want to dedicate this to Bob Dillner and all the wheels that we have. I think this is pretty bittersweet to put all that to bed.RCR finished one and three. Take that and take it to the bank.”

From Victory Lane, Bowyer followed with

“By the way, we want Bob Dillner to come down (to victory lane) and check the wheels out for us.”

Some fans think that it's immature, unclassy and inappropriate for Harvick and Bowyer to have made those comments. However, I'm glad that RCR isn't going to let this be swept under the rug as quickly as some would like it to be. Dillner made mistakes in his reporting of this story, and he should be held accountable for that. The only way that a message is going to be sent that it's unacceptable for a reporter to seemingly do a half-assed job of reporting a story that could have major ramifications for a team is if the team speaks out about it in a strong way as RCR has been doing.

In addition, it's been reported that Delana Harvick informed RCR's public relations representatives that her husband won't agree to any interviews by Speed reporters nor will he appear on any Speed shows. Kevin's in a position where he can get away with that because as a driver in the Chase, and the driver leading in the points, he knows that he's going to get a signficant amount of exposure and attention from major media outlets to the point where it's not really going to effect or hurt him too much if he's not on Speed. Whereas some other drivers, such as a driver like Tony Raines or Sterling Marlin, who don't get much attention from the media, wouldn't be in a position to deny any requests for interviews, because they need all the exposure they can get for themselves, their team and their sponsors.

It's doubtful that it's going to happen but I'm hoping that if RCR continues to put pressure on Dillner, Speed and others in the garage area that more will come to light about who fed Dillner the information he used as the basis for his report, and why he opted to not give Nascar and RCR an opportunity to respond to the allegations, as well as why he didn't do as much follow-up as he should have to ensure that he was reporting accurate information.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:10 AM | Comments (0)

September 22, 2006

Bob Dillner Speaks...

... and what he said wasn't particularly satisfying in my mind in terms of shedding any light on the Wheelgate controversy. Just a few minutes ago on The Speed Report Dillner said that he continues to stand by his report and that he did in fact check with Nascar about "the inspection process" for the #29 and #31. First, of all if Dillner's going to say that he stands by his story he should explain why, if only for his own sake, so he doesn't look like he's being stubborn and can't admit to having reported something in error. If he's that convinced there's truth to the story and he should stand by it, produce some sort of evidence based on his investigative reporting or clarify what kind of a source he got the original information from. Something, anything to indicate his line of thinking about why this story is true! Because you've got people like Jim Hunter from Nascar and Jeff Burton saying that it was a complete fabrication. While being careful to say that he doesn't think Dillner was the one who made the story up, Burton had strong words about the story itself. He said today,

"We know the story is not true. We know that Bob Dilner was given the information. We know that Bob didn't create the story; he was given the information and we know the information is not true. So Bob's sources are Bob's sources and I'm not going to get into that because it's not fair to Bob. If a team did that it's highly unethical, if anyone, well, someone did it and it is unethical. It is unethical to lie - when you're 5 years old and you tell a lie you get your hand smacked. You're taught at an early age that it's wrong to lie. And without a doubt, someone was lying to Bob Dilner, no question about that.

So why then, is Dillner so insistent about standing by his story? If there's truth to it, produce the proof that his source wasn't off base. If it's a lie, then admit to it, apologize and move on.

As noted, Dillner also claims he asked Nascar about the inspection process. I'd like to know what he asked and what he was told. Because to my knowledge he didn't report anything that Nascar told him. Was it because the answers didn't fit with his story? Or because he didn't ask questions that had anything to do with the actual story, but rather general questions about the inspection process those cars went through? Not to mention, what did Nascar tell him? Did they say yes, there was an irregularity or did they deny that there was any truth to his story. And why didn't he report what they told him? An additional problem for Dillne, Monte Dutton says that Nascar gave the media the "all-clear" in terms of the post-race inspections before Dillner's report aired. So did Dillner get that report, and if so why didn't he include it in his story, or did he ignore it because it conflicted with his story?

In addition ,Burton, who spoke with Dillner this morning said,

"In retrospect, though, I think that Bob could have gone the next step, after he reported it, to figure out if it was reported correctly or not. Being that NASCAR and the teams were both saying it didn't happen I think Bob could have gone the next step and done an investigation of where are our wheels; do we have the same wheels, and to my knowledge, that didn't happen."

Indeed it doesn't seem to have happened, considering Dillner was unable (or unwilling) to produce anything that supports the story he reported. It's really disturbing to me that Dillner and Speed seem to think that it's acceptable for them to simply report what they hear, rather than doing any kind of follow-up to determine the accuracy of their story, particularly when it gets called into question in such a strong way.

Unfortunately the end result of this sorry mess is that a lot of people are going to be suspicious of any success that Richard Childress Racing has for the rest of the season, believe that there's Nascar cover-up underway, and some people like me, are going to have second thoughts about giving much weight to what Dillner reports.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:15 PM | Comments (0)

September 21, 2006

From Track Smack...

And for anyone else who still thinks that Bob Dillner didn't do anything wrong, that all members of the Motorsports media operate in the same way and they still can't figure out what the big deal is, David Newton and Marty Smith had the following to say in this week's edition of Track Smack:

David Newton: You hate to judge other reporters, but there's no excuse for not going to NASCAR and RCR to get their side of the story.

Marty Smith: I tend to agree with Newton. You hate to judge. Bob's been around. He has good sources and chose to go with one of them. But he was remiss in failing to report NASCAR's and/or RCR's take.

and then the following exchange between Dave Rodman and David Newton a bit further down:

Dave Rodman: Well you know the ol' saying -- never let the truth stand in the way of a good story -- or at least the corroborated truth.

David Newton: If we'd reported the same thing without checking all the sources we'd be dragged through the mud as well, Rodman.

Dave Rodman: I don't know everything about it -- but it appears Bobby was on a good scent, but maybe just needed a few more crumbs to complete the trail.

Dave Rodman: Well, I guess part of the point is, we didn't.

Maybe the biggest shame is that it's possible that Dillner had the potential for a good story, one that was actually breaking-news, if it turns out that there was anything to what he reported. However, the way he handled it might mean that Wheelgate will be more remembered for the poor way that Dillner reported it, rather than for the actual story (or non-story).

Posted by silverdsl at 04:03 PM | Comments (0)

Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

I don't know that every journalist or media outlet pledges to follow the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, but I do know that the vast majority of media outlets do have some sort of code of ethics, rules and standards that they expect their reporters and producers to adhere to. When you look at this Code of Ethics, it becomes even more glaring how badly Bob Dillner seems to have dropped the ball on Wheelgate.

Under "Seek Truth and Report It," the Code of Ethics starts out by saying that journalists should

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

Let's give Dillner the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he asked his source many questions, and was careful to make sure that he understood exactly what his source was telling him. I would also guess that Dillner wasn't deliberately trying to decieve or distort, simply trying to break big news.

Second item in the Code of Ethics:

Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

According to Richard Childress Racing and Nascar, Dillner never contacted them for a comment, thus denying them the opportunity to respond. That seems like a pretty big mistake. At least Speed allowed Kevin Harvick to respond on Inside Nextel Cup, and didn't edit out his disparaging remarks about the situation, or those of Michael Waltrip.

Third item:

Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

Of course since DIllner was using an anonymous source, it wasn't possible to identify who his source was. However, to my knowledge he never even referred to the source as "a highly-placed Nascar official" or "someone familiar with the inspection process" or "someone present when the inspection took place" or even "someone close to Kevin Harvick/RCR/Jeff Burton." Any of those things would have protected the source's identity, yet given some sort of context by which the audience could come to some sort of judgement about whether or not the source knew what they were talking about.

Fourth item:

Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

We have no way of knowing whether or not Dillner questioned his sources motives, which are now extremely suspect in light of the denials that have followed.

Then skipping down to the "Be Accountable" section:

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

As of this entry, neither Dillner or Speed have clarified or explained this situation beyond saying they stand by their story. Dillner hasn't said one word about how this story came to be. Nor has Dillner or Speed admitted to a mistake, and they've barely even acknowledged Nascar and RCR's denials. And for those who take issue with Claire B. Lang for bringing up more than once on her show the need for her colleagues in the motorsports media to contact Nascar and others for a comment on stories they're working on, that fourth item is for you.

A few other things not related to Wheelgate struck me as I read this. Under "Minimize Harm,"

Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.

I immediately thought of the Ray Evernham/Erin Crocker situation when I read that. Obviously both are in the public eye and seek power, influence and attention to a degree. However, that last part is important. There's been quite a few fans who have complained about why the media ignored the Evernham/Crocker romance for so long. But I think until it became an issue in the Jeremy Mayfield saga, there wasn't a public need to know. That two people are dating, regardless of their circumstances, really isn't all that newsworthy.

Then there's this in the "Act Independantly" section:

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

That section is why it bothers me that Marty Smith is good friends with Jimmie Johnson, yet writes about him for Nascar.com. I always wonder whether Smith would write the way about Johnson if he wasn't such good friends with him. The same holds true for any one else who has a bias for one reason or another.

As I think I said in my other entry, no one is perfect and mistakes are going to be made. But reporting the news accurately, fairly, and ethically is tremendously important. Putting false information on the air or in the paper can do all sorts of damage.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:03 PM | Comments (0)

More on Wheelgate

It may turn out that some slight shred of truth comes to light regarding "Wheel-gate," the story that Bob Dillner reported on Speed in which he alleged that Nascar had busted the Richard Childress Racing teams of Kevin Harvick and Jeff Burton for a grey area rules violation with the wheels on those cars. However, four days later that chances of that happening isn't looking too good as there has still not been any evidence to come to light to support Dillner's allegations. In fact, more has been said that calls that report into question than support it. All involved parties, from Nascar to RCR, to both Harvick and Burton, have made multiple, strong and detailed denials. Also, Claire B. Lang from XM was present during post-race inspection, and said that she neither saw nor heard anything to suggest there was any kind of problem with either car. While it's certainly possible that something happened out of her eyesight, she would have been in close proximity to the #29 car, as she was taping interviews for the "Teardown" segment of her show, so it seems to reduce the chances that she missed something so major.

In addition, I'm far from an expert on the technical aspects of what Dillner's story alleged, but others who are more familiar with the processes involved, have raised questions about whether or not his story was even technically accurate or possible. Harvick himself raised this issue yesterday on MRN (via Jayski),

"We have an inspection process that happens every week. The ironic part about it is that our wheels are taken to the racetrack by a wheel company every week. Really, the only thing you can touch is the valve stem. And the report was, that, you know, I don't even know, laser cut holes in the wheels. So, there's really no possible way that you could even wind up knowing what corner that the wheels are going to be mounted on, because the tires are already mounted when you get to the race track. If somebody would have just done their homework for thirty seconds or a couple of minutes and just figured out exactly what they were doing, they would have realized they would have realized that it's virtually impossible to do what they reported. So, it's just unfortunate that we've spent the whole week talking about Bob Dillner instead of talking about our win, and that's unfortunate for the Speed Channel that they are where they are in their journalism state of reporters."

If what Harvick is saying is correct regarding the way the tires are mounted, that seems to completely discredit Dillner's story.

The fact of the matter is that even if Dillner got some aspect of this story correct, he still made a major mistake by not contacting either Nascar or RCR for a comment. Because regardless of what his source was telling him, part of the story is also what Nascar and RCR are officially saying. That Nascar and RCR says that this incident never happened is an important part of the story, one that Dillner left out. The question in my mind is whether he neglected to contact Nascar and RCR because he was in a rush to get the story on the air and didn't want to take the time to get an official comment, or because he knew if he contacted Nascar and RCR, there were going to be denials and he'd have no story? A journalist absolutely must contact the involved parties for a comment, to not only ensure accuracy, but to give them a chance to respond.

Some are saying that Dillner's source is likely a higher-up in Nascar so there was no reason for him to contact anyone else because he could trust what that person was saying. First of all, no one other than Dillner, presumably his bosses at Speed, and the source himself, knows who the source actually was. So it could be anyone from a low-level employee with a team, to a Nascar official, to a fan with a garage pass who misheard something. Secondly, even if Dillner got his information from Brian France himself, it's essential that he fact-check and find secondary sources to support what the original source is saying. There's always the chance that no matter how much a souce seems to know, that they don't know the full story, got bad information, misunderstood something they were told or worst of all, and quite possibly likely in this case, had an agenda.

Many people believe that there's a Nascar/RCR cover-up. I have no doubt that there are times when those in the garage area don't tell the full story about things or spin things to suit their agenda. However, this situation is more complex than just a team trying to pretty up why a driver was released or Nascar trying to explain away why they penalized one team differently than another. Fact is, a cover-up would involve not only Nascar, their officials who were present during inspection, Richard Childress, all members of the #29 and #31 teams, Harvick and Burton, but also Claire B. Lang, since she was there during inspection, and likely any number of other people. Lang even had Harvick on her show on Monday and Robyn Pemberton on her show yesterday, both of whom talked about how Dillner's story was inaccurate. To say that there's a cover-up means that you're saying that a considerable amount of people are conspiring and lying. I have no doubt that there are many who do routinely try to mislead fans and the media about the truth, but this many people all at once? And a cover-up so big that it involves the governing body of the sport, a major organization, two drivers and XM? Unlikely.

For Dillner's sake, I hope he's been spending this week doing some investigative reporting and that his next report for Speed is going to be an in-depth examination of this story that features all the evidence that supports his allegations. Or that he's going to admit that his source gave him inaccurate information and apologize to RCR. At the moment his story seems to have holes in it large enough to drive a Mack Truck though and his silence, other than "I stand by my story," isn't doing any favors to his credibility. If it turns out that there isn't a single shred of evidence to support Dillner's allegations and he can't give a good explanation as to why he used his source's information without seemingly doing any other follow-up or fact-checking, then he's lucky he's working for Speed and not a hard news station, where he might find himself covering playground dedications and garden shows for the rest of his career instead of hard news.

Journalists are going to make mistakes. Dillner isn't the first, and he won't be the last journalist who's been given bad information. But when it happens there's usually some sort of retraction, follow-up, explanation, or apology. There's been none of that in this case. I think what bothers me most of all about all of this is that so many fans are willing to accept a reporter not doing their due dilligence to make sure that the report is accurate. To me it's essential that the news and information that media outlets report in and out of Nascar, is as accurate as possible.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:55 AM | Comments (0)

September 19, 2006

Jeff Burton's Pissed With Good Reason

Jeff Burton was none too happy when he heard that Bob Dillner reported on Speed that his car and that of his Richard Childress Racing teammate, Kevin Harvick, were found to have grey area rules violation during post-race inspection. That's because he knew the story was completely false. Burton said,

"It's pissed us off. It's made us mad. It's made us very mad. We've done nothing wrong. We have no trick that's made us run well. We've worked hard. We've worked smart. And someone in the media who chose to use unreliable sources has tainted that. And it pisses me off and it pisses my team off and I have little patience for it."

Poor journalism pisses me off too. When I read a newspaper, or listen to the news on TV or the radio, whether it's a hard news report or the sports report, I expect that what I hear has been checked for accuracy. Dillner did none of this, he simply relied on the word of an anonymous source, which is a very dangerous thing to do, because it's very easy to get burned by a source with an agenda. That's why many media outlets have strict rules regarding the use of anonymous sources and under what circumstances they can be used. Even with trusted sources, it's absolutely essential to get a second, and sometimes even a third or fourth source confirming some part of what the original source is saying, even in the smallest way, particularly when it comes to a major story. Some media outlets won't even use an anonymous source unless they can also find someone to go on record with some sort of statement regarding the source's claims. Dillner appears to have had none of this.

So far all Speed has said is that they stand by the story. Many people are interpreting that to mean that they have some sort of evidence to prove that there is some truth to the story and that this is a Nascar cover-up. However, neither Speed nor Dillner has thus far provided a single shred of evidence to support this story. Not one. Most reporters have some sort of research, interview notes, secondary sources or some sort of even vague proof on hand for situations exactly like this so they can't be accused of making things up. But so far Dillner and Speed have been unable to provide any of that, which says to me that no proof exists that this story is in any way true, other than what the source alleged.

Dillner can't be expected to say who his source was, but he's not even given the smallest of hints about who this person is, so there's no telling whether it was actually someone affiliated with a team or with Nascar, or someone with much less credibility such as a fan who misheard a conversation. There's also no way of knowing if this was a trusted source who had given him good information on multiple occasions in the past, or whether this was a new source who Dillner decided to take a risk on and trust because the story was so big. In addition, just because a source has passed on good information in the past, doesn't mean that they won't burn a reporter in the present or in the future. Even a good source might have an agenda or might have been feed incorrect information themselves. So again, it's absolutely essential that information from an anonymous source be checked, double-checked and triple-checked, when it comes to a major story.

But if not providing any proof isn't already a huge red flag that Speed has nothing concrete to back that this story has any shread of truth to it, the words of Chris Long, Speed's Executive Producer of Nascar Programming, are an even bigger red flag. He said,

"I'm backing Bob 110 percent, and we'll stick to the story he put out there. We have no reason to believe Bob would make up anything like that. I think NASCAR and RCR need to figure out where the story's coming from. It has nothing to do with us. We just report it."

No where does Long say that Dillner or others at Speed investigated this story to determine it's accuracy. In fact, he says "We just report it" which seems to indicate that all that they do is report what they hear, with no fact-checking and no consideration to whether it's true or not. That's shoddy and irresponsible journalism and completely unacceptable to me. I don't think this is the first time either. In August Dillner reported that Scott Wimmer was about to be announced as the driver of the #00 for Michael Waltrip Racing, something which apparently had no truth to it since Wimmer said a short time later that he had no ride for 2007. I seem to also remember Dillner reporting that M&Ms was going to leave Robert Yates Racing and go with Elliott Sadler to his new team, another item that had no truth to it. So it seems as if there's a pattern in which Dillner "just reports it" rather than actually verifies whether it's truth or fiction.

Speed has a responsibility to me and other viewers to report the news accurately. They have a further responsiblity to get the story right so they don't damage the reputations of those they cover on the basis of false information. To some this is probably no big deal, but I'm going to have a very hard time trusting what Dillner reports for quite some time to come, unless he, Speed or someone else can come up with some real proof that there is something to this story.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:33 PM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2006

Shoddy Reporting, Sabatoge or a Conspiracy?

Last night Bob Dillner reported on Speed that during post-race inspection Nascar discovered a problem with the Richard Childress Racing cars belonging to Kevin Harvick and Jeff Burton. The story went that the team had fooled around with the rims of the tires in such a way to release air pressure from the rim, something which might give them a competitive advantage. However, Dillner continued, there was nothing in the rule book to cover what the RCR teams did so they wouldn't have to face any penalties. Of course that was huge news because Harvick was the race winner and both he and Burton are in the Chase for the Championship. Naturally many people assumed that what RCR was "busted" for was why both cars had been finishing so well this season.

Only one problem. The story is completely false. Jim Hunter, Nascar's Vice President of Corporate Communications said,

"We’ve been checking valves and valve stems for about 4 months now. What it was, was one reporter trying to make something that wasn’t there. Then another reporter went on TV and reported it as fact, when it was actually totally untrue. It was one reporter’s unsubstantiated fantasy.”

Hunter also said that Dillner never asked anyone from Nascar for confirmation or for a comment before he reported it as fact on Speed. Even if Nascar is going to say "No comment," a reporter must check, and then double-check their sources. Maybe some think it's no big deal, but accuracy is essential when it comes to what's reported as news and fact.

Furthermore, Richard Childress said,

"Reports in the media, specifically on SPEED TV, that one or more of our NEXTEL Cup Series teams was found by NASCAR to be manipulating the rules yesterday at New Hampshire International Speedway are false and misleading. Our cars passed post-race inspection and officials at NASCAR assured us last night and again today that no one from RCR was told at any time not to bring a part back to the race track. The reported events and conversations did not happen. Our focus remains on two of our teams competing for the championship and the other finishing as high in the points as possible."

Which indicates to me that Dillner never asked anyone at RCR for a comment either. Absolutely inexcusable. I can understand that Dillner had a source that was telling him a potentially blockbuster piece of information. But with the amount of damage that could be done to the reputation of RCR, Harvick, Burton and even Dillner himself, it's essential that he be absolutely sure that his information is correct before he runs with it. Unfortunately, there's a lot of people who might only hear that there was a problem with the RCR cars, and never hear that Dillner reported false information, so they're going to have the impression that RCR did something wrong, when they didn't.

There's a lot of misinformation that circulates in this sport. Sometimes it's just that someone didn't know the full story, misheard, misunderstood or jumped to conclusions. But sometimes misinformation is deliberately spread because someone has an agenda. And that's what Harvick thinks happened, that a rival team deliberately spread a false rumor to try to distract them. According to Jayski's, he said on Sirius Satellite Radio,

"I absolutely think it was a plant from another team. NASCAR didn't say anything, so it's pretty obvious to me where it came from. It's an attempt to try and distract us from what we're doing, but they're going to have to do a lot better than that."

Which is a possiblity that Dillner should have considered before he went live with his story. He's been around racing and the garage area for long enough where he should have known that there might be some funny business afoot, and indeed there was.

Chris Long, Speed's Executive Producer for Nascar Programming said,

"Speed reporter Bob Dillner has a strong record of solid reporting from the NASCAR garage; so there is no rational reason for us to consider that the events and conversations he related to SPEED viewers are anything other than the truth."

What his statement doesn't include is how Speed is going to address this situation and prevent it from happening again. Nor does it indicate whether or not Dillner is going to be disciplined. Reporters simply must fact-check, and there must be guidelines in place for using information that comes from anonymous sources. If Speed wants to be taken seriously, viewers have to be able to trust what Dillner and their other reporters say. Given that this isn't the first time that Dillner's reported something that he's heard in the garage area that's turned out to not be true, I would be leery of trusting what Dillner reports in the future. I would guess others would be as well. So what is Speed going to do about that? How are they going to regain the confidence of their viewer when it comes to being able to trust what's said on-air?

Some are saying that this is a Nascar cover-up, that Dillner was reporting factual information and Nascar doesn't want it publically known that two Chase contenders were caught doing what some would view as cheating. I say, that kind of an accusation is as bad as accusing the RCR teams of wrong-doing. Where's the proof of that? There is none.

What's astonishing to me is that it's not like Dillner just started reporting for Speed. In fact, Dillner's not new to working in journalism period. He used to work for News 12 Long Island, a local cable news channel. I'm quite sure that there were journalistic standards that Dillner and his colleagues had to adhere to at News 12, so it's not like he can claim to be unfamiliar with the way things work in the journalism business in terms of ethics and standards when it comes to fact-checking and sources.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:15 PM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2006

Harold Reynolds Fired From ESPN

When news first broke yesterday that Harold Reynolds had been fired suddenly after 11-years at ESPN, most people were shocked. After all, Reynolds had become extremely popular and well-respected for his baseball opinions on "Baseball Tonight" and elsewhere. More than a few New York Yankee fans wondered if there was any connection between his termination and how vocally supportive he was of Alex Rodriguez, since many feel that ESPN is biased against the Yankees. However, I thought it was unlikely that he was fired for anything he said and that it was more likely that something had happened behind the scenes that led to ESPN having to let him go. Unfortunately it appears that's the case.

Reynolds confirmed in an interview with the New York Post that he was fired for being accused of sexual harassment. Reynolds claims that it was a hug to a co-worker that was misinterpreted, but there may be more to it than that. Deadspin.com among other sources are reporting that Reynolds might have had other complaints against him and that ESPN felt they had no choice but to fire him. I'm guessing that Reynolds won't be out of work for long considering how well-liked he is, but he will need to change his way of interacting with his co-workers because there aren't many workplaces these days where the slightest hint of anything that can be considered sexual harassment will be tolerated.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:23 PM | Comments (0)

June 14, 2006

Marty Smith to ESPN?

Speaking of rumors, Jayski's had the following item yesterday:

Smith to ESPN/ABC?: NASCAR.com's Marty Smith is rumored to be one of the commentators for ESPN's live race coverage when the cable network resumes live NASCAR broadcasts next year.(Ford Racing)(6-13-2006)

I happen to like Smith's work for Nascar.com. I think he's an excellent writer, who isn't afraid to give his opinions and he will sometimes tackle the tough subjects. However, as I've said before, my only issue with him is that he's close friends with Jimmie Johnson and friendly with other drivers including Dale Earnhardt, Jr. That raises questions in my mind about how objective he really is when he's writing stories that relate to the drivers he's friends with and whether any of them use their friendship with him to push an agenda in his columns. I would have the same concerns if he joined the ESPN broadcast staff. I think he would provide some excellent commentary - but is he really going to be able to give an unbiased opinion on Johnson, someone he does a weekly radio show with on XM?

Posted by silverdsl at 11:00 AM | Comments (0)

May 10, 2006

Anonymous Postings Get Reporter Fired

It's extremely important for journalists to try to be as objective as possible when they are reporting the news. Of course there are many examples of times when that doesn't happen but it's essential for reporters to do the best they can to appear unbiased. If they don't seem to be objective, it makes it very difficult for the audience to trust that what they are reporting hasn't been influenced by their personal beliefs. Kelly McBride, from The Poynter Institute, said

"If you express opinions that are critical of a public agency that you cover, and the public knows that you have expressed those opinions — not reported facts, but opinions — the members of the public have reason to doubt your ability to fairly cover that agency."

With that in mind, Justin Quinn was fired from the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal last month because he was found to be posting on the message board on his paper's website anonymously. The problem with that was that not only was he posting factual information about topics that he covered, but he was also giving opinions, including some that were critical of the paper itself! That boggles my mind. Use some sense! It's bad enough that he was giving personal opinions on topics that he covered which is a no-no, but he also publically made negative statements about his employer. That's always a bad idea.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)

April 24, 2006

Is It Okay for the Media to Use Comments From Forums or Message Boards Without Checking With the Author?

Ted Vaden of the The News & Observer ponders this question after some residents of a Raleigh neighborhood were taken aback when they found comments they had posted on a Yahoo Groups message board about a nightclub in the area they feel is a public nuisance were reprinted in the newspaper.

Many people seem to forget that when they post something on a message board it can be read by anyone, as well as copied and pasted to any number of other places. Even private, members-only or password protected forums or message boards often aren't very private. Controversial or juicy comments have a way of making the rounds. No one excepts that a comment they make on a forum might end up in the newspaper, but there's really nothing stopping a reporter from cherry-picking a few quotes to reflect people's opinions on a particular topic.

In general, I think that if a reporter chooses to use a quote from a message board that they should make an effort to get in touch with the author. Vaden makes an excellent point in that reporters need to check the identity of the person behind the user name that authors the post. That's just good journalism because a reporter needs to fact-check whether the person is who they say they are,as well as ensuring what they are saying is truthful if their statement is more than just an opinion. In addition, talking to someone might also reveal whether that person has any biases or conflicts of interest that might be influencing what they've said. But beyond that, I think that basic courtesy dictates that letting someone know that their quote is going to be taken off a message board and used in a newspaper article shouldn't be too much to ask.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:35 PM | Comments (0)

April 07, 2006

New York Post Reporter Probed by FBI For Extortion

It's bad enough when you hear stories about reporters who don't fact-check, don't use proper sourcing, make up quotes or other ethical no-no's. But the actions of New York Post reporter Jared Paul Stern if true just about take the cake. Stern is a freelance writer for the Post's "Page Six" gossip page and it's alleged that he tried to get billionare Ron Burkle, the managing partner of Yucaipa Companies who is a big-time Democratic fundraiser, to pay $220,000 to get protection from having false and damaging items written about him on "Page Six." Unfortunately for Stern it turned out that his meetings with Brukle were being taped by the FBI and he is now the subject of some rather unflattering media coverage himself.

Immediately I have to wonder if Stern had or was trying to extort money from others for favorable coverage in the Post. If so, that would call into question the legitamacy of everything that Stern has written in the past because anything he worked on might have been influenced by who might or might not have given him money. Of course some are saying that the Post has never been known for it's journalistic standards and "Page Six" was only a gossip page so what does it matter? But it does matter. There is a difference between a poorly written story and someone who extorts money from the subjects that he covers. If Stern did what he is accused of he did wrong not only criminally but very much ethically as well.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:09 PM | Comments (0)

April 06, 2006

Sony Tries to Discredit Film Critic

Roger Moore, the film critic from The Orlando Sentinel was invited to a screening of Sony's new movie The Benchwarmers, starring Rob Schnieder and David Spade. After he saw the movie he wrote a review of it and put it on the Knight Ridder Tribute wire service for affiliated newspapers to pick up and use in their papers. Sounds pretty innocent so far right? Well, not to Sony who had decided at the last minute to do what many other movie studios have done and not allow film critics to screen some movies in advance. But unfortunately for Sony a local representative working the screening didn't disinvite everyone she or he was supposed to including Moore. And as it turned out Moore panned the movie.

Sony's response instead of sucking it up and dealing with it or admitting their mistake for accidentally allowing Moore to see the movie when they had decided not let critics into the screening is to call newspapers that might run his review and try to discredit him by saying that he snuck into the movie screening using a disguise and that the review was unauthorized. I have bad news for Sony. Even if Moore's review was unauthorized, and I can't imagine how it was considering that he had an invitation to the screening, why would the newspapers pull the review? Media outlets have an obligation to run news and reviews even if it upsets the person, organization or entity that is being written about and even if they didn't want the story or review written.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:44 AM | Comments (0)

TV Stations Continue to Air Video Releases As News

Corporations and other entitites put together video news releases similar to standard press releases which they send to TV stations. What is disturbing is that instead of picking out clips to include in a larger report or using what they saw in the video release to create their own news story, some TV stations are simply putting the entire video release on the air and even worse framing them as news without mentioning that they came from the corporations that are featured. So essentially they are running a commerical for the product or company but disguising it as news. Apparently the TV stations take steps to make it seem as if it's a piece created by the station such as having on-air talent read a script (provided by the corporation of course) or they might add the station's logo to the video.

That's scary. Unless they are paying close attention many people might not realize that the "news" they are watching is little more than an ad.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:31 AM | Comments (0)

March 01, 2006

Ethical Problems for KTLA

KTLA's morning show broadcast from the Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa in Pasadena, California last week. Seems like a broadcast from a remote location just like any other that countless morning shows do every day right? Not this time. In this case three of the four anchors on the show were given free luxury rooms by the hotel to stay in the night before in exchange for the show being broadcast from the hotel. Although the producers of the show don't seem to understand why it's a problem this is a huge violation of journalistic ethics which dicate that reporters shouldn't take gifts in exchange for coverage. I don't know what the anchors on KTLA's show said about the hotel but their reviews of the hotel could very well have been influenced by having received the free rooms. That does a disservice to the viewers who think that they are hearing an unbiased review when that might not be the case.

What amazes me is that the producer of the show can't seem to grasp why this is a problem. Rich Goldner said,

"We're not trying to hide anything here, and the viewer knows that. We try to acknowledge whatever the service [provided] is, but the important thing to remember here is that we are always in control of the content."

They weren't trying to hide anything yet somehow they neglected to mention on-air that the rooms were free in exchange for the broadcast being done. They are in control of the content on their show but how are viewers supposed to know that they didn't make it more favorable because they got the free rooms? One also has to wonder if similar situations have happened before where the show has gotten free items in exchange for coverage?

Posted by silverdsl at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

February 28, 2006

Bode Miller Getting a Bad Rap?

Brian Montopoli writes in the CBSNews.com blog that Bode Miller is getting a bad rap from the media. Montopoli feels that Miller is paying the price for being real to the media and letting his true personality show. Personally I think Miller is getting slammed by the media because he stunk in the Olympics and he boasts about all the partying he does. Of course it's possible to party and have a good time yet still be serious about one's goals. But when Miller failed to be much of a factor in any of the events he was in and appears to spend all his free time in Torino partying, people are going to wonder if maybe he didn't party as much he might have skiied better. Some were probably wondering whether he was skiing drunk after some of his hapless performances as he admitted he's done in the past in an interview on 60 Minutes. Miller really stands in stark contrast to Apolo Anton Ohno who has said that he had virtually no social life for the past year in preparation for the Olympics. He actually medaled and even if he didn't I think the media would have been much kinder to Ohno because his approach was completely different. It's all about attitude and Miller doesn't seem to have a great one.

Even the chair of the U.S. Olympics committe wasn't thrilled with Miller. Jim Scherr said,

"If they're not taking the Games seriously, that's where we draw the line. In Bode's case, we thought he could get focused."

If Scherr is commenting on Miller's attitude and behavior then I'd say it's not just a media creation as to why he's being criticized so harshly.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:22 PM | Comments (0)

February 26, 2006

Shane Hmiel Meth User... Maybe

One of my pet peeves which I've discussed more than once in this space is when journalists report things without proper sourcing, fact-checking, or follow-up. This is particularly a problem it appears for some internet based journalists who seem to think that the standards are somehow different for them then they are for print or broadcast journalists. I've always thought that motorsport.com, a website that covers all motorsports, was a professional news site that strived to bring their audience news that they could rely on for accuracy. Until now. On Friday motorsports.com published an article by Linda Przygodski about Shane Hmiel being banned for life by Nascar which reported garage rumors that Hmiel has a crystal meth habit which is what led to his positive drug tests. Przygodski wrote,

Hmiel has long been rumored by garage insiders to have a 'crystal meth' habit - the most powerful form of illegal speed. It is known to cause depression, anxiety, delusions and psychosis with long term use.

Crystal Meth is a very pure, smokeable form of methamphetamine. It is an extremely addictive stimulant and causes excessive anger in its users. It was some of Hmiel's sketchy behavior and outbursts on the race track that raised red flags for people in the NASCAR garage.

After an incident on track last year at Bristol with Dale Jarrett, Hmiel gave a TV interview where he was slurring his speech, stepping on his words and highly erratic.

While Przygodski mentions that Hmiel having a meth problem is only garage rumor she mentions one of the symptoms of meth use, as well as behavior by Hmiel that might match up with a meth user's. It seems to me that Przygodski is offering that up as evidence that particular garage rumor is true. Many readers are going to assume that because Przygodski wrote about it, then it must be a done deal that Hmiel uses meth but unsustantiated rumors and Hmiel's behavior really don't consitute definitive proof that Hmiel is a meth user. Some will say, so what? But I believe that when it comes to making serious accusations, and accusing someone of having a meth habit is a serious accusation, that there needs to be more proof than some unsubstantiated garage rumors and that Hmiel's behavior might have matched up to that of a meth user.

Nascar has never publically released what substances that Hmiel tested positive for any of the three times he failed drug tests. Hmiel has never said what he tested positive for, nor has anyone else close to him. While there have been other rumors that it was pot or a legal drug that's on Nascar's banned list, unless there are people in the garage area who have direct knowledge of Hmiel as a meth user, then no one actually knows what he specifically tested positive for. It's possible that Hmiel's test results were leaked to some in the garage area, just like when Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for steroids, the specific steroid that he tested positive for was leaked to the media. But whether Przygodski has "good" information about what Hmiel tested positive for or whether she's simply heard a lot of rumors I think she has a responsiblity to ask some questions of those who might be in a position to confirm or deny that information whether it's from those at Nascar, Hmiel's representatives, his father or Hmiel himself if he can be reached. Because reporting a rumor about a serious issue that could ruin someone's already severely damanged reputation does Hmiel an injustice.

I also question making assumptions about what kind of drug Hmiel tested positive for on the basis of his outbursts and other behavior. Tony Stewart has been known to have angry outbursts - does he also have a meth problem? Of course not. But Hmiel's positive drug tests mean it's open season to speculate about what he might have tested positive for even though there's really no way to know for sure unless someone saw Hmiel using or has knowledge of the test results. There are quite a few legal and illegal drugs that can be abused that could cause erratic behavior, either while the user is high or as they're withdrawing.

I'm not surprised that many fans are assuming that because Przygodski reported it that it must be fact that Hmiel is a meth user. After all, if someone puts it in an article and posts it on the internet, it must be true right? Too bad that's often not the case - some sites, and apparently motorsports.com is one of them, allows their writers to publish articles without apparently doing the necessary sourcing and investigative work to ensure that what they are reporting has any truth to it.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:33 PM | Comments (0)

February 23, 2006

Tony Stewart: Not Just an Innocent Victim

Tiffany Myers writing for racingjunky.com says that she was at the Daytona 500 and that she saw a vastly different version of events than what NBC choose to show fans in relation to the actions of Tony Stewart on Sunday. According to Myers, Stewart is an innocent victim - that he was a target of his fellow drivers, that NBC and others in the media are out to get him and that fans have villianized him on the basis of "yellow" journalism. Nonsense. Tony Stewart is getting flack from the fans because he engaged in a style of racing on Sunday that he condemned other drivers for just days earlier.

Myers starts off by asking her readers whether they are aware that they might not have all the evidence when it comes to evaluating Stewart's behavior. But in the very next paragraph she decides that she's going to pick and choose which evidence she herself uses in her column. Myers says,

I am not here to argue whether or not Tony intentionally wrecked Matt. I’m also not here to argue whether or not such an action, if indeed intentional, was justifiable. However, what I am here for is to tell you all the events that conspired to form the breaking point witnessed during this incident.

Whether Tony intentionally did or didn't wreck Matt Kenseth is at the heart of why fans are so upset and why the media is giving this so much attention. How can one successfully talk about all the events that occured which led to fans developing an incorrect perception of Stewart but not touch upon Stewart's actions and why some might have had a problem with what he did? In addition, in spite of saying that she's not going to defend whether Stewart was justified in what he did, that's exactly what she does for the next several paragraphs!

Myers spends a lot of time describing what she saw during the race as compared to what fans saw on TV. How Stewart was "pounded and hounded from all sides." She says,

Stewart was shown little respect and instead given a whole lot of garbage to put up with every lap. His patience lasted for an admirable length of time (I’d have lost it long ago). He raced around and simply sucked up everything his fellow racers were giving him.

Hello, this is a plate race - the drivers bounce off each other all the time. Has she ever heard of bump-drafting? The drivers make contact with each other during these races on a regular basis, both intentionally and not, but part of the way they move forward is by getting a "shove" from another car. What Myers neglects to mention is whether the level of "garbage" that Stewart had to put up with was more or less than what every other driver had to deal with. The way she makes it sound is that Stewart was just minding his own business and every driver on the track went after him. Please. Stewart is the reigning champion and many considering him the man to beat on Sunday. Few drivers out there were going to pull over and let him go by easily. Another thing which Myers fails to note is how Stewart was racing them - was he going all out, also racing his fellow drivers aggressively? His style is often to race aggressively so why would he expect others to race him any differently? But above all I can't figure how Myers thinks that describing the "garbage" that led up to Stewart reaching his "breaking point" doesn't fall into the category of justifying his actions.

What's really incredible is that as she's ranting about how terrible her fellow journalists are, Myers, a journalism major, says,

A journalist’s golden rule is to serve as a watchdog of government and to bring people the truth in a fair and balanced way with an objective point of view. If sides must be presented, then the journalist must present all sides, not just the one they want to support.

Which is very ironic considering Myers seems to have decided that she's only gong to present one side her column - Tony's side. Then there's this comment:

I know Tony and those around him well enough to know that he is heartily sincere when he expresses concern over driver safety.

It's laughable for Myers to lecture anyone about objectivity when she apparently knows Stewart and those around him which means that every word of her column might very well be biased. It's also laughable that Myers talks about presenting all sides and then won't discuss the very subject which is of the most relevance to the entire issue - whether or not Tony intentionally got into Kenseth, as he appeared to admit to doing in a post-race interview, which is what fans are so upset about.

The vast majority of fans recognize that Kenseth wasn't innocent in this incident either. When drivers battle each other for position they often fight hard to hold onto their spot, as they should. That sometimes means that things don't turn out well. That I have no problem with because it's just part of racing. In addition, while I don't like retaliatoin and drivers deliberately wrecking each other, I understand that it's a part of the sport. Racing is an emotional sport and sometimes the drivers feel that it's necessary to send a message to a fellow competitor. What my issue is, and that of the majority of other fans who have lost respect for Stewart after this incident, is that Stewart, whether he was giving back as good as he was getting or not, drove in such a way on Sunday that puts him in direct conflict with his harsh statements on Thursday.

If you wreck another driver, which Stewart did to Kenseth, and there is intent behind it, as there appears to be with Stewart, even though he claimed afterwards he didn't mean what he said, then he is driving aggressively. The reasons for why he was driving aggressively are really irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Stewart said that aggressive driving was dangerous and then just three days later did exactly what he was so concerned would led to the loss of life. The media isn't making this up. Stewart brought this on himself but his own words and actions.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2006

Tino Martinez: "I Won't Criticize"

When I heard that Tino Martinez was up for a gig as a baseball analyst for ESPN my first thought was whether he was going to be willing to speak his mind openly, particularly about players that he played with or against recently. Tino is by all accounts a great person, but at least when the media was around when he was an active player he tended to be fairly reserved and didn't offer up a lot of opinions. So I wondered how that was going to translate on ESPN when there are times when they don't pull punches when it comes to talking about players. Apparently I'm not the only one who wondered the same. Neil Best, who covers sports broadcasting for Newsday asked Tino about his approach.

"I obviously know the game of baseball and can analyze games and the talent of players and stuff," he said. "But I'm not going to criticize players, because I know how tough it is ... Obviously, I'm not going to destroy a guy who's not playing well. I know what it's like."

So what is Tino saying? Is he never going to say anything negative about any of the players? Because if that's the case I don't think he was a good choice by ESPN to join their staff as a baseball analyst. Yes, playing baseball is difficult. Yes, I think there are some in the media who are too harsh and go too far in their criticism. But at the same time the reality is that players are going to slump, are going to make errors and in some cases misbehave on and off the field. Saying that the game of baseball is hard to excuse all of those things isn't going to make for a very interesting analysis. There are ways to point out flaws that a player has without being overly critical. It's a matter of choosing one's words carefully. Tino has always seemed to do that when he's given interviews in the past but there's such things as being too careful. The reality is that life isn't always flowers and rainbows and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out and discussing how the players might improve, especially since as a former player, Tino would know what he's talking about.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:54 PM | Comments (0)

Just Because You Can Do Something Doesn't Mean You Should Do It

I say some variation of the above statement all the time. Just because you can say something doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Or just because you can post something on the internet and it would be hard for anyone to stop you doesn't mean that you should. In this case it's just because you are the editor of a newspaper and you can publish something doesn't mean that you should... or at least not without careful thought when it comes to a controversial topic. The New Times, a news and entertainment weekly, in San Luis Obisop County, California, decided to do a story on the increasing use of methamphetamines. Most newspapers would talk about the dangers of meth and the problems associated with those who make, sell and use meth. Not the New Times. In what can only be described as a stunning lack of good judgment and common sense, the article in the New Times actually seemed to endorse the use of Meth! Entitled "Meth Made Easy," the article featured a casual interview with a meth user that made it seem as if a meth habit is completely manageable as long as one doesn't let it get out of control and a list of "what to expect from your homemade meth" that actually seemed to imply that there are positives to using meth.

Naturally readers were outraged given that meth use is a huge problem in many communities. Even worse for the New Times was that advertisers were up in arms as well with some of them electing to stop running ads in the paper. Jim Mullen, the editor of the paper, apologized the following week claiming that they wanted to do an article that showed the dangers of meth use but had to take that tone because younger raaders would be turned off by an article that was mostly lecture. Well, there are ways of getting the point across without "sermonizing" as Mullen says he was trying to avoid. For instance, an article about someone who has had their life destroyed by meth, and there are plenty of people like that out there, could show the dangers of meth use. There's no question that Mullen should have used better judgement and he's paying for it now - though it's being said that he "resigned" I would guess that the paper gave him no choice.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:38 AM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2006

On the Cheney Shooting Incident

I usually avoid talking about anything remotely political in this space but I find the Dick Cheney shooting incident to be pretty troubling. It's not the incident itself that bothers me - accidents happen and that's exactly what this was. Perhaps a preventable accident if those involved were being more careful but an accident all the same. What troubles me is that the flow of information regarding this incident has not been what it should be. There is no excuse for the incident happening on Saturday and it not becoming known until the following day and only because the owner of the ranch, Katharine Armstrong, spoke to a local newspaper. That might be acceptable for a routine hunting accident but not one that involves the Vice President of the United States. I also find it disturbing that initial reports seemed to downplay Harry Whittington's injuries as no big deal when in fact they led to him suffering a minor heart attack and being kept in the hospital through today. Through it all the White House and Cheney himself, have seemed unwilling to provide much information about the incident, though Cheney did give one interview to the Fox News Channel. I believe that the free flow of information, even when it's in relation to negative news, is essential. I understand spinning the news but I do not care for withholding the news - and make no mistake, as much as the White House wishes that it wasn't this is news.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:18 PM | Comments (0)

February 02, 2006

Reporter Fired For Postings On MySpace Blog

Matt Donegan had a job as a reporter and photographer for the Dover Post until his editor, Don Flood, came across some of the material on his blog on MySpace.com, which included a potentially offensive remark about Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and comments about the Post's newsroom. Flood said,

"I can't have somebody discussing comments in the office about some of the stories we're going to cover, and reasons we may or may not cover them."

I am astonished that Donegan thought that it was appropriate to discuss his job in such detail on his blog. Other than a few references here or there I try to say as little as possible about anything that relates to my job. Not only do I not want to accidentally get myself in trouble to me it doesn't seem right to discuss what happens at work publically. Of course I don't talk extensively about other aspects of my personal life anyway but work especially seems like something that should be off-limits for bloggers lest they accidentally offend someone or talk about something that is better left confidential.

Of course Donegan isn't the only person to get fired for what he wrote in his blog. Some feel that this trend could led to self-censoring but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Yes, people shouldn't be afraid to talk openly about their thoughts and opinions but they need to find the right venue to do so and a blog might not be the right place for everything. There are some things that I know I need to keep to myself and just discuss with my friends, family and husband. I also try to be remember that anyone might read what I write at any time. In addition, I try to be respectful of others and while I don't hesitate to say what I think strongly, I try to avoid name-calling or anything that might fall into bashing or personal insults.

But a lot of people seem to think that having a blog, website or being on a message board means that anything goes. Not so. Just because you can say something doesn't mean that you should say something.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:34 PM | Comments (0)

January 31, 2006

Deadspin.com

Will Leitch and Rick Chandler run a sports blog called Deadspin.com which is getting quite a bit of traffic and attention, despite only being in existance since September. Deadspin is every team, player, agent and PR person's nightmare because as a blog the standards for which kinds of stories they post are a lot less strict than say The New York Times. That doesn't mean Deadspin posts every random tip he gets from any old source. As a former reporter covering the St. Louis Cardinals for the St. Louis Post Dispatch Leitch was in a position to develop contacts within the sports industry and Chandler is a journalist as well. Apparently they have developed good sources through their previous work as not only do some of the tips for stories come from fans but also from officials from the various leagues and teams.

The blog is heavy on football and basketball stories, both professional and collegiate. But there's also been plenty of baseball items and I expect more once the season starts. One kind of item that Deadspin loves is photos of players partying, particularly when they're partying with attractive females. So players who might be up to no good should be even more careful about letting their photo be taken because it might just end up being seen by quite a few people. I guess some will say that Deadspin is too rumor or gossip oriented but I think they're trying to have some fun with the items they report on and they certainly cover plenty of more serious or non-gossipy stories as well. In fact, the The New York Times article indicates that sports journalists read the blog for the occasional tip on a breaking news story. I'm interested to see where Deadspin goes and how much of an influence they might have on mainstream media and on the subjects they cover.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:02 PM | Comments (0)

January 20, 2006

Journalist Paid to Write Positive Articles About Health Exec On Trial

Increasingly it's harder and harder to trust what appears in newspapers and magazines. First, there's the problem of whether's properly sourced and factually accurate. Then there's the problem of whether the reporter is writing from an unbiased viewpoint or whether they have some sort of agenda. Or as in the case of Audry Lewis, who wrote sympathetic stories about former HealthSouth Corp. CEO Richard Scrushy during his fraud trial for the Birmingham Times, there's the possibility that a public relations firm paid money to guarantee positive coverage. Lewis claims that Scrushy paid her $11,000 through The Lewis Group, no relation, to ensure that she wrote pro-Scrushy articles. Lewis says,

"I sat in that courtroom for six months, and I did everything possible to advocate for his cause."

A very sad commentary on the lack of ethics by some journalists. Her job as a journalist isn't to be an advocate for Scrushy or anyone else. Presumably it was to report on the facts of the case or provide an unbiased commentary. Instead she took a considerable amount of money that influenced what she wrote. Why is she coming forward now? Because she claims that Scrushy owes her more money.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:34 AM | Comments (0)

January 14, 2006

Klapisch: I Won't Vote For McGwire For Hall of Fame

In March of last year Mark McGwire testified in front of Congress about the use of performance enhancers in baseball. Or more accurately he declined to say much of anything about his own use of steroids and instead invoked his fifth amendement right to avoid self-incrimination. Naturally everyone assumed that meant that McGwire had used steroids as an active player and didn't want to either put himself in a position where he would have to lie to congress or open himself up to somehow facing charges related to his steroid use. While his non-testimony was extremely suspicious, there has never been any concrete evidence that conclusively shows that McGwire used illegal performance enhancers. He's previously denied that he used steroids, there is no leaked grand jury testimony like there is for Jason Giambi and there is no positive drug test. Yet that's not going to stop some from treating McGwire like he's been found guilty of steroid use anyway.

A matter of hot debate is whether players who are steroids users should be voted in to the Hall of Fame. I think it opens up a giant can of worms because a variety of players in the Hall of Fame have skeletons in their closets, some of which effected how they played baseball. But back to McGwire, Bob Klapisch of The Record says that he won't vote for McGwire for the Hall of Fame until he comes clean about whether or not he used steroids. Actually, based on the tone of Klapisch's column I think he won't vote for him either way because Klapisch talks about McGwire as if he believes conclusively that McGwire used steroids despite the lack of actual evidence that says that he did.

Klapisch says,

Given McGwire's sorry performance before Congress last March, where he had the audacity to dodge questions about his tainted records, he'll probably hold onto his lies forever. In that case, McGwire will have to campaign elsewhere for his votes.

If Klapisch is so sure that McGwire is a liar with tainted records then no matter what McGwire says Klapisch is unlikely to believe him, even if he says that he never used steroids. Yet Klapisch really has no idea why McGwire opted to take the fifth back in March in front of Congress. Is it likely that McGwire used steriods and other performance enhancers? Yes, I think that it is but it is still possible that he didn't. I think that the standard of proof to accuse a player definitively of use needs to be greater than what is known in McGwire's case thus far.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:00 PM | Comments (0)

January 06, 2006

Questions Still Linger on Media's Actions in Mine Tragedy

Editor and Publisher has a fascinating article which gives more details on some of the timelines in regards to how the inaccurate news spread that 12 miners had survived the mine explosion in West Virginia when in fact only one actually had. It appears that at no one time was there any official word from anyone from the mine company that confirmed that 12 had survived, instead everyone from the governor to the media relied on what some mysterious person told the families. It also appears that at some point reporters at the scene should have started asking some questions when no more than one survivor was actually brought out of the mine after the initial news as well as when no one from the mine company confirmed that there were 12 survivors. Of course thus far no reporters who were on the scene seem willing to talk to E&P to offer an explanation of the chain of events. But it will be interesting to see as time goes on if E&P or another media outlet is able to determine who actually told the family that incorrect information and how it spread so far, so fast without anyone putting the brakes on.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:42 PM | Comments (0)

January 05, 2006

Tragedy Compounded

The story was horrible enough - thirteen miners trapped in a coal mine in West Virginia after an explosion with high levels of carbon dioxide, meaning that their survival was unlikely. But that tragedy was made even more horrific by a grave error which led to the families of the trapped miners believing that twelve of the thirteen had been found alive, when in fact only one man had survived. The media, breaking one of the biggest rules of good journalism which is to ask questions and get confirmation from official sources, ran with reports from jubilent family members, only to have to retract the story three hours later when the truth was revealed. Some newspapers literally had to "Stop the Presses!" at 3 a.m. in an effort to ensure that the correct story was in their paper.

How did this happen is going to be a question that is going to be asked for a long time to come. First, there's the question of how the erroneous information that the miners were alive was leaked to the families. I can't even imagine the heart-break, distress and anger that those families had to feel to think that their fathers, sons, brothers and husbands had miraculously survived only to learn that was far from the truth in almost every case. There's going to be a lot of finger pointing because it appears as if quite a few people assumed that this information was true, maybe because of how much everyone wanted it to be true. Maybe everyone assumed that someone else had gotten official word from someone else but it appears that at no time did the mining company make any kind of official statement that the twelve miners were actually alive.

Greg Mitchell from Editor and Publisher blasted the media's coverage as "disturbing" but I think the media at the scene were put in a position where it was difficult not to go with the story that the miners were found alive. There were church bells ringing in jubilation and family members celebrating. Furthermore, the governor and at least one other elected official were also talking happily about the miners having survived. To some members of the media the governor probably consituted an official source because they likely assumed that he had gotten word about the miners directly from the mining company officials. That was an incorrect assumption and if there's one mistake that the media made it was to not be more cautious in the tone of their stories while they attempted to get a more definitive official confirmation, which any of them would have known was necessary if they had asked the governor where he heard the news from. So instead of cautiously reporting that the miners might have survived and doing some further checking to be sure they reported the story as if they had confirmation that it was true, when they didn't.

The media at the scene are also in a difficult position because when they know that their colleagues are running with a story it's hard not to follow suit. No one wants to fall behind on a major breaking news story because viewers or readers will turn to the competition to get the most timely information. However, there was one newspaper with a reporter on the scene who held off on reporting that the miners had survived because they are familiar with the area and were skeptical that the news was true. Of course that decision was much easier for the Inter-Mountain News from Elkins, West Virginia because they have an afternoon deadline, as opposed to an early morning deadline like many newspapers. Both Linda Skidmore, the newsroom editor and Becky Wagoner, the reporter on the scene, say that they were skeptical to begin with because there was no official announcement such as a press conference or other official briefing by either mine officials or the governor. But also they have covered stories in the area in the past and according to Skidmore,

The editor noted that part of her skepticism about the miracle rescue stemmed from a history in the area of people passing on information they believe to be true with little or no sourcing. "We get a lot of people here who sometimes believe they have an inside story because they hear it on a police scanner or listen to a conversation," Skidmore said. "We know to be cautious of those situations."

Which is why being a local publication can often be an asset. Aside from potentially having access to local sources that media from outside the area wouldn't, they are also familiar with the mindset of the people who they are covering. I don't think that people jumping to assumptions on the basis of scanty information and shaky sources is unique to that area by any means - it's certainly widespread on the internet. But apparently they knew that a lot of news, some of it false, passes by word-of-mouth in the area like a game of telephone. And often at the end of a game of telephone what you end up isn't what you started with.

I can understand why someone would be overwhelmed with excitement at the prospect that the miners survived but considering the consequences of a mistake like that, consequences that are being dealt with now, it was imperitive that the person who first spread the word keep it to themselves until someone in authority stepped forward to make an official announcement. That didn't happen and the awfulness of this story was made even worse. What I think was also problematic is that at some point mine officials became aware that the families were celebrating when in fact they only knew that one miner was alive. Mine officials say that they were holding out hope that the other miners were also alive or could be revived, then that they needed to confirm which miners were among those that didn't survive. But it seems to me that they could have made some sort of statement that clarified that the status of the miners was still uncertain so that people didn't get their hopes up, only to have them dashed.

Just an awful story all around which highlights the dangers of mining particularly in a mine with hundreds of safety violations since 1999 that had been closed eighteen times last year due to safety problems by the federal agency in charge of mine oversight, the Mine, Safety and Health Administration. Only time will tell what the actual cause of the explosion was but the volume of safety violations at the mine, including some that relate to a lack of proper ventilation which is one thing that can led to an explosion, indicates that this mine might have been an accident waiting to happen.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:36 AM | Comments (0)

January 03, 2006

Empowering the Audience

The internet has changed the way people get, analyze and react to the news that media outlets provide. No longer does the audience have to be passive and rely on only their local newspaper or nightly news to find out what's happening locally, nationally or internationally. Instead they can take matters into their own hands. Via links on Yahoo or a quick search on Google, countless sources of information on any subject or event are easily available. Not just from official sources or from the media either. There are hundred of blogs on every topic imaginable, plus fan sites and personal websites on which people post all sorts of opinions and information on everything that interests them. And they aren't going away either. So it's essential for companies and individuals to learn how to use those resources themselves, how to work with bloggers and individuals and how to use those resources to benefit themselves.

These days when a company or individual takes exception to the coverage they receive in the media they might state their case in a blog or on their website. When someone is misquoted or they think that a reporter took their quotes out of context they can correct the record. Or if they don't agree with an opinion piece they can respond. And sometimes it's in a way that reaches more of an audience than the original piece, both because the audience is more aggressive now than ever before about finding information and news on particular topics but also because the power of blogs and personal websites is that the information they contain is often more lasting due to search engines and archives. As The New York Times article says:

But the power of blogs is exponential; blog posts can be linked and replicated instantly across the Web, creating a snowball effect that often breaks through to the mainstream media. Moreover, blogs have a longer shelf life than most traditional news media articles. A newspaper reporter's original article is likely to disappear from the free Web site after a few days and become inaccessible unless purchased from the newspaper's archives, while the blogger's version of events remains available forever.

Which is certainly one thing that I've found with my blog. Entries from months ago sometimes get read because someone does a search on a particular topic and comes across an entry I might have made.

It's also incredible what a simple Google search can uncover. I've found quite a bit of information on all sorts of things, including some things which I'm quite sure that some would rather I not see. Most of the time I keep sensitive information to myself but not every blogger is like me. Some take it upon themeselves to act as investigative reporters and seek out as much information, particularly exclusive information or breaking news as they can. So not only do they search for information on the internet but they develop their own sources. Unfortunately not all of them suscribe to ethical journalistic practices either because they feel that as bloggers as opposed to newspaper reporters that code of ethics doesn't have to apply to them. That's a problem because it can lead to unreliable information being posted without collaboration or completely inaccurate and unfactual information being posted. I'm not perfect but I do make every effort that I can to be as accurate as possible and correct the record when need be.

There are a lot of bloggers and those that run individual websites that are also like me and while we believe strongly in sharing our opinions openly and honestly, we also feel that it's important to be as accurate as possible. Some even have more resources than I do through industry connections to have insider knowledge to make their blogs as much of a source for accurate information as any media outlet. So there are a significant amount of blogs out there on all sorts of topics that are worth-while sources of information and opinions. I don't break news, I only offer commentary on topics that interest me but as I've continued to do this blog, even though I do it primarily for myself, I've been surprised at how many people end up on my site looking for real news on certain topics. I think that's true for a lot of blogs and it's a reality that PR professionals need to take advantage of whether they like it or not.

Increasingly I think it's in the best interest of PR professionals and others in various industries to reach out to bloggers just like they would any other media professional. And if they choose not to go that route for some companies having a blog or their ownl or at the very least some area of their website where they can post transcripts of interviews, press releases, statements from those in the company and in general as much information as possible on the company or individual and what they are involved with as possible. It only benefits that company or individual. When the audience can go to the official website as a source of information the company or individual can control the message that the audience is exposed to. Otherwise they will go elsewhere for information and there's no telling what the message might be at those other sites. But if companies or individuals have good relationships with bloggers and websites that cover their industry then again, it's another way to control the message because those people might be inclined to work with PR professionals to feature the information they provide in a positive way, which again could stick around a lot longer than a piece in a newspaper. Bloggers and the internet in general aren't the enemy and those who think that they are might be missing out on a key resource to publicize their message.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:33 PM | Comments (0)

December 19, 2005

New Reality Show to Be Competition for Job at "Rolling Stone"

A week or so ago I was discussing what kinds of reality shows I might want to see in the future and lo-and-behold, MTV has one planned that has some similarities to one show that I had hoped to see. Apparently a future reality show on the network will feature a group of journalism students who are given internships at Rolling Stone. At the end of the show one intern will be selected for a full-time position as a writer for the magazine. I had said that I would be interested in a reality show that focused on the newsroom of a media outlet and while this isn't quite the same it should give a peek into how a major magazine chooses and covers stories.

Unfortunately, when a reality show is aligned with MTV there's the risk that it will disintergrate into nothing more than a constant stream of hook-ups, drunken escapades and fights - all in the name of capturing reality of course. But Jan Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone says that this show is meant to be different. They don't want all the interns living together in a place with a hot tub as is common on MTV reality shows like The Real World. Instead they want to focus on the interns as they stive towards developing their careers. It remains to be seen if they will be successful in making the show different from the standard fare on MTV but it might be interesting to watch.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:04 PM | Comments (0)

December 09, 2005

Reality Shows I'd Like to See

Of course many reality shows don't actually fully reflect reality but they can still sometimes be interesting if they're done well and here's a few I'd like to see...

*A show which follows the process by which a driver finds a new ride. ESPN did a baseball version of this a few years ago in which they followed Manny Ramirez's agent while he was negotiating a new mega-deal for his client. It was fascinating and I'd love to see how the process goes in racing. For example, do drivers have agents who take as active a role as the agents do in baseball? Or do the drivers negotiate a lot of their deals themselves, then run it by a business manager or lawyer?

*A show which follows a few of the Yankees, similar to Nascar Drivers: 360 so that fans get a peek into not only what happens on the field but also in the clubhouse and away from the stadium. What do the players do in the time after they arrive at the stadium but before the game? How do they prepare for a game other than take batting practice? What happens after a game? What do the players do in their downtime?

*Behind the scenes in a news room, either TV or print. I had thought that there were plans in the works a couple of years ago for a show like this that focused on the news room of a newspaper but I don't remember the show ever airing anywhere. It might be interesting to follow the process by which reporters cover stories, especially major news stories. The problem is that there aren't always major news stories so a lot of what happens might not be that exciting.

*Instead of always focusing on the drivers, an episode of 360 that focuses on Nascar officals and/or the powers-that-be in Nascar during a race to depict what they do. Fans think that Nascar does a lousy job of running things but it might be interesting to see if that perception might change if they saw a show from their point-of-view.

*A show focusing on an awards show like the Grammys or Emmys. How the show gets put together and what happens behind-the-scenes that viewers never see.

*A show depicting a young driver' s struggles to get noticed and make it into Nascar. Maybe a Winston West or modifieds driver?

*On a similar theme, a show following a minor league baseball team.

Posted by silverdsl at 05:18 PM | Comments (0)

December 07, 2005

Nascar Announces New Eight-Year TV Deal

As if this was a surprise to anyone. Today Nascar made it official that beginning in 2007 Truck, Busch and Cup races will be broadcast on four different networks - FOX, TNT, Speed and ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. The details are rather complicated but essentially what it means for fans is that they will have to check their TV guide very carefully to find out what channel to find practices and races on because it may change frequently.

There are a few interesting components of this deal. One is that FOX will broadcast two truck races beginning in 2007 whereas now they are presently all carried by Speed. FOX has likely noticed the added interest in recent years in the truck series, as well as the excellent racing, and wants to take advantage of that. I think that's major for the truck series because it will increase their visibility and possibly their ratings for those races. Speed isn't carried by every cable company so those races might be seen by people who normally wouldn't be able to tune in. Although many know of the outstanding racing in the truck series, often that series doesn't get as much coverage as the Busch and Cup series does so I hope this is the first step in getting the truck series the attention they deserve. I wonder if there are any provisions for FOX to broadcast more of the truck races down the road if it turns out that the ratings for the two that they broadcast initially are strong?

If the Truck Series gains visibility the Busch Series loses it. All of the Busch races will be broadcast on either ABC, ESPN or ESPN2. However, they aren't obligated to show more than four Busch races on ABC which means that the majority of those races might shift to cable. Most cable companies carry ESPN and ESPN2 but I think they will lose some visibility if most of those races can only be seen on cable since not every household has cable. That's bad news for the Busch series which increasingly seems to have problems with it's full-time teams in terms of sponsorship and success. It's very difficult for the teams that aren't aligned with Cup teams and it may make it harder if sponsors think they will get less visibility if the majority of the races are on cable.

ESPN has already started to increase their coverage of Nascar and they will add even more programming and coverage moving forward. It will be very interesting to see where that goes since ESPN traditionally does not pull punches when it comes to covering stories. Of course this is something that Nascar frowns on and when they took issue with ESPN's coverage in the past they found a way to prevent them from reporting from inside the tracks. That dispute led to ESPN drastically reducing their coverage of Nascar, which was likely costly to the sport since ESPN is the source for news for many sports fans and when Nascar news isn't being reported it's not getting to a huge segment of sports fans. So my question is whether ESPN will do investigative-style reporting as they do on all other sports, including other major sports like MLB and NFL that they have deals with to broadcast games with or will they make Nascar happy because they are entering into a partnership with them and stay away from hard news? I suspect that Nascar might not be completely thrilled with everything that results from the increased coverage of the sport by ESPN but in my opinion there is a dire need for more in-depth and hard news coverage of Nascar.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:35 PM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2005

United States Pays To Plant Articles in Iraqi Newspapers

I try to shy far, far away from anything remotely political in this space but I find the government's practice of paying a public relations firm, The Lincoln Group, millions of dollars to write propoganda articles and opinion pieces which are planted in Iraqi newspapers without anyone knowing that they are from the U.S. government plus paying Iraqi journalists who are friendly to their cause a monthly stipend to be appalling. Journalists should never be paid by the subjects they cover or to write favorable stories. Nor should propoganda articles be run as news. I guess to some the ends justifies the means but why is acceptable to do things in Iraq in relation to the media that would be highly frowned upon in this country?

Of course it also gives public relations a bad name because it makes people think that in this country perhaps PR people are paying or bribing reporters to get stories run or written in a certain way. That is not the way that the vast majority of PR people or reporters operate because it's ethically wrong. I can remember in my former job in public relations we worked with a reporter who wouldn't even let us buy him a sandwich for lunch because he felt that it would be wrong. That's a sandwich and here the government is having a PR firm hand out hundreds of dollars a month to some journalist in Iraq.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:02 PM | Comments (0)

November 23, 2005

The Truth: Ryan Newman DID Stand

On Monday it was reported that Ryan Newman refused to stand in tribute to his teammate Rusty Wallace when he stepped to the microphone during the driver's meeting on Sunday. Apparently that was a completely false report. According to Claire B. Lang on "Dialed In" on XM this afternoon, who talked to Newman directly, Ryan did in fact stand when everyone else did. However, Newman didn't stand as long as everyone else did so it's possible that by the time the reporter looked over at Newman he had already sat down so an incorrect assumption was made that Newman had never stood, when in fact he actually did. What should have happened is that the reporter should have approached Newman or his public relations representative for a comment as to why he didn't stand and at that time the record could have been set straight as to what actually happened. Instead the reporter ran with the story and a tremendous amount of damage has been done to Newman's reputation.

On message boards all over the 'net fans are ripping Newman to shreds and calling him the worst names possible because he supposedly didn't stand. Only thing is that judgement is being passed on the basis of something that is erroneous. That's why I try my best to stay away from insults and name-calling no matter how much I might disagree with something that someone might have done. Often what we hear intitially is incorrect or not the full story. So while I have no problem with discussing how I might disagree with something someone's said or done, sometimes even strongly, since I almost never know the parties involved personally I don't feel that I have a basis for judging what kind of a person someone is on the basis of what I hear in the media. Nice people with good hearts can sometimes do wrong things or do things that I don't agree with. Likewise, bad people can sometimes do the right thing and do things to help other people. Often things aren't black and white.

I'm reminded of what happened with Kurt Busch. On the basis of initial media reports most fans assumed that Busch had been driving drunk when in fact he was below the legal limit. I can't quite blame the media completely for that one because I think that the Sherriff's office contributed to that mess by releasing conflicting, confusing and incorrect information at first. But the fact remains that fans ran with what they thought to be true and passed judgement on Busch because of it when in reality only part of the story was actually true. Busch definitely did wrong in terms of his attitude towards law enforcement but wrong was done to him in terms of how many people jumped to conclusions about his level of intoxication when he was behind the wheel.

What's most unfortunate is that many fans will never hear that the reporter was mistaken about Newman. There's only a limited segment of fans who have XM and even if a correction is made in the Journal-Consitution many fans will never see it given that it's Thanksgiving. Fans have long memories so it's likely that Newman will hear boos at Daytona in Febuary unless his people do an exceptional job of hammering home the point that Newman did in fact stand in tribute to Rusty.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:02 PM | Comments (0)

November 17, 2005

Syracuse University Objects to Student Including Photos Taken at Athletic Events in Online Portfolio

Sportshooters.com is an online resource and community geared towards sports photographers and other photojournalists. Many of the the members are professional photographers who make a living from their photographing, including more than a few who work for large, well-known organizations such as Major League Baseball, The New York Times, USA Today and Sports Illustrated to name a few. In addition, there are also a lot of student photographers who, by interacting with the veteran photographers on the site, gain valuable insight into being a better photographer as well as constructive criticism on their photography. I've been visiting the site for a year or two myself and I've learned a significant amount about sports photography, as well as the business of photography and working for a newpaper or magazine myself. In short, sportsshooter.com is a professionally run website which is an extremely valuable resource for anyone involved in sports photography, photojournalism or just has an interest in either of those fields as I am.

So it was with some surprise that I read that Syracuse University objected to two members of sportsshooter.com including photos that they had taken at Syracuse sporting events in their portfolios on the site. Both members, Kirk Irwin, who is a graduate student who takes photos for the independant student newspaper, The Daily Orange, and Niko Kallianiotis, who is a staff photographer at The Watertown Daily Times, a local paper, took their photos down immediately upon being threatened with a loss of credentials to photograph games. Apparently Syracuse feels that sportsshooter.com is some sort of commercial venture and that posting the photos on the site constitutes a commercial use. Well, all these two photographers were doing was including them in their portfolios to show to other members. Though an argument could be made that they were using them to sell their photography skills, the photos themselves aren't being sold or otherwise used for commercial purposes. So it appears that Syracuse might not be clear about what the purpose of the site is.

What amazes me is that Syracuse University just like every other college or university is an educational institution. Their main purpose is to teach students and help them reach their educational goals. While I fully support Syracuse University's attempt to ensure that their trademarks are protected and that the photos are used appropriately it boggles my mind that they would interfere with a student's attempt to educate himself about photography and learn from professionals in the field. I suppose Syracuse doesn't view a website as a valid way to educate one's self but with that site that notion couldn't be further from the truth. One of the biggest ways that students learn about the professions they want to go into is by interning and interacting directly with the people who are already in that field they are interested in. In fact according to Irwin's portfolio on sportsshooter, he is interning at the Syracuse Post Standard. His presence on sportsshooters also provides him with an avenue to learn. Now, Irwin and Kallianiotis didn't have to take down their portfolios completely but it seems to me that Syracuse should be a wee bit more supportive of a student's efforts to educate himself and seek opportunities in a field he is interested in.

Apparently Syracuse had meetings with the involved parties and there is an on-going discussion in an attempt to resolve the issue. But I hope that it is resolved in such a way that photographers can include photos from Syracuse athletic events in their portfolios.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:08 AM | Comments (0)

October 19, 2005

Hell No, He Won't Go!

Joe Torre is Staying

Why Yanks Told YES No

Considering the $13 million still remaining on his contract it's not very surprising to hear that Joe Torre has decided to stay on as manager of the New York Yankees. Torre flew down to Tampa to meet with Randy Levine, the Yankees President; Steve Swindel, the Yankees General Partner and George Steinbrenner - I assume no one needs an explanation as to who he is! Torre said that the good feelings he got after that meeting is what prompted him to stay on. My reaction to this bit of news - ho-hum. The New York area media have been holding a daily vigil waiting for Torre to break his silence and announce whether he'd be walking away from the Yankees with two years left on his contract. I just couldn't see it happening. There's the money but I also don't feel like Torre is the type to break a contract with a team that he's had so much success with and has had a relatively good relationship with.

What's more interesting is that the Yankees decided not to let the press conference be broadcast live. According to RIck Cerrone, the Yankees spokesman, the reasoning was that it wasn't an announcement of major news and he didn't want to further encourage the circus-like atmosphere that already exists. It is true that Torre didn't announce anything of much significance. But what if he was going to? Perhaps that was the Yankees fear. Maybe they didn't fully know what Torre was going to say and didn't want a national audience to have immediate access to it. It just seems curious, even though the entire transcript of his press conference is now available to anyone who wants to see it.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2005

New York Times and Washington Post Have Arrangement to Exchange Next Day's Front Pages

Swapping Scoops

I think this is a pretty interesting item. Thanks to a secret arrangement that dates back ten years, every night The New York Times and The Washington Post electronically exhange their front pages from their next day's edition. The reason this started was because each paper would try to get the next day's edition as quickly as possible to begin with so they felt that this made things easier for both papers. However, the reason each paper wants to see their competitor's paper isn't just idle curiosity. It's because they want to see if there are any exclusive stories that the other paper has that they need to jump on for the next edition. And apparently getting the front page in this format has in fact helped both papers.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:01 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2005

Inside Nextel Cup Changes Not For the Better

I've talked at length in this space about my displeasure with Speed, particularly as it relates to their proposed changes to Inside Nextel Cup previously my favorite show. I say previously because last night was the first night of the new version of INC and the changes were most definitely not for the better. I'd say that perhaps the new cast just needs to gel and get used to the new format but considering there's only nine shows left this season they don't have time on their side to make this back into the must-see that it used to be for Nascar fans. Admittedly I was against many of the proposed changes but I'd like to think that I can keep an open mind so I was willing to give the new INC a chance so I had no expectations good or bad for the way that it would be. Unfortunately I was extremely disappointed and disheartened with what I saw.

Let me discuss the one positive from last night's show because it was a pretty big positive - Brian Vickers. I still feel that Brian gives only the "right" opinions rather than speaking his mind openly. However, despite offering little more than safe answers he did hold his own for the most part with the other panelists. He seemed poised, talkative and displayed a nice sense of humor. I would have to say that he definitely contributed more than Johnny Benson was though I can't say that Brian said anything particularly memorable or earth-shattering. Nor did I feel that he added anything insightful from a young driver's point of view which was why Speed had indicated they wanted to replace Johnny. But Brian wasn't terrible - but then again with all the media training that I believe most young drivers get these days upon entry to Nascar I think Speed could probably put just about any young driver on INC and they'd do what Brian did. That's the thing - Brian is interchangeable with just about any other young driver in Cup. My guess would be that they would all say just about the same things that he did.

So that was what was good about INC, what was bad about it? Unfortunately just about everything else. Let's start with the set. Dark sums it up very nicely. The lighting was horrendous and I guess they're trying to make it seem more dramatic but it just made it hard to see the panel at some points. The panel now sits in high chairs and holds clipboards. First, the chairs look incredibly uncomfortable, which is probably an even bigger issue for 6'5" Michael Waltrip than it is for everyone else on the panel but everyone looked awkward in those seats. The clipboards are ridiculous - what purpose do they serve? The panel members are talking, not taking notes.

I didn't enjoy Dave Despain at all on INC but perhaps that's because I've always found him irritating even prior to when he joined the show. He opened the show and for a show that is always concerned with time, he droned on and on needlessly. Totally unnecessary and wasteful but that set the tone for the remainder of the show. Sure, Despain kept the show moving along at points, though it was often by interrupting panel members when they were talking about something interesting or making a joke. Yes, he did ask a few good questions of the panelists and of Robbie Reiser who appeared from the Roush shop but I'm not sure two or three good questions is worthy of him replacing Allen Bestwick, who was probably hysterically laughing last night as he watched how low the show had sunk in quality.

Right from the start Michael Waltrip and Ken Schrader looked uncomfortable and out of place. While they loosened up a little as the show went on it was very obvious that the very thing that made INC so wonderful, the easy banter, the fun, the teasing, the jokes and spontaneity would be serverly curtailed. Kenny and Michael are both intelligent men who are very capable of holding their own in a serious discussion, contrary to popular belief, and did so last night but I'm not tuning in because I want to see a serious dicussion or review of the races. I can get that anywhere. I'm tuning in because I want to see Michael's goofy antics, I want to see Kenny make fun of him, I want to see the wink-wink, nudge-nudge jokes and silliness. I want the insight from the driver's perspective but I'd like it to be done in a way that is different than what I can find on any other show.

In fact I'd go so far as to say the show was flatout boring, something which INC never was previously. In a particularly distressing sign it appeared that Michael was also bored as he spent half the show writing or drawing on his clipboard. I suppose that he could have been writing things down that he wanted to say so he wouldn't forget but he's never seemed to need to do that in the past so I tend to doubt that's a problem now. If panel members are bored that doesn't say much for the way the show is going to turn out.

What the show has evolved into is a serious, straighforward review of the weekend's Cup race and that kind of thing is done in countless other places, including on other Speed shows. One addition to INC is the use of team radio communications from the race. For many fans this is probably pretty interesting but for any fan with XM like myself the exact same radio communications were played during "Dialed In" with Claire B. Lang - you guessed it another show that reviews the events of the past race. So I really have no need to watch INC when I could tune in to "Victory Lane," listen to "Dialed In," watch the new show on ESPN or read countless websites.

So what Speed has managed to do is eliminate the very thing that made INC unique. It was a showcase for the driver's quirky personalities, where fans felt like they were sitting in with friends who happened to be drivers as they informally discussed the race and whatever else is going on in Nascar. There were guaranteed laughs, things that would make fans roll their eyes, stories told and all sorts of fun was had. But based on last night it appears that all of that are things of the past which is very unfortunate because Speed had a real gem. If only they knew how to take care of it. Make changes but know how to keep the essential elements that made the show so wonderful. Because Michael is on the show I'll keep watching but I'm certainly going to be a lot more likely to record it than I was in the past and I don't think I'm going to be too upset if I end up missing it. Many other fans seem to agree with me too. Speed will probably dismiss everyone who complains as no-nothing, negative-nellies who simply can't stand change but the reality is that when this many people are upset perhaps it would be wise for Speed to be paying attention. I highly doubt that's going to happen though.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:30 AM | Comments (0)

September 08, 2005

Journalists Just as Livid as American Public Over Hurricane Katrina

Journalists Outrage Visible in Coverage

Katrina Rips Bush a New One

Last week I briefly mentioned how two of CNN's reporters Anderson Cooper and Soledad O'Brien were barely able to contain their emotions when talking with government officials about the ineffective and inadequate (at that time) response by the federal goverment to the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Usually reporters attempt to be as objective as possible, particularly on hard news shows, but those reporters who are actually on the scene are seeing things that make it almost impossible to maintain that objectivity. In fact, as one of the articles above points out they are living under many of the same conditions as the hurricane survivors in the area and see first-hand the effects of both the hurricane itself and the failures of the various government agencies.

I found Soledad O'Brien's interview with Michael Brown, the director of FEMA, who claimed he didn't know until the day before that there were massive amounts of survivors who needed food and water at the convention center, particularly striking. After Brown said he was unaware of the situation until he saw news reports about it O'Brien said as relayed in the article,

"How is it possible we’re getting better intel than you’re getting?" O’Brien snapped. "I don’t understand how FEMA cannot have this information.... In Banda Aceh in Indonesia, they got food dropped two days after the tsunami struck."

It's absolutely shocking that kind of claim was made in the face of the overwhelming amount of news reports showing exactly what was going on in New Orleans. How could FEMA not be aware of that? Yes, communication in, out and around the area was difficult but it seems hard to believe that no one at FEMA or the federal government knew the true magnitude of what was happening. That not one person had heard anything from anyone in that area or hadn't seen a news report until Brown did. And after hearing stories from her colleagues, some of which were heart-breaking, I'm sure O'Brien was astonished by Brown's remarks and in no mood to let them go without being challenged.

Which was only one of the many times that Brown was challenged and criticized along with several of his colleages. For instance Tim Russert from Meet the Press began an interview with Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff by saying

"Are you, or anyone who reports to you, contemplating resignation?"

I'm sure the answer was a resounding "no" and Chertoff probably tried to engage in a significant amount of damage control. Which is a lot of what appears to be happening which is serving to further fuel the media who feel that someone, anyone should be taking some responsiblity and offering some answers about what went wrong, how they will respond better in the future and what they are doing now.

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in the St. Petersburg Times in response to concerns about objectivity,

"But (after Katrina) you had street reporting suggesting that the official, whitewashed version of some things were untrue. And that changed the tone of coverage."

In addition, Paul Clark a crisis managment specialist from crisis management for the Hill & Knowlton public relations firm said in the same article,

"One of the first concepts is to accept blame if it applies ... people forgive mistakes, but they don't forgive excuses. Make full disclosure of the facts, but don't speculate on things you don't know like death estimates."

People often know when someone in authority is trying to sell them a false bill of goods. Some people will accept whatever is said at face value and aren't interested in the real facts of a particular situation. But many people aren't like that, particularly those in the media who are trained to ask questions and get answers. And when presented with the harsh reality of what the extent of the effects of the hurricane were which were almost certainly made worse by the lack of a timely response by the government, the media was ready for blood much like a good portion of the American public.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:04 AM | Comments (0)

September 07, 2005

More On Inside Nextel Cup

Brian Vickers Signed for Remainder of This Season Only

A few days ago I was pondering the future of Inside Nextel Cup and I continue to wonder after reading that Brian Vickers wasn't signed to any kind of a long-term deal to do INC, just for the last ten shows of the season. Perhaps that's just to try him out as a panelist or he didn't want to commit for longer. Or maybe Speed isn't sure where the show is going to go after this season.

I hadn't said it in my previous entry on this topic in case it was just my imagination but in addition to there seemingly being a lot of tension on the set for Allen's last show my feeling was that Michael Waltrip was deliberately saying and doing things that he might have been told by the "big boss" not to do. Such as rambling, singing, being more goofy and less serious - all the things that reflect his off-beat personality that many fans enjoy so much. Of course there's also bringing up the lack of hot seat guests - that was most certainly to make a point no doubt about that. Most other fans of Michael's seem to agree - he seemed to be deliberately acting out in a willful way.

Unfortunately the prevailing feeling is that Michael is unhappy with all the changes to INC and I'd have to agree that might very well be the case especially if he has in fact been told to keep himself more under control and stop being the Michael that so many tune in to see on INC. Even more reason for him to be unhappy if they had tried to unsuccessfully get rid of him from the show and if the impression that many have that Speed doesn't really like him is also correct. So the question is whether Michael will stay with the show past the end of this season. Seeing him on INC has always been something I've very much looked forward to each week but if he's going to have to be forced to play a role on the new INC that he's not comfortable with or he's not going to enjoy doing the show anymore than I'd say he should opt out. With so many other responsibilies to his Cup team, Busch team, sponsors and family I'm sure he could find plenty of other ways to fill the time.

And unless Speed finds another dynamic personality to take his place, and that's probably a lot harder than Michael's detractors might think, then I'd say the show is done for. Ken Schrader is fond of joking that INC is Michael's show and the reality is that it is. Even the people who dislike Michael seem to hang on his every word and tune in to see and hear his antics. And as much as I like the other panelists, it's just not the same show without Michael. Without the banter between the panelists and the goofy way that they act INC is simply another race review show and as I've noted before Speed already has one of those. Of course the ratings will tell the tale but Speed might just be surprised at what happens.

Of course adding Vickers and Dave Despain could end up revitalizing INC completely. Perhaps the dynamics of the panel will be even better than they were before. Perhaps Michael will be allowed to do and say anything he wants and will have a great time doing the show. That will all become clear over the remainder of the season. But right now it's feeling like a really entertaining show is about to jump the shark.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:34 PM | Comments (0)

September 06, 2005

Hurrincane Katrina Coverage Will Continue Where Similar Stories Have Died

Katrina May Unleash a Media Storm

Peter Johnson in USA Today writes that unlike with other similar stories such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 which faded from the media's attention in about two weeks, it's likely that the media will continue to focus on the impact of Hurricane Katrina not only on the Gulf Coast region but on the entire country. I have to agree. You have an entire city that was demolished, all of it's residents displaced, perhaps as many as 10,000 people in one city alone dead, any number of other places up and down the Gulf Coast destroyed, some possible failures by local, state and federal agencies in getting people help, the efforts to help all the people who were left with nothing after the hurricane and all the ways that the hurricane impacted people in other parts of the country, such as the high price of gas which will in turn could make other goods more expensive. This isn't a story that will go away soon, nor should it in my opinion though I'm sure there are many that will soon wish that the media will find something else to focus on. Changes have to be made so that when, and I do mean when not if, another category five storm hits the United States the response and the results are different.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:43 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2005

Tension on "Inside Nextel Cup"

Tonight was Allen Bestwick's last night on Inside Nextel Cup and he will be dearly missed by most viewers. Allen has done an outstanding job on Inside Nextel Cup since it's inception and it's very unfortunate that he's being shoved out the door along with Johnny Benson. And it's very obvious that the panelists on INC are not pleased with the changes that are being made. And if they have any idea of the veiled digs that Chris Long and Eric Arneson have made about them then they're probably even more unhappy with the direction that things are going in. The latest is that Long apparently called a fan who wrote a letter of complaint and tried to justify the decision to replace Allen by saying that he's hated in the garage area. Even if it's true, and I've heard nothing to support that, it's an incredibly inappropriate remark. In addition, Long apparently made some remarks that indicates he doesn't like Michael Waltrip, which is the feeling that I've gotten from both him and Arneson previously based on Long's interview on XM and Arneson's comments on the Speed message boards.

What really gets me is that apparently a decision was made by the "big boss" to eliminate the hot seat guests on INC. I, along with plenty of other people, have been wondering about why there haven't been any hot seat guests lately because it is a popular feature. So Michael on his own brings it up and Allen says that they "made us stop doing it," to which Michael responded "I wonder why, I guess the big boss stopped it." Now, I'm sure he knows full well why there are no longer any hot seat guests. This is total speculation about his motivation but I think he was making a deliberate point to fans about who is responsible for the changes to INC. I can only hope that fans will pick up on Michael's possible hint and let the folks at Speed know just how unhappy they are with the direction that INC and Speed overall is going in. I sure did.

In my opinion, eliminating the hot seat guest takes away one of the best parts of the show other than the banter between the panel members. Which based on what's being said might be curtailed as well. But the hot seat guest gave fans the opportunity to hear the perspectives and opinions of a variety of drivers, crew chiefs and others in the Nascar community. Many fans looked forward to the times when their favorite drivers were on the hot seat - I know Steve Park fans certainly watched in droves when he was on earlier in the season. Stories were told, races were discussed, a ton of interesting things were said. I think the segment they did with Kyle Petty as hot seat guest about the VJCG and Operation Marathon is what drew me into supporting that cause. So what we're left with now is essentially just a straight review of the race unless they plan on adding things that I don't know about starting next week which is possible. But if it's just a review of each week's Cup race, well, that's just not too interesting. There are other shows such as Speed's own Victory Lane where I can get that as well as countless online sources.

Sometimes I wonder what the long-term plans are for INC. I was under the impression that it was one of Speed's biggest hits. But while these changes could end up working out well for them in the long run it appears based on the fan reaction, which I don't think they quite anticipated, that it might also crash and burn making this many changes to such a well-loved show. So if they drive away a significant percentage of viewers, and that is what it's all about despite Speed's seeming disinterest in whether people watch their shows or not, how long will the show continue? INC has always been one of my favorite shows and I've looked forward each week to laughing at and learning from the expert panel. I fear that even with Michael remaining on the show it's just not going to be the same.

At the end of the show Allen said his goodbyes and Jimmy Spencer was sure to tell it like it is for Allen. I don't always agree with Jimmy but he sure does speak his mind. It will be interesting if there will be any reprocussions for him or Michael for that matter since as far as Speed's concerned since I'm sure they're not thrilled with some of what was said on INC tonight. But then again Arneson has said he's just being honest on the Speed boards when he's negative about the shows that it's his job to promote so surely Speed understands if the INC panel is negative about them. Somehow though I doubt that it works both ways.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:20 PM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2005

Political Talk vs. Reality: New Orleans

The Big Disconnect on New Orleans

Increasingly it's appears that some journalistic objectivity has gone out the window the longer the media covers the disaster in the Gulf Coast and the response by the authorities to what the people in that region are suffering through. Perhaps that's a good thing in this case. CNN's coverage particularly has been highlighted by a sense of outrage. Both Anderson Cooper and Solidad O'Brien have confronted politicians on various issues. I still stand by my pledge to not talk politics in this space but I think it's an interesting read that CNN put together from transcripts of interviews they've done to see the vast difference between what the FEMA Director Michael Brown and Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff say in comparision to the reality of the situation as told by others who are in New Orleans.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:39 PM | Comments (0)

August 30, 2005

Modesto Bee Starts Editor's Blog

Will Seek to Explain "Mysteries" of Newsroom

The Editors of the Modesto Bee in California are starting a blog in which they hope to explain some of the "mysteries" of the newsroom to readers. Some of those mysteries include how they decide what goes in the paper, how they decides what goes on the front page, how they decide which events to cover and why they cover local government so seriously. In addition, they hope that the blog will offer them the chance to have a dialogue with their readers over some of these issues. I have a prediction as to how that will eventually go and I'm not sure the editors will be too happy but overall I think the basic idea for the blog is a good one. Explaining "mysteries" or the way a company functions is a big reason why many corporate blogs are started and I think it's an excellent way for companies to give people some insight into their company in a way that can't be provided in press releases or most media coverage.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:47 AM | Comments (0)

August 29, 2005

Richmond Times-Dispatch Photographer Fired for Visual Plagiarism

Taking Action to Prevent it From Happening Again

Though I'm sure that it happens, this is the first time that I've heard of a case of visual plagiarism. Apparently a photographer from the Richmond Times-Dispatch copied a photo that he or she had seen previously accompanying an article about a Richmond area candy manufactrer that this photographer was assigned to take photos of. No one might ever have known except for the fact that the photo ended up being used for the cover story in the metro business section of the Times-Dispatch in a story about that candy company last week. The photographer has since been fired but unfortunately the story gets worse because it appears that there are "troubling similarities" between the story that ran last week, written by a summer intern, and the story that was published in December.

It appears based on the article that the Times-Dispatch editorial staff weren't all familar with journalistic ethics. So they were unable to give proper guidance to either the intern or the photographer in relation to this story. That boggles my mind - don't all jounalists either learn proper journalistic ethics in college or have to be familar with the code of conduct at the media outlets they work for? That copying the work of others in any way is a major no-no should be obvious to all and it's kind of disheartening that apparently it's not. Luckily the Times-Dispatch is taking steps to try and prevent a situation like this from happening but what about elsewhere?

Everyone is influenced by the work of others. The pop artist Keith Haring and the photographer David Muench are two of the biggest influences on my artwork and photography. And I'm constantly looking at photography books and magazines to see what other photographers are doing. I especially find it interesting to see how another photographer might have covered a subject that I have. But I would never think of copying what someone else has done. I want to do my own thing and be unique. I especially wouldn't copy it for use in a publication! That's just amazing to me - you can get ideas from someone else's photographs, and there are times when it's going to be unavoidable to have a similar photo to someone else with certain subjects or events, but particularly when you're working for a media outlet you have to modify what you're doing when you're covering a particular subject significantly to make it your own.

I'd like to think that the vast majority of professional photographers understand this. But obviously there are some that don't. We hear all the time about plagiarism but never about the visual form, except as it relates to someone online stealing someone else's photos. But perhaps we should hear more about visual plagiarism so people understand that is just as wrong as plagiarising text.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:32 AM | Comments (0)

August 25, 2005

Opinion Column Attributed to Mayor Not Written By Him

Didn't Check to Be Sure

I've mentioned any number of times in this space that one of my biggest issues with the media, both online and off, is when something is printed without proper fact-checking or checking of sources. Of course no one can be perfect but not following through to be sure really bit the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. They were given an opinion column by one of their former editors who said that it was written by former Milwaukee Mayor Frank P. Zeidler. Only one problem - it wasn't written by the former Mayor. In fact no one has any idea who it really was written by. The paper assumed that because it came from a former editor, who apparently didn't do enough checking himself, that it was trustworthy so they didn't make the phone calls that they usually do when someone submits an opinion piece. Oops.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:22 PM | Comments (0)

August 03, 2005

And I'm Appalled by Leeann Tweeden...

Reporter's Role With Pitcher Being Investigated

More than once I've mentioned that one of my problems with Leeann Tweeden working on Nascar Nation and any other show that covers Nascar, no matter how remotely, is that in the past she's allegedly had relationships of some sort, friendships or otherwise, with drivers. That is a problem in terms of objectivity and professionalism if any of those relationships of a more intimate kind might have happened when she was a member of the working media covering the sport. It also means that anything that she says about some of those drivers is suspect because one has no idea if her personal relationships are coloring what she's saying - yes, even on a lifestyles show like Nascar Nation.

So today I came across an article which indicates that FSN West 2 (an affilate of Fox Sports) has suspended Carolyn Hughes, the co-host of the Los Angeles Dodgers pre- and post-game shows, while they are investigating reports that she is involved in a relationship with Dodgers pitcher and former member of the Red Sox, Derek Lowe. One might wonder how this came to light and that's because Derek Lowe's wife of seven years, Trinka, called FSN West 2 and left some messages alledging the illicit relationship. In addition, she's been speaking with other media on the topic including "On the Record," a pay-to-view site which covers the Los Angeles sports media that apparently has photos of Lowe and Hughes together and a nationally syndicated radio show by Tom Leykis.

I have no idea if the allegations by Trinka Lowe are true or not, though FSN is apparently taking them seriously. But if they do happen to be true I can't say enough how inappropriate it would be. A reporter who covers a team cannot under any circumstances get involved with a player. That is inappropriate on countless levels. I have to wonder how their relationship, if it occured, effected what Hughes might have said on the air about Lowe. I also have to wonder how many people knew about their relationship and if it would ever have come to light if Trinka hadn't said anything. Of course she is bitter and vengeful at the apparent disintergration of her marriage but something has to be said if a reporter is having an inappropriate relationship with someone they cover, especially when it's someone they cover on an almost daily basis.

What also horrifies me about this incident is that it taints every female sports reporter. Many idiotic fans believe in the stereotype that that only reason why women are interested in being sports reporters is to either see the players naked in the locker room or get into a relationship with one of them. I'd like to say that belief is completely ridiculous and insane because no woman would be stupid enough to enter into that kind of relationship but it appears that it's possible that Hughes did exactly that. I understand it can be difficult when people develop feelings for each other and it's not always easy to deny those feelings. But when both parties are married and one is a journalist who reports on the player, that relationship shouldn't be happening.

Perhaps it will turn out that Trinka Lowe is making up stories about her husband or jumping to conclusions but if there is any truth to this story Hughes must be removed from the Dodgers pre- and post-game shows on FSN.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:11 PM | Comments (0)

July 20, 2005

Justice Department Opposes National Shield Law for Journalists

Says Would Impair the Government's Ability to Enforce Law and Fight Terrorism

I've followed but not discussed in this space the Valerie Plame affair in spite of the fact that it involves confidential sources, a subject that regular readers of this blog know interests me. The reason being that the Plame case involves a great deal of politics and political games, something which I have pledged to avoid discussing much here. However, out of the ashes of that saga comes a push in congress to protect journalists with a National Shield Law so they wouldn't be forced to reveal confidential sources. I strongly support a National Shield Law. Though I believe that journalists don't always use care when it comes to sources, confidential or otherwise, I also believe that it is in the public's best interest that journalists feel they have the freedom to use information provided to them by confidential sources without fear of landing in jail for protecting those sources. Yes, even with a National Shield Law there would be some instances where journalists would be compelled to testify as to who their sources are but a prosecutor would have to show that they have exhausted all other avenues of gathering information as well as that a crime occured.

I never got around to discussing it unfortunately but there's at least one newspaper, I believe in the Midwest, that killed a story that involved confidential sources on the advice of the paper's legal team, even though they said that the story was something that was in the public's best interest to know. That's chilling, particularly since I'm sure that isn't the only newspaper to make that choice in recent months. I shutter to think about what might go unreported on because a journalist fears landing in jail like Judy Miller. It's essential that the press be allowed to operate with as much freedom as possible to ensure that as much news that benefits the public, whether it's about political issues or otherwise is disseminated.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:51 AM | Comments (0)

July 19, 2005

On News Vs. Commentary

Handling Discourse Without the Attitude

I thought this was a pretty interesting column on the difference between news and commentary, the lines of which are getting increasingly blurred. I think the column is geared towards those that write and read about politics but some of the lessons within can be applied to all forms of news and journalism. The writer of the column, Charles M. Madigian, has a great definition of what news is -

"Something happens today that didn't happen yesterday, you work it out as best you can and then write a clear, accurate account of it. That is the newspaper model. What you think about it doesn't matter. How you feel in most cases doesn't matter either."

That should be the principals by which most journalists operate. The goal should be to portray an accurate picture of what actually happened for readers as possible. Of course it's not always possible for reporters to fully know the complete story of a news event or pass it along to their readers but every effort to do so should be made. However, many reporters don't bother to fullfill this basic principle of journalism, nor do they report stories in an unbiased way without somehow interjecting their personal opinions into it.

It's a hard task to ask on some stories for a reporter to stay objective. Here at work we had a reporter on a conference panel who was assigned to report on a story that dealt with an issue that he clearly had a personal opinion on, yet he made every effort to ensure that he told both sides of the story in an extremely fair way. And he made sure while he was speaking on the panel to keep his personal opinions out of it completely. That's impressive because often reporters are unable to report objectively. Sometimes it's obvious and unfortunately sometimes it's not which is all the more dangerous in my opinion, because then you have no idea whether a reporter's coverage of a story is influenced by a personal relationship they might have or their personal feelings on an issue.

Madigian writes about the increasing difficulties in covering news because of how hard it is to gain an audience in the face of so many media outlets, including those online. The result is that news outlets are forced to become more and more provocative to do what ever it takes to lure readers or viewers. Which means that simply reporting the news and telling the audience what happened is not always good enough. I think I might be in the minority because while I like reading commentary on some issues I first would like to know as much as I can about the facts of an event or issue. How can I have a real understanding of the issues if I don't actually know what happened, I only know what someone else is telling me I should think because it happens to be their opinion?

Online I think it's a particular problem in that fact-checking, confirming sources and writing clear and accurate articles sometimes takes a backseat to throwing something up on a website that will draw hits before the next website comes up with something better. It's actually not just a problem with straight news either. A lot of times articles that are commentaries are full of horrendous inaccuracies and laughable conclusions because the writer doesn't take the time to check or think about anything they're writing about.

When I do entries in this blog, I am making a commentary full of my opinions based on the information I have available to me. I may be mistaken in any number of things that I blog about but one thing I try to do is present the facts as I know them as best as I can. And if more information becomes available down the road I try to post a follow-up if I can to ensure that I'm presenting a complete picture as possible. Even if that doesn't fully fit into what I might have blogged about in the first place. Unfortunately I can't say the same for all bloggers or all members of the mainstream media, which does the audience a major disservice.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:49 AM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2005

Dave Despain Replacing Alan Bestwick on Inside Nextel Cup

And Other INC Thoughts

As Alan himself said tonight after almost ten years on Inside Nextel Cup, the powers that be at Speed decided that it was time for a new host. I can't even begin to say how displeased I am that Alan is being replaced, even more so when I found out that Dave Despain is his replacement. Dave is an intelligent guy and he speaks his mind so in those regards he will add something to the show. But there is something about his approach that I find to be a turn-off. I also anticipate that it might be some rough going in terms of acclimating him to the rest of the panel. Alan has always been one of my favorite broadcasters and his reduced role on race day coupled with his removal from INC doesn't sit well with me at all.

However, the above article indicates that Kevin Havick may eventually replace Johnny Benson. As much as I like Johnny I'm an even bigger fan of Kevin's and I think that Kevin would fit in well with Michael Waltrip and Ken Schrader, assuming that TPTB intend on keeping those two, which I think they will. Kevin's got a good sense of humor and he also doesn't hesitate to call things the way he sees them, at least as much as a Cup driver can. So he may be able to meld well with the rest of the panel. He would also add a younger driver's insight, which is apparently something that Speed wanted, yet Kevin is still a veteran and has a lot of personality to boot. That would be a change, one of the few that Speed has made recently, that I would actually like.

So without further ado a few random thoughts on tonight's INC:

-Michael said surprisingly little about his parting of the ways from DEI. Perhaps he felt that he's said all that needs to be said or perhaps he's not as comfortable with the idea of leaving DEI and exploring other opportunities as he'd like everyone to think.

-The panel also discussed the #6 car and whether Jamie McMurray or Mark Martin would be in that ride in 2006. As soon as Alan brought it up Kenny Wallace looked over at Michael which I thought was very interesting. Was it just coincidence that he looked over at Michael or was he trying to gauge his reaction? Of course Michael had no reaction what-so-ever, he's too wily to give anything away like that, even though he's surely had some sort of discussion with Jack Roush, even in a casual way, about going to Roush. But does Kenny know something in terms of there being a discussion about Michael being in that car for a year with NAPA as a sponsor as has been rumored (one of many rumors about where Michael could end up) or does Kenny know nothing and he was hoping that Michael would give something away?

-I thought Ken Schrader seemed a little off at points during the show. Turns out the reason might be because Ken never put in his ear piece so he couldn't hear any prompting from the producers. Why the heck did no one tell him during a commercial break to put it in?

-Much talk from the panel about good racing, ability to pass, etc... during Sunday's race - maybe it was due to the crappy quality of the TV broadcast which wouldn't surprise me but the race seemed devoid of much good racing and excitement to me. But those guys were actually there in the driver's seats so I guess they would know better than I.

-Some talk about the heat and how it contributed to short tempers which led to some incidents. Claire B. Lang also talked today on XM about the heat and how almost every driver had to sit down on the pit wall to collect themselves after the race. It really shows what the endurance level the drivers have to have and how they really must be in relatively good shape despite what the common perception is about drivers not being athletes. Because if the drivers weren't in good shape there is no way they could last an entire race without passing out.

-Kenny Wallace made another plea for a sponsor for his Busch car. How is this car unsponsored? I would think that sponsors would be lining up the second they heard that Stacker 2 wasn't going to be Kenny's sponsor anymore. He's fifth in the points and can get his sponsors an incredible amount of visibility. It's also cheaper to sponsor a Busch car than a Cup car and even more so since there's only half a season left. Yet thus far no one seems willing to step up to the plate. It's really a shame and I think it speaks to the sad state of affairs in Busch and with sponsors in general that Nascar may be forced to address eventually.

So Alan's annoucement means that I will have to enjoy the last few shows with the panel as it stands now because it appears that their time together is very much limited.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:24 PM | Comments (2)

June 30, 2005

Rangers Pitcher Kenny Rogers Freaks Out and Attacks Cameramen

Camera Man in Hospital; Rogers May Face Charges

Anger in Full Boil in Baseball Clubhouses

Just days after pulling a Kevin Brown and fracturing the pinkie of his non-pitching hand by punching a water cooler, Texas Rangers pitcher Kenny Rogers wigged out for no apparent reason and attacked several TV cameramen as he was walking out of the Rangers dugout onto the field for batting practice. He shoved two cameramen, one of them so hard that he had to go to the hospital, threw one camera to the ground and threatened to break several more cameras. I saw the video of this incident and it's pretty unbelievable how Rogers calmly walks out of the dugout and immediately goes after the cameramen apparently just because they were standing there. No shouting, no angry exchanges other than what Rogers said. Perhaps there was another incident that led up to this but from all appearances it looked like Rogers just lost it when he saw there were cameramen on the field. But having an issue with the media is nothing new for Rogers. He has refused to speak to the media for most of the season since he was upset in spring training about a report that he threatened to retire if he wasn't given a contract extension. But no one could have predicted that he would take things this far.

Either Rogers has a serious anger management problem that just popped up now or he's dealing with some issues, personal or otherwise, that caused him to lash out the way that he did. His behavior is really outrageous, even for someone who strongly dislikes the media. Baseball players just can't be walking up to members of the media and assaulting them. The injured cameraman filed a police report, as he should, and Rogers may face assault charges. So in the space of a week he's gone from a potential American League Cy Young candidate with strong pitching this season to a loon with an anger problem who put his season in jeopardy by punching the water cooler, then followed it up by assaulting a few people. Rogers is lucky that he's pitching so well because if not for that the Rangers might be thinking about either trading or releasing him. I would hope that at the very least the Rangers discipline him in some way - Major League Baseball surely will.

Of course, as Mark Kreidler of ESPN.com points out in the second article above, Rogers isn't the only angry baseball player who lashed out this week. Oliver Perez of the Pittsburgh Pirates kicked a laundry cart because he was angry at a bad outing on the mound and broke his toe. And let's not forget Gary Sheffield's angry tirade when he found that he was the subject of trade rumors. Kreidler thinks that the pressure of the job is what got to all of them and he's probably right. The players have to perform or they're gone. And there is always someone younger or better looming on the horizon either in a player's own organization or that can be aquired elsewhere via trade. Rogers is probably especially feeling the pressure since he's 40 so he likely doesn't have many more years left. So it's essential that he pitches as well as possible for as long as possible.

Of course being under pressure doesn't excuse the players when they lash out and do something stupid. Rogers, Perez and Kevin Brown, when he fractured his hand by punching a wall, are still very much in the wrong because their actions ultimately hurt themselves and their teams. In the case of Rogers and Perez prior to the bad outings that prompted them to take their anger out on inanimate objects, they had been pitching extremely well. So their teams lose players that could help them win, particularly in the case of Rogers with his nine wins. With Brown he fractured his hand in September of last season, just when the Yankees needed him the most to help them get to the post-season, then win in the post-season. You'd think these guys would learn from the stories of the idiots who have come before them but it doesn't appear that way. And in the end when Rogers lost his temper it may prove to be the costliest temper tantrum of all.

Posted by silverdsl at 06:58 PM | Comments (0)

Michael Waltrip May Have Been Informed He's Out at DEI After 2005

Marty Smith: DEI Facing Fundamental Decisions

Marty Smith of Nascar.com wrote today that earlier this week he got a tip from a "source close" to Michael Waltrip" who said that Michael was informed that regardless of whether he made the Chase for the Championship or not he would not be re-signed to a new contract at DEI. Like any good journalist should, Smith followed up with Brooke Hondros, Michael's publicist and also Richie Gilmore over at DEI. Of course Gilmore denied all of it, claiming that he's still talking with Michael about "options" and that it's completely false that Michael is leaving DEI. Michael might end up back with DEI in the end but all signs are pointing to 2005 being Michael's last season in the #15, at least as things stand now. There's a huge amount to cover in this article, both about the content itself but also in Smith's use of an unnamed source since as any faithful reader of this space knows, the subject of anonymous sources is one that intrigues me, no less so with this article.

Smith states in the article that it's essential for DEI to re-sign both Michael and Martin Truex, Jr. so that they have a three-car team in 2006 and beyond. And I agree. I would think that DEI having a three-car team is imperative even if Michael wasn't involved. The reality is that if DEI wants to be able to stay competitive with the larger organizations they must have at least three-teams. Two will not get the job done anymore. However, last week Dale Earnhardt, Jr. said among other things that DEI was leaning towards going with just two teams next season. At the time of that article I thought and might have written in this blog that if DEI isn't forward thinking enough to realize that they need to add a third team then they have some serious problems (as if that wasn't obvious based on how the two teams didn't communicate until recently, use computers to help them and that the #8 team was allowed to do little to no work on their cars during the off-season) and I think the same thing now. Perhaps they feel that financially they will be better off with only two teams but if the results with two teams are going to be poor then financially they could end up worse off. And as Smith points out, financially DEI might be in even worse shape if Michael leaves and take significant financial dollars in terms of sponsorship with him.

One of Michael's biggest assets is that he has made himself into an exceptional spokesperson for his sponsors. There is no driver in any series who does a better job of promoting his sponsors, which means that those sponsors love working with him. As Smith points out, there is a good chance that as much as NAPA enjoys the extra exposure that comes from being able to include Dale Earnhardt, Jr. in their commercials, they would leave with Michael for another team should DEI choose to go in a different direction. Bass Pro Shops is already signed by DEI for next season so they have a sponsor for their second car. Which means that DEI doesn't need NAPA as a sponsor anymore if they are only running two cars in 2006. So NAPA will be free to take their $15-20 million to another organization with Michael. And likely would should they choose to remain in the sport.

And so might at least two other sponsors, those being the associate sponsors of Domino's and Best Western. I don't know if Best Western has a deal with Michael through Michael Waltrip Racing but Domino's most certainly does. I have no doubt that Domino's loves Micheal given that they just featured him at a press conference to announce their sponsorship of a Busch race which will feature Michael running a MWR Busch car sponsored by Domino's. Why would DEI risk losing that money, which when it's added up is probably no small amount? More than likely they either think that those sponsors wouldn't really leave with Michael or that they will be able to replace them. If they think the later than I think they are vastly underestimating the poor ecomonic situation in Nascar in terms of sponsorship. All they need to do is look at the trouble they had finding a sponsor for the #1 car when Pennzoil left. Why would things be any different now? In fact things are worse now in terms of aquiring and keeping sponsors.

Smith closes his article by stating that not only does DEI have to sign Michael and Martin but Tony Eury, Jr. also needs a new contract as well. I have my doubts as to whether Eury, Jr. would actually leave DEI but it may be tempting to him to explore his options elsewhere. I think that's a wise idea for him because he would probably be in great demand by any number of teams and he may be able to command more money for himself elsewhere than at DEI. At the very least, like Martin has done, exploring what other options are out there will ensure that DEI has to offer him a solid contract to ensure that he stays with them. I wonder if there's any chance that Michael, NAPA and Tony, Jr. would all head to another organization as a package deal? Just wishful thinking I know, but that would be outstanding!

Some are probably dismissing this article as the media trying to stir up trouble given that Smith used an unnamed source as the basis for what he wrote. However, while I have been critical of Smith in the past for his possible lack of objectivity in relation to drivers he's good friends with such as Jimmie Johnson and Junior, one thing that I have noticed is that he uses anonymous sources very sparingly. So when he does it's a good bet it's because he knows that the information they're providing is reliable and accurate. And I think that at least at the time of the writing of this article, the tip Smith got about the direction DEI is most likely heading in as it relates to Michael is probably dead-on.

When dealing with anonymous sources readers need to ask themselves a few questions such as "who?" and "why?" The who is never easy to answer. Who can be important since sources often aren't just doing a reporter a favor and tipping them off to a piece of information, they have a goal in mind by getting certain information out there. I have an idea who the "who" might be based on certain things in the column but since I could be completely wrong I won't even speculate on that in this space.

As for why someone "close to Michael" would contact Marty Smith to spill the beans as to what DEI's current thinking is getting that information out only benefits Michael. Why? Because for one thing it makes it known to other teams that Michael's services are available. And that he could bring sponsorship with him. I don't think there's any coincidence that Smith specifically mentioned Domino's and Best Western as possibilities to leave DEI with Michael, along with NAPA. Perhaps that came up in conversation with his source as well? His source would probably be in a position to know. Then there's what Brooke, Michael's (very wonderful) publicist said in reference to NAPA being very happy with him - that further instills the idea that NAPA might be inclined to join a new organization with Michael. Given that prior to being Michael's personal publicist she was his PR person for NAPA she would certainly know if NAPA is happy with Michael.

But it also benefits Michael to have an article written like this even if it's true that he is still in talks with DEI about his future as Gilmore claims. An article like this could force DEI's hand in terms of having to address the "rumors" and tell him for sure one way or another if he's going to be re-signed or not. But beyond that an article like this could also make DEI very nervous that they are making the wrong decision depending on the reaction once this bit of news spreads widely. Particularly if they think that Michael will in fact take sponsorship money with him. That right there could cause them to re-think their position. They may worry that Michael and the unnamed source know something they don't about the plans of those sponsors - and that may very well be true.

I have to give Smith a lot of credit for following up and making phone calls to try to get some kind of confirmation about what his source told him. I've complained on any number of occasions in this space that many journalists, particularly web-based writers, go with stories and don't properly fact-check, look for multiple sources on information they're tipped off to, anonymously or otherwise, or get all sides of the story for a more balanced and informative article. But Smith makes sure to include a statement from both sides of the fence - from Brooke, who represents Michael and from Gilmore, who represents DEI. That way it's more of a balanced story that tries to present as much of the facts to readers as possible. So that when they are wildly speculating like I am in this space, the conclusions that they draw are based on hearing from both sides of the issue. Which Smith tries to do more often than not - present as much information as possible to his readers.

What's going to be interesting is if either Michael or DEI addresses this "rumor" at Daytona this weekend. Given the denials by Gilmore that Michael is out the door, I highly doubt that DEI is going to formally announce that Michael won't be re-signed. More than likely both parties will either ignore the story or say all the right things publically. DEI may not want to let this bit of news out now if there's any doubt about what their final plans for 2006 is or if they don't want to further give the impression that they are an organization in turmoil. But if it's addressed I imagine Michael will say how much he loves working with Eury, Jr., how thankful he is for having such great cars this season and how he wants to retire at DEI. Gilmore will talk about how they're actively talking to NAPA and Michael about their "options" but won't say much definitive about what direction they are planning on taking. What's amusing is that the "options" that Gilmore could have been talking about with Michael on Tuesday in the article might have nothing to do with a new contract but instead could unfortunately be whether or not he'd finish the season in the #15 if he doesn't make the Chase. That's my big fear that DEI intends on putting Martin (assuming he's re-signed) or someone else in the #15 to give them seat time in Cup if they don't re-sign Michael past this season.

So where does this all leave Michael? I still don't think we can know for sure since things can change very rapidly in Nascar. Just because someone says something publically doesn't mean that it's 100% true or that something different won't happen down the road. So while I think there's a very good chance that Michael won't be back at DEI no matter how well he finishes in the points, which is what I've thought for a long time, that could change based on any number of other factors, especially if Martin doesn't re-sign.

I have mixed emotions about Michael re-signing with DEI. On one hand I'd like to see it happen so he doesn't have to worry about finding a new ride, particularly since with the focus on young guns the reality is that no matter how good of a spokesman he is or how well he does on the track this season it may be hard for him to find a ride as competitive as he would like. And the last thing I want is for Michael to end up in a poor ride again like he had at times prior to when he joined DEI or at the end of last season when he was clearly unhappy. But on the other hand, while Michael is getting excellent equipment and great results right now at DEI, there's no guarantee that's going to continue even this season. Yes, you'd think that they'd want to ensure that at least one of their drivers makes the Chase for the Championship, since it looks increasingly unlikely that Junior will be in, but if they know they aren't going to be re-signing Michael and NAPA might not be back, DEI might not feel much of an obligation to keep giving Michael the great cars that he's gotten thus far this season. I also think DEI has a significant amount of issues in a variety of areas to work out so I'm not sure that remaining with the company would always be a smooth ride for Michael.

As for where he ends up it would be outstanding if Michael ended up at Roush, Penske or one of the other top organizations. But in the end I don't care who he races for or in what series in 2006 and beyond as long as he's in a competitive ride and most importantly, as long as he's happy.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:20 PM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2005

A Rush To Judgment

Two Sides to Every Story

I've said many a time in this blog that it is essential for members of the media to fact-check, make phone calls, talk to a variety of sources and do everything they can to ensure that what they are reporting is as accurate as possible. Of course in even after doing pain-staking work it's still possible that a story will contain inaccuracies, particularly if sources don't tell the truth or mislead a reporter, but for the most part a reporter can't go wrong by double-checking the story they're reporting on to make sure they're presenting their readers or listeners with as accurate and complete of a story as possible. That is particularly important online where stories can be posted easily and news can circulate widely in minutes. But unfortunately online the basic rules of good journalism are often followed less stringently and less often, rather than more carefully and more frequently, which should be the case given how quickly news online spreads.

Unfortunately a writer over at racingwest.com choose to run wild with a story full of completely inaccurate information that essentially was a smear campaign against Michael Waltrip for supposed misbehavior after qualifying for the Southwest Series Race that he ended up not being able to run due to getting his car wrecked. I imagine that both the writer and racingwest thought that they had a hot story that would attact a lot of attention because it involved a Cup driver so they wanted to get it up as quickly as possible. Only one problem - it was full of half-truths, inaccuracies, incorrect assumptions and ripped Michael for no reason.

The original article claimed that Michael protested the qualifying results because he wanted the car of Tyler McQuarrie in rather than the next car in line, that of Spencer Clark. The article then went on to indicate that Michael carried on until Nascar stepped in and wouldn't give in to him. So the writer claimed that Michael refused to pull out even though he couldn't race his wrecked car deliberately to prevent Clark from racing and didn't even show up for the fans at driver introductions. There's only one problem with all of this: barely any of it is actually what happened.

To her credit the writer wrote a second story with the real version of what occured. But she states that what she wrote in her first article is "mostly true." Just about the only thing that's true in the first article are the names of the involved drivers. And there was a protest of a sort, only Michael knew nothing of it. The reality of what happened is that Michael's crew chief and some others were trying to convince Nascar to allow Michael to race with a back-up car of Tyler McQuarrie's since the wrecked car that he was supposed to race was rented from the same owners who were fielding a car for McQuarrie. Nascar said no, so then they tried to figure out how to either attempt to fix Michael's wrecked car or get the sponsor, State Fair Corn Dogs, on McQuarrie's car. Only one problem: McQuarrie wasn't next in line to get into the race, Clark was. And of course since he has his own sponsors to take care of Clark wanted in the race if possible and wouldn't even take money to give up his spot. So there was an impass and Nascar wanted a decision made immediately about whether Michael's car would be withdrawn or not. But no one could contact Michael or his PR person and no one was comfortable making the decision for Michael so they were forced to keep the car in the field and both Clark and McQuarrie missed the race. Michael found out about what happened after the fact and State Fair Corn Dogs ended up on another car.

When I read the original article I immediately had quite a few questions that were unanswered: Why was Michael protesting? What was he protesting? Why didn't he want Spencer Clark in the race? Why did he want Tyler McQuarrie in the race? Did any of this have to do with his qualifying wreck? Did his team think that they could fix his car in time for the race and that's why they didn't withdraw? Had anyone checked with Micheal to find out whether all of this was deliberate and what his reasons were for doing what he did? There is no way that article should have been posted with at least the most basic of attempts to answer some of those questions so that readers knew exactly what had really happened rather than being told the writer's opinion which was that Michael was a jerk based on what she thought he did. Only one problem - Michael didn't do any of those things and wasn't present or involved with any of the discussions which led to the protest of sorts or the delay in getting the qualifying results posted.

In the updated article the writer claims that she's presenting another side to the story. That's completly incorrect and a very poor attempt at saving face. Two sides to a story would be if she had talked to any of the involved parties to find out what had actually happened and then presented each person's take on the situation. But it appears she spoke to no one. Not Michael or his representatives. Not Jerry Baxter, his crew chief. Not Tyler McQuarrie or his car owners. Not Spencer Clark or his team. Not anyone from Nascar either. Because if she had talked to even one of these people she would have known that Michael wasn't involved in any of this and what transpired was radically different than what she wrote about.

The worst part of all of this is that a lot of people may never see the second article with the updated information and assume that Michael is a selfish jerk who has a grudge against Spencer Clark. I was certainly wondering what Michael's beef was with Spencer Clark when I read the original article. Particularly since Clark is the one who was involved with an altercation with Kyle Busch last year after a race at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway Bullring which was made even messier than it already was when Clark's family and others spread some falsehoods about the details of the incident apparently because there is a long-standing rivalry between Clark and Busch and some wanted to do what they could to ruin Busch's reputation. But it's apparently just sheer coincidence that Clark is involved in a second controvery with a Cup driver in less than a year and that it also involved the spreading of false and damaging information.

I'm sure there are some people who think this is no big deal because the story only appeared on racingwest.com. Well, it could easily have been picked up by more well-known media outlets both online and off, such as was the case with the Clark/Busch incident. Not to mention the slightest negative story about a driver will spread far and wide on message boards and via email. I'd like to think that other fans question what they read like I do and would have also picked up on how the conclusions drawn in the original article was based on incorrect information. But unfortunately that doesn't always happen. There are some fans who are quite content to just believe everything they read and never question anything.

Racingwest.com presents itself as a source for news about racing in the West. As such they have a responsibility to ensure that the stories they are posting are accurate and true. Yes, the updated version was posted later which presumably contains the real facts of what actually occured but the first story shouldn't have been posted at all. I understand the urge to jump on a story that is controversial and could draw a lot of traffic to their site, particularly since they were the only ones reporting it. But it's much better to wait and make sure that the story is correct, rather than have to look foolish by printing what is essentially a retraction later on.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:24 AM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2005

More Paparazzi Than Ever

Big Demand for Celebrity Photos

This article doesn't really cover anything that isn't already known - parparazzi will go to any lengths to get the photos they want, there is a huge demand for celebrity photos, celebrities claim to hate the paparazzi but many acknowledge and understand that without their photos they would get far less publicity and attention. But what's interesting is that in light of the recent incident in which Lindsey Lohan's car was rammed by a member of the paparazzi who wanted a photo of her, the LAPD is conducting an investigation into whether some members of the paparazzi in Los Angeles conspire to provoke stars so that they can photograph them in distress. To achieve the goal of getting those photos some paparazzi will engage in stalker-like or possibly illegial behavior which would get a non-photographer arrested.

Because the public loves negative photos of celebrities it's brought more and more paparazzi to Los Angeles - why would anyone be interested in photos showing happy people? Or couples who are happily married rather than celebrities who are cheating on each other - boring! Why yes, that's sarcasm. I think the boom in paparazzi-type photos is a sad commentary on society. Yes, there was interest in photos like that since day one that the first movie star was created. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying photos of celebrities. But I think there's something disturbing about the rabid demand for photos of stars in unguarded, private and personal moments, particularly those that attempt to portray them accurately or not in a negative light. There's no harm in candid shots of celebrities at public events but a lot of these photos come from stalking the celebrities at their houses, on vacation or at family events like weddings. I just don't get the obession with who Brad Pitt might be with now that he's separated from Jennifer Aniston or seeing photos of Lindsey Lohan crying. Why do people need to know that kind of information or see photos that infringe on someone's private life?

Posted by silverdsl at 03:46 PM | Comments (0)

Boston Dirt Dogs Strikes Again

I missed this when it first happened last week but apparently Boston Dirt Dogs used a civil rights era photo of a black man being beaten by a white man, while a crowd of whites stands by watching with the caption underneath "Philly Fans Greet Francona as he Returns Home," in a reference to Terry Francona returning to Philadelphia where he used to manage the Phillies. The photo is grossly inappropropriate and there is no excuse for it's use as part of a parody. There is no comparison between any abuse that Francona might take from Phillies fans and that of African-Americans who were at risk to be attacked simply for walking down the street during that time period in American history. That BDD didn't have the sense to understand why using that photo in the way that he did was absolutely wrong is appalling. Eventually the photo was taken down and an apology was put in it's place, probably after Boston.com got any number of complaints and realized that even they couldn't excuse that photo by saying that "it's just a blog." But as far as I'm concerned there should have been no need for an apology because there's no excuse for that photo being used in the first place. The meaning behind that photo is immediately clear to anyone who looks at it and I'd say that I'm shocked that it was used in the way that it was but when it comes to BDD nothing shocks or suprises me because lapses in judgement are par for the course with him.

It boggles my mind that he is still an employee of Boston.com. It was bad enough that they excused that he ran with a story he knew might be false, didn't check his sources and kept it on his site even after he knew it was false but when there was another incident in which he reported sketchy information, that should have set off some major warning bells that Nomargate wasn't going to be an isolated incident. And the posting of an extremely inappropriate photo is futher indication that there is something wrong with this man's judgement. Does he answer to anyone? Is there an editor who sees his work before it goes up? The answer to both those questions must be no, otherwise that photo would never had made it onto the site. Yes, it's just a blog but as a paid employee of Boston.com and by extension The Boston Globe, he should be subject to some oversight.

Over at SoSH there's a lengthy thread discussing this issue and many feel that BDD is a racist. I would say that he is ignorant for sure since he obviously doesn't know why using that photo was wrong otherwise he wouldn't have used it in the first place. Of course ignorance often forms the base for racism and prejudice in the first place. But it's hard to say if BDD is truly racist on the basis of what he posts on his website. However, it does raise some questions that some of the players he has gone after the most - Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez and Nomar Garciaparra are either minorities or of mixed backgrounds. It could just be coincidence but given the use of the photo one does have to wonder.

Since Nomargate a disclaimer has been added to the BDD site: "Boston Dirt Dogs is a fan site produced by Boston.com. The Boston Globe newspaper and its Sports Dept. do not oversee the site and have no role in its production. BDD’s content is solely the responsibility of Boston.com." The fact that both the Sports Department and the print paper, The Boston Globe, want to distance themselves from BDD makes it clear that all parties at The Boston Globe/Boston.com know that the BDD site if a problem for them. I'm sure they love the hits that he draws to the site but he also brings a huge amount of negative publicity. The next incident, and there will be a next incident because there always is with BDD, could be even worse. Why is Boston.com willing to take that risk for the extra traffic?

Posted by silverdsl at 10:52 AM | Comments (0)

June 20, 2005

The Rumors Game in Nascar

Rumors Make the Sport Go 'Round

The Williams Company is a North Carolina based public relations company that specializes in the motorsports industry. In the past couple of weeks they've had to spend time quelling erroneous rumors that were widely circulated about two of their clients. The first rumor indicated that Ken Schrader, driver of the #49 for BAM Racing was going to retire and would be out of the car at the end of this season. That wasn't true. Then there was a rumor that DCT Motorsports who fields a car for Stanton Barrett was being sold. That wasn't true either. At the time some folks from The Williams Company bemoaned how easily rumors spread in Nascar, particularly in the digital age when rumors are repeated over and over again on the internet. So this week they put together a release on the subject of rumors in racing, particularly in Nascar and the effects, both pro and con. Some of their clients had some very interesting comments about rumors, particularly Kyle Petty.

I think a lot of people don't see what the big deal is about rumors and gossip. But in reality rumors, particularly unfounded rumors can have considerable effects on race teams. Ricky Pearson, a crew chief at DCT said, "It can affect what your team is doing if you listen to them. ‘Momentum’ is just an attitude. Whether you have momentum or not, it’s still basically an attitude. And rumors affect that attitude, so they can affect your momentum. That’s one of the reasons I try to address rumors as soon as I possibly can if they have something to do with my race team. You have to stop it right away." First of all, I think that's an very important observation about momentum - that it is often something mental. So a rumor can bring momentum to a screeching halt if a team wrongly thinks that a driver change is on the horizon or other major changes are in the works. Considering all that's rumored about the #11 team and Jason Leffler I suspect this team has a hard time staying positive, feeling confident and building momentum because every week there's a new rumor about Leffler being replaced. As Pearson noted, it's important to address rumors up-front so that team members don't wonder where they or others stand. However, I don't think that all teams operate in this way. Or if they do address rumors I'm not sure they are always completely truthful. So that probably makes it hard for some drivers when they don't fully know where they stand like Casey Mears, another driver who has been in the rumor mill who seems to be getting conflicting information from Ganassi as to whether he will be with them next season or not.

I have a lot of respect for Kyle Petty for a number of reasons but one of those is that he speaks his mind, though it often goes unnoticed, and his comments on rumors are no less candid than he usually is. He said, "A lot of times NASCAR will float something. They will then read the newspapers, hear what the opinion is on it, and either go forward with it or pull away from it. It’s their way of kind of throwing something out there and seeing what the public thinks. They can also get a feel of what the drivers or teams think without having to go to them. It’s a game. Rumors are almost a little bit of a game sometimes. If you want something changed, or something done, make a comment and see if the press runs with it. If they do, see what the fans say about it. The fans always have something to say about things. If it’s positive then run with it, but if it’s not, then back off from it."

I don't think it's just Nascar that plays that kind of game either. I think the teams, drivers, and other entities in Nascar will also float various rumors to gauge the reaction of those in the garage area and the fans. I suspect that Speed-TV pulled some of that in relation to the changes that have been proposed to some of their programs such as "Nascar Nation" and "Inside Nextel Cup." More than likely they will go ahead and make the changes they want anyway but some of the way rumors and information, both correct and incorrect has surfaced over the past few months makes me think that they are trying to see how much fans will tolerate in terms of changes and to ease the blow when certain changes are made down the road. I also think that representatives from various organizations, will go to message boards to try and float certain pieces of information or opinions about their clients to try to sway the way the fans think about certain individuals or situations.

A lot of people think message boards are useless cesspools full of people spouting off about nonsense. Some can be like that. But some forums can also be used as tools and I think that they often are. I've seen be a complete disaster at times. When fans find out that they're being manipulated or someone has an ulterior motive for spreading information or rumors it often doesn't go over very well. However, I've also seen situations when someone floats information incognito quite successfully. (No, I'm not going to share how I became aware of who these people are at times without others knowing.) The problem is with being dependent on message boards for gauging fan reaction to certain things is that I don't think that online fans are always completely reflective of all fans. With some drivers I've seen a huge difference in what their fans on and off line believe. And then you have drivers like Michael Waltrip who have a huge amount of fans but those people aren't as strong of a presence online as they are off. So that can skew things as well. So sometimes it concerns me that some entities seem dependent on using online fans to get a sense of what all fans are thinking.

Petty also went on to discuss the pros and cons of rumors. He says (in part), "The worst thing that can ever happen from a rumor is a driver getting fired. That’s the worst thing... The next thing you know, the sponsor is saying, ‘Everyone believes there is a problem with our driver, we need to change drivers.’ That’s the worst thing that can happen." That's pretty interesting that an unfounded rumor can actually cause a sponsor to get nervous and ask for a change to be made. I guess in that case perception becomes reality. The fans hear the rumors and discuss it thinking that a change is both needed and imminent. Then the sponsor sees everyone talking and the percieved problem, which may not actually even exist, grows legs.

I think Steve Park got bit by this after his accident in 2001. There were quite a few rumors about his worthiness as a driver but also seemingly every week that he was going to lose his ride both when he was in the #1 and the #30. Which added up to a lot of negative discussion in relation to Steve and both of those teams which surely made Pennzoil and AOL unhappy. In reality the problems were with the lack of competitiveness of the cars that Steve was given to race with after he recovered from his injuries but a lot of people believed the rumors that were spread about him. So when he didn't do well their negative perceptions of his worthiness as a driver were reenforced. Not just among fans either - many in the garage area thought he was damaged goods but luckily Orleans Racing realized how wrong all those rumors were and hired him for the #62. Unfortunately in spite of the win at Fontana and no matter what Steve does in the future I have no doubt that there are many who will still believe all those ugly rumors that circulated about Steve in 2002 and 2003.

But Petty doesn't think that rumors and talk is all bad. He said, "The best thing that can happen is when teams, NASCAR, or anybody complains about something from a safety standpoint. They will say that something isn’t the safest, or wonder why this track didn’t put in barriers, or this and that. Someone picks it up and runs with it. All of the sudden, the next time you go the place the track has SAFER Barriers or has changed things. I think the pluses happen when someone runs with something that improves the sport." I can't help but think of Michael Waltrip and Jeff Burton. Michael will talk about SAFER Barriers and other safety issues from time to time on "Inside Nextel Cup" and Burton has also championed various safety issues. I think when Michael does it on INC it can particularly have an effect because Nascar and others know that show has a large audience. I have to agree with Petty that sometimes there is some good that can come out of rumors. Sometimes information needs to be floated to illicit certain reactions. Or because saying some things publically is the only way to make sure that some action is taken or that certain things get attention.

Ken Schrader addressed one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to rumors and the online media - not fact-checking or taking rumors as fact without attempting to follow up with all the involved parties. He says, "But, now with the Internet… rumors take on a life of their own. If you get a couple people writing about it, folks start taking it as fact… and they haven’t even addressed the source to begin with. Sometimes they run wild with that stuff." I can't say how many times rumors are stated as fact by the online media without even the simpliest research to find out of there's any truth to it or not. Boston Dirt Dogs has definitely Is guilty of this in the past in a very big way and that just scratches the surface of those who will formulate opinions or report rumors as fact without doing any kind of fact-checking. Yes, sometimes it's impossible to fact-check rumors. But at least some meager attempt to discover whether the rumor is true or not should be made whether it's by sending an email or making a phone call. Even a "no comment" is better than nothing.

Obviously the internet has changed the way the media operates and also the way that rumors are spread. Marty Gaunt, General Manager of Red Horse Racing says, "The sport has always had rumors but the Internet has just magnified them. More people see the rumors so they spread faster and wider. In the ‘old days,’ one guy would tell one guy something and 15 people would hear it. Now it’s maybe 15,000 people by the end of the day." Which is one of the biggest problems about Jayski's. On one hand it's a great resource for news and information but on the other when he reports a rumor that turns out to be false it might be seen by thousands of people who will believe that it's true. Jayski does a good job of trying to clarify and correct rumors once he finds out additional information about their truth. But there's no guarentee that the people who see the rumor in the first place will return to see the correction. I've seen that a lot and not just with Jayski's where people will believe everything they hear and not seek any clarification or pay much attention to follow-up stories. So they end up holding some very inaccurate beliefs.

Steve Park's former crew chief with the #1, Paul Andrews speaks to the detrimental effects that rumors can have on a team. "When it’s rumored that a driver is going to leave the team at the end of the season, and it’s halfway through the season, you can almost count on it not being a great part of the season. It doesn’t matter if it’s rumor or fact. Once it becomes fact, most of the time, it’s not during a good season for the driver or team. Sometimes rumors get running so wild that you have to address them. Owners or drivers, sometimes, will have to lie because they can’t say they are going to leave or want to leave because other things aren’t done yet. It definitely affects the teams for sure." Of course I can't help but wonder if he has Steve in mind with any of those comments in that at various times there were rumors about Steve's future in the #1 and at DEI thanks to some issues with contract negotiations, even prior to the accident. I think that this happened with Michael Waltrip last season as well since there started to be talk about what his future at DEI might be towards the end of the season. I think that makes it very hard for a team and driver when there are rumors in the air about their future. And as Andrews notes, even when there's truth to what's being said, it can make things difficult. The #15 team knew that there was a lot of uncertainty hanging over their heads at the end of 2005, a lot of which continues into 2006, and I think that can be very discouraging and can make it difficult to give 100% if it seems as if the results won't matter because a driver change might happen anyway. I'm really glad that Michael has gotten so many great finishes this season because I think that has gone a long way towards easing some of the tension that might exist in terms of concern about who the driver of the #15 might be in 2006.

Jeff Green, the subject of a few rumors himself over the years says, "You can believe about two percent of the rumors. It’s one of the things that make our sport go around. We probably have more rumors than real factual stories most of time." The thing is that I've found that while there are some outlandish rumors that have zero truth to them, often rumors have some grain of truth to them. In that a rumor is started on the basis of something that is factual and someone elaborates on it and runs with it. Like the game of telephone in that what you end up with doesn't bare any resemblance to what you started out with. It's a matter of figuring out where the truth lies. I'm often skeptical of what teams, drivers and others in the sport say because often folks will spin a situation for their own benefit. Unfortunately sometimes people will even outright lie. I think sometimes fans turn a blind eye to the blatant untruths that are sometimes told. More often than not, I'd like to think that everyone is up front about what they are saying but I've seen some situations where one thing is said and then something completely different is said down the road. Both things can't possibly be true which means that someone, somewhere is lying. Of course it's not just Nascar where this happens either.

I think rumors in Nascar and rumor sites like Jayski's have their place. If not for some of those sites and rumors being spread I think Nascar, teams, drivers and others would be able to keep a lot of situations hidden from the fans a lot easier and that's not a good thing. Sites like Jayski's make it hard for everyone in Nascar to cover things up because odds are that someone will hear about it and it will get reported somewhere. As Kyle Petty and other said, rumors can cause reactions and that can be a good thing. However, rumors can also be very damaging. Care needs to be taken to phrase rumors in the proper way, particularly in the media, so that it's clear that what is being presented isn't confirmed as fact. Fans also need to be cautious about the things that they read, not take everything as fact and ask questions. And the PR companies, teams, drivers and everyone else involved can help by addressing rumors directly and honestly, as much as their might be a temptation just to ignore what's being said or in some cases to spin and lie their way out of situations.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)

June 19, 2005

Another Newspaper Forced to Suspend Online Comments

Navajo Times

While I was reading another interesting article, I came across a statement in which the Navajo Times, a publication for Navajo indians, was forced to shut down the forum on their website for reader comments due to comments filled with obscenities, vulgarities and threats which were being posted in such volume that the webmaster of the site was unable to keep up with removing them. The way it all unfolded is remarkably similar to what happened at the Ventura County Star in which they too were forced to shut down the ability for readers to comment on articles on their website after good discussions rapidly turned into something ugly. As I noted then, most message boards, fan forums, comment sections, etc... follow a similar pattern. Things start off good and then rapidly go bad. It can be controllable but there has to be a staff of people willing to work hard to stay on top of the problem and even then the site has to be willing to accept that they will never be able to have everything be perfect or quite like they were when the site first started.

In a perfect world people would always behave appropriately both online and off but as we all know this most certainly isn't a perfect world.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)

June 14, 2005

Deep Throat Assigned to Investigate... Deep Throat

How Deep Throat Fooled the FBI

This is a pretty interesting article by The Nation in which they indicate that during the Watergate period when Mark Felt was acting as Deep Throat and feeding information to Woodward and Bernstein at the Washington Post, he had also been assigned to be the FBI's point man to investigate who Deep Throat was. Which gave him the ability to throw the Nixon White House and all others off his scent. The Nation read through some of Felt's old memos in the FBI archives and they revealed how he had to investigate himself. One tactic Felt used to divert suspicion from himself was to throw it on someone else. One memo that Felt wrote in 1972 implicated the county prosecutor in Miami, Richard Gerstein, as possibly being Deep Throat, even though Felt knew no such thing was true. The more that comes out, the more amazing it is what Felt was doing and how he manipulated any number of people and situations.

What's also interesting is that according to tape recordings Nixon and those around him suspected Felt of being Deep Throat but decided that they were powerless to go after him if he was in fact the one leaking information to the Post because of how much damaging information he knew due to his position at the FBI. Which is pretty incredibly that Felt was able to put the President of the United Staes in a position where he felt like he couldn't take action. Felt was somehow able to cover up what he was doing enough to fool a lot of people and prevent those who suspected him from going after him which really speaks to how much time and effort he put into being Deep Throat and making sure he would never be caught. Which he never was - we would still be wondering who Deep Throat was if not for his family's choice to reveal his identity.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:52 AM | Comments (0)

June 02, 2005

Deep Throat Revealed: The Aftermath

Shows the Value of Anonymous Sources

The Washington Post's Lost Scoop

On the Trail of the Secret Informant

Unless you've been living under a rock somewhere most people are probably aware that Deep Throat, the anonymous source who blew the lid off of Watergate to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, was finally revealed after 33 years to be 91-year old Mark Felt, who was the second in command at the FBI during the Nixon Administration. The way this has evolved is pretty fascinating to me given my interest in the way the media operates, journalistic integrity and ethics and the use of anonymous sources. There has been much said and written about the revelation that Felt was Deep Throat but I picked out three articles that were different but interesting.

The first article by Zachary Coile from the San Francisco Chronicle says that Deep Throat is a reminder that despite the recent Newsweek fiasco in which they were burned by improperly using an anonymous sources, that sometimes anonymous sources are of tremendous value. James Bettinger who directs the John S. Knight journalism fellowship program at Stanford University said, "There are certain kinds of reporting that cannot be done without sources who are unnamed, in particular reporting on national security or defense ... because people jeopardize their careers and in some cases their legal status by disclosing things." That is 100% true. Felt would never have come forward if not for the promise that he could stay anonymous given his position in the FBI. Had he not acted as a source for Woodward and Bernstein, consider how much about the Nixon adminsitration would have gone unknown and how much would have been different. I think that anonymous sources most definitely have their place in journalism otherwise a lot of things would never be known to the public. However, anonymous sources should be used under strict guidelines and the information they provide checked as much as possible with other sources. Woodward and Bernstein were careful to say that they didn't just rely on Felt for the stories they wrote but also had other sources.

Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post writes about how the Post got scooped on a story in which they were deeply involved. And it all revolves around the promise Woodward, Bernstein, and then executive editor, Ben Bradlee made to Felt 33-years ago that they would keep his identity confidential. But it wasn't just the promise that kept them silent. Given Felt's health and failing memory they thought that he didn't have the capacity anymore to release them from the promise. Though Woodward had been in contact with Felt, his daughter and even the lawyer who ended up writing the article for Vanity Fair the public disclosure of who Deep Throat was came as a complete surprise. I imagine that the Vanity Fair article was kept such a secret so that the Post wouldn't be able to rush out their own article on who Deep Throat was. But the journalistic integrity of Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee that they never revealed to anyone who Deep Throat is should be a model to other reporters. Keeping a secret for 33-years, particularly one like that, couldn't have been easy.

In News Virginian J. Todd Foster writes about how he could have exposed Felt as Deep Throat as early as 2002 but ultimately didn't. At the time Foster was working for People Magazine on a story about Deep Throat. During the course of his work he became convinced that Felt was in fact Deep Throat and got in touch with his family. Eventually the family approached him about doing a story about Felt as Deep Throat but they wanted a significant amount of money, which People wouldn't agree to give them. As Foster says, "Reputable news organizations don't pay a penny for news." Which makes me wonder if Vanity Fair had to pay the Felt family anything? But Foster took the project to Harper-Collins publishing which naturally was interested in a book and they agreed to pay the Felt family's price. However as Foster talked to Mark Felt based on the transcipts he provides in this article it's very clear that Felt has dementia. That made doing the book impossible.

But it highlights why Woodward and Co. at the Post also had reservations about revealing Felt as Deep Throat. He was just not in any shape to understand if he was asked about revealing who he was. Which also makes me wonder how his family knew that he wanted everyone to know or even if he understands what's going on now. Kind of sad really. And more than likely unless Felt kept some diaries any book won't have much input from him. That's unfortunate because it would have been interesting to read his perspectives and thoughts on what he did.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:37 AM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2005

Jayski Gets it Wrong, Then Gets it Right

Part of a statement from Hermie Sadler via Jayski's: "After the rumor of my departure from Peak Performance Motorsports was erroneously reported on several websites last week, I wanted to personally respond to all the media and fans. First of all, I am committed to staying with the Peak Performance Motorsports team for the entire 2005 season and am hopeful that relationship lasts beyond that. While we are disappointed with our performances so far this season, we are working together as a team to improve. Although we have a way to go, we are steadily making progress. It concerns me that a website [Jayski.com] would post a rumor that could be fatal to an up-start team such as ours without consulting with the team owner, public relations representative, or the driver. Not only do we have employees that may be affected, but this can also be detrimental to our hunt for additional sponsorship, which is vital to the growth of our team."

Last week Jayski published a rumor on his site that Hermie Sadler had been let go from the #66 team. Which as nice of a guy as Hermie apparently is, wouldn't surprise a lot of people because as hard working as Hermie and the rest of his team is their results this season haven't been stellar. However, as it turned out the rumor that Jayski posted was completely false. Unlike Boston Dirt Dogs, Jayski didn't try to insist that the story had truth to it or make any other kind of excuses. Instead he printed the full statement on his site including the above passage that was critical of him for failing to check out this rumor as carefully as he should have before posting it. I think that says something about Jayski because he could have edited out those remarks before posting Hermie's statement. But he didn't.

Hermie is 100% correct that given the large audience that Jayski's has a rumor like that could be very detrimental to the team if everyone thinks that they are about to fire their driver or even fold. There's no doubt that the team probably attracts extra attention than a small team like that might normally because Hermie is the brother of Elliott Sadler, who is extremely popular. That's just like any team that Kerry Earnhardt drives for is going to get extra attention simply because of his family ties. So if there's any suspicion that those ties might disappear I can see how that might make sponsors or others leery to get involved.

So Jayski posts the statement which both corrects the false rumor he posted and is critical of him. Yet compare that to Boston Dirt Dogs. Yet again he ran with a story that was shaky in truth at best. He claimed that a source told him that Keith Foulke went to Alabama to get his injured shoulder checked out by Dr. James Andrews. Well, as it turns out Foulke did go to Alabama, something intitially denied by the Red Sox, but he's not injured. He went to work on his pitching mechanics. When confronted with the real facts of the situation BDD apparently responded by calling Foulke a liar on the radio and by trying to shift blame for reporting information that wasn't completely accurate to Sons of Sam Horn where he apparently lifted the original information from.

Both of these two men run very similar sites, though Jayski doesn't include the parodies that BDD does. Yet their response to being confronted with having neglected to follow up completely on material provided to them by sources which later turned out to be untruthful is completely different. Perhaps it's due to the organizations they are affiliated with - ESPN in the case of Jayski and Boston.com in the case of BDD and the differences in philosophies at those two sites. Or maybe it's a difference in approach by the individuals who run the sites. I think Jayski probably has a better understanding of why it's important to face up to those things so that his site is taken seriously as a source for Nascar news and information. And that means being able to admit to a mistake when one is made.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:36 PM | Comments (0)

May 29, 2005

Decision to Leave "Trackside" Not Michael Waltrip's After All?

Claimed It Was His Decision On Inside Nextel Cup

According to a report on ThatsRacin.com, contrary to Michael Waltrip saying on Inside Nextel Cup that he left Trackside on Speed voluntarily to devote more time to his Busch and Cup rides, the choice to leave was not his. It's funny because when I watched Michael saying on INC that he wanted to set the record straight that he left by his own choice I had the feeling that he might not be telling the truth based on his body language and deliver. It sounded like something that he felt he had to say rather than he wanted to say and he seemed to be looking down, away from the camera. Then there was an article in Nascar Scene about him being replaced by Rusty Wallace which also indicated it wasn't voluntary and in which he declined comment. Why would he choose not to comment for that article if he knew that false stories about why he was replaced were circulating? So I wasn't surprised by the Thatsracin article. I'm just glad that it came on the Friday of a holiday weekend which means that it will be missed by a significant amount of people because there are already a lot of people who think that Michael is simply a mouthpiece who doesn't think for himself. So the last thing that he needs is for people to read that article and have the widely-held opinion that everything he says is told to him by Nascar or a sponsor re-enforced.

So why would Michael lie if the above article on Thatsracin is true? I'm sure we'll never know but if there's anything to the article there are a couple of possiblities. One, is that Michael wanted people to think that the choice was his because it looks better for him if he wasn't essentially fired from the show. Two, is that it was partially his choice in that perhaps he was offered a variety of Speed shows that he could do but not all of them and he choose INC and the truck races, so in that case the decision would in fact have been his in a way. The third possibliity which I suspect could be the most likely is that given the firestorm of backlash by fans who were opposed to Michael being replaced by Rusty to the point where it was a big topic of discussion on XM's "Dialed In," Speed told Michael to say on INC that it was his choice just to shut the fans up. That's kind of unfortunate that he would go along with something like that but I guess in a lot of ways he wouldn't have much choice if they asked him to do that since the folks at Speed are his bosses as it relates to what he does on their shows.

The other thing that makes me think that Speed might have been trying to do some damage control is that after the furor erupted over the possible changes to INC and Michael being replaced by Rusty suddenly it was said that Michael was renewed for INC and the truck series broadcasts. Perhaps Speed didn't realize how badly some of this would go over with the fans. And if their intention was to do damage control they were successful because most people stopped talking about the new vice president at Speed possibly making changes that they didn't like once they were appeased by the news that Michael was staying on INC and after he made his statement about "Trackside."

I have no illusions that the drivers always tell the truth publically. Some fans might sugar coat it by saying they are just spinning or telling white lies and often it is just a matter of slightly adjusting the truth. But the drivers are expected to maintain a certain image, to always present a rosy picture of what's going on with their team, to push the products and companies they sponsor and essentially make everyone from fans to sponsors happy no matter what. So inevitably that will include exaggerating or fudging the truth. Such as when almost every driver talks about how wonderful their car is each race weekend when surely some of them know that their car doesn't have a chance of sniffing victory lane now or maybe even ever. Or how the drivers say all the "right" things when asked their opinions about different situations rather than what they might actually think. Or how some drivers surely speak highly of products or companies they couldn't care less about. Or what I think happens most often how the drivers must pretend that they are the happiest people on the planet even on days when they are tired, cranky, upset or sick.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:20 PM | Comments (0)

May 23, 2005

CBS Chief Blames Mariano Rivera for Ratings Loss

Mooves Says Blown Save Blew CBS's Chances to Win Key Demographic

According to a New York Times article, Leslie Mooves, Chairman of CBS, claims that the competition between CBS and Fox was so close in the key 18 to 49 demographic that the blown saves by Mariano Rivera during last year's post-season games against the Red Sox cost CBS the ratings win against Fox. Apparently, Mooves supposedly said, "Mariano Rivera cost us more money than the Yankees." Well, maybe if CBS had better programming that actually appealed to the 18-49 demographic then they wouldn't have to be dependant on Rivera's ability to close out a game to win in the ratings.

Of course it should be noted that CBS are the former owners of the Yankees prior to George Steinbrenner. CBS could never make a success of the team and sold them to Steinbrenner for $10 million in 1973. It's now estimated that the Yankees are currently worth $950 million so Steinbrenner made quite a bit of money on that deal.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:47 AM | Comments (0)

Boston Sportscaster Sues Comic Strip Creator

"Get Fuzzy" Comic Suggests Bob Lobel Does Sportscasts Drunk

"Get Fuzzy" is a comic strip about a dog and cat that talk and their owner. I've never been a huge fan of it but occassionally it's good for a laugh, particularly since from time to time there are references to the Yankees or Red Sox. Turns out that's because the creator of the strip, Darby Conley, lives in the Boston area. So the May 13 comic featured the dog, cat and their owner watching TV. The dog says, "Is this sportscaster ... drunk?" The owner then follows with The owner replies, "Lobel? Who knows?" The comic then ends after some other dialogue with the dog saying, "Guys, guys! How can you fight while there's a drunk guy on TV?" It's long been speculated by those in the Boston area that Bob Lobel who does the sports for WBZ-TV, a CBS station, has a drinking problem and that he goes on the air under the influence. So the strip was a reference to the speculation about Lobel. Which didn't go over well with Lobel as he is now suing for libel.

I have no idea what Conley was thinking by doing this strip. It's not like something that was just going to be seen by his friends. "Get Fuzzy" is syndicated to 450 newspapers. At least one newspaper, the Boston Globe , realized the inappropriateness of the strip and substituted "him" for "Lobel." But it ran unedited elsewhere. Granted it is hard for someone to prove libel so it may be hard for Lobel to win his case. But on the other hand, a public assertation in a comic strip that a guy goes on the air drunk is really over the line and I can see why Lobel wants to try and do something about it. Particularly since, as the article notes, he is in contract negotiations with his station so that sort of thing could be very damaging if the station thinks that there is a wide-spread belief that Lobel is a drunk. After reading the lengthy SoSH thread on this issue it does appear that a lot of people do think he goes on the air drunk, so the comic strip probably re-affirms what a lot of them believe to begin with. It will be interesting to see if this ends up getting to court and if Lobel can prove libel.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:08 AM | Comments (0)

May 22, 2005

Just Wondering...

Park Moves Up in Points Standings With Strong Finish in Charlotte

TopTen at Charlotte Gets Gaughan Going in the Right Direction

If The Orleans and Kroyer Racing weren't one of the more prominent sponsors at truckseries.com, would Steve Park and Brendan Guaghan have so many articles written about them and their teams and would their race reports be featured so prominantly? I love any and all articles about Steve and I wish that more publications would do articles on him but it does seem that quite a bit of coverage of those guys ends up on truckseries.com as compared to other media outlets. Likewise, if the same people who do truckseries.com didn't also do Bobby Hamilton's offical site would there be as many articles about him either? Truckseries.com does a good job of providing articles and information about a series that is often overlooked, even on Nascar's official site, and that is a good thing but I can't help but wonder if some of these relationships, particularly the ones that involved advertising dollars might dictate their news coverage. Keldan Media Group also does Dennis Setzer's site so I will have to see if he gets more coverage than others as well. I could very well be talking out of my ass right now but often coverage on websites, even news oriented ones, aren't governed by the same rules as offline media publications so this was just something I was thinking about the other day.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:14 PM | Comments (0)

May 20, 2005

Ventura County Star Forced to Disable Comments on Website

Too Much Trolling; Offensive Remarks

There are some patterns that tend to be present on most online forums and I read this article with amusement because one of those patterns played itself out on the Ventura County Star website recently. That newspaper decided that they would add a comments section to the articles that they published on line to allow readers to express their opinions on the subject that were being covered. At first everything was great. There were good discussions and comments that might not have appeared in print. Then suddenly race became an issue in virtually every discussion and the moderation staff was forced to start deleting some offensive remarks. Finally, trolls started posting things just to get other users riled up and the amount of inappropriate comments and vicious arguments escalated. So now the Star has decided to suspend the comments section until they can figure out a way to have it without having to spend all their time moderating every discussion.

This kind of situation plays out over and over again on countless forums and message boards. A board starts off small and everyone knows each other. There are great discussions and everything is fine even if not everyone agrees with each other. But as the board starts to grow and more and more people come in not everyone knows each other anymore. Then something happens and there is a hot-button issue that divides the community. On a smaller board everyone just agrees to disagree but on larger boards groups tend to form and people take sides. Often things turn personal. Finally, trolls show up specifically to start trouble and say things to incite arguements. The only way to get a handle on these problems is by having community standards which are enforced by a moderation team or by having a closed board where only a limited amount of people, all of whom know each other can post. The whole purpose of the Star's comment section is for any reader to comment on articles so having a closed board won't really work for them. But moderating the discussions somehow is really the only way to go.

Unfortunately a lot of these issues aren't easy to handle. Often it seems like the solutions are simple on the surface. Just do this or that. But when you're dealing with large groups of people, even online a lot of thought needs to go into the figuring out what approach is best for the community. And unfortunately as we've learned on NYYFans.com, the larger the community the more problems that sprout and the more complicated they are.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:26 PM | Comments (0)

May 17, 2005

Newsweek Retracts Koran Story

Story Lead to Violent Protests in Several Countries
Damage is Done and Can't Be Fixed

Last week Newsweek reported that an anonymous source who was a Senior U.S. official told their reporter that a investigation had confirmed that a U.S. investigator at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. Newsweek's story led to violent protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia, among other countries, which led to the deaths of 16 people. Only one problem with the story - the source's information wasn't accurate. The source later said that he can "no longer be sure" of the information he provided. While Newsweek did contact Pentagon officials who didn't take issue with the story before it was printed, it's appalling that Newsweek went with such a volitile story without having a single source who was willing to go on record with a definitive confirmation that the investigation had in fact confirmed the claims of some prisoners at Guantanamo that a Koran was destroyed in a toliet.

When dealing with investigative news the use of sources is a tricky situation. It can be hard to get people to go on record with information if they fear repercussions for speaking out. In addition, if you've got a highly placed source, such as the one Newsweek was using in this case, who is in a position to know the information they are providing and they have always given solid information in the past, Newsweek would have every reason to trust this person. But being anonymous means that their source never has to face the music for being wrong which in this case they were. You also have to wonder if an anoymous source might have some sort of agenda that they are using the media for, which again they don't have to answer to. With stories like this which are so damaging and have such far-ranging consequences Newsweek and other similar media outlets must do a better job of proper sourcing. Yes, Newsweek apparently showed the story to someone at the Pentagon but they should be going further than that. They should have followed up specifically on that item and it appears that they didn't do that.

The second article I linked to highlights the biggest problem with this story and it's how damaging it is to the United States relations with Muslim countries. This damage will be almost impossible to fix. Newsweek 's retraction will never get as much coverage in those countries as the original story did. In addition, many who do hear about the retraction will believe that the Koran story did still happen and the U.S. government is engaging in a cover-up. Unfortunately due to the mistreatement of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, to many the story that an investigator tore up a Koran and flushed it down a toliet is completely believable. So in spite of the retraction many are going to be inclined to think that it happened anyway.

Newsweek has issued an apology but it seems to me that they will need to go further than that. I think they need to investigate their use of anonymous sources. But more than that I think they need to take a look at the process by which the reporter and editorial staff decided that there was nothing wrong with running a story that anyone should be able to know could light a firestorm of outrage without properly ensuring that the information the story contained was factual.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:50 AM | Comments (0)

May 15, 2005

Nascar Drivers: 360 Episode One

Nascar Drivers: 360

FX's "reality" show, Nascar Drivers: 360, which follows a number of drivers around to show what their lives are like on and off the track premiered on Friday. I put reality in quotes because much like other reality shows it's not really a true depiction of reality. Even more so with this show as Kenny Wallace, one of the participants on the show, has said that all segments are subject to approval and editing by both Nascar and the drivers themselves. Which means that it's not a true picture of what happens because anything negative, the least bit controversial, or that Nascar or the drivers don't want to show can come out. In addition, I believe that there are some things which are set up specifically for the show, such as Dale, Jr's meeting and relationship with his ex-girlfriend Kortni from last season. Or the Kasey Kahne scene from this most recent episode when they film him waking up in his motorcoach, which I will discuss later in this entry.

Friday's episode focused on Kurt Busch, Rusty Wallace and Kahne. The segments with Busch featured his girlfriend Eva Bryan quite heavily and a lot of people don't like her too much. Many seem to feel that she was taking too much credit for what Busch did or that she's too fake. What strikes me is that Busch truly thinks the world of her. He said that to him she's the most beautiful woman in the world and how much her support and presence in his life means to him and has helped him. So my impression is that when Bryan talks as she does it's because she is very much Busch's partner. She's not there on the race track with him but she is there with him at every race, at most events, in essence a huge part of his life. From what he seemed to say he does credit her with being part of why he was able to become Champion. In addition, all the interviews on this show are probably coached and the answers are in response to very specific questions that are meant to elicit certain comments. In addition, the answers are edited certain ways. So as with every reality show who knows what the full answers are that any of these people, Bryan included, say and how hearing the full version might change how they come across?

Then there was Rusty Wallace and I found his segments to be pretty uninteresting, much like last season. The crazy thing is that while Wallace isn't as hyperactive and hysterical as his brother Kenny, he definitely is an outspoken and interesting guy. But none of that is really coming across in the show. Just like last season I feel like he's self-censoring himself and putting on a bit of an act for the cameras. He even said in one of the segments that he is training his son Steve, who is also a racer, in the ways of acting appropriately for the fans and the media. And I think that he is very much "acting" in that way that all these guys do when there are cameras around and they are in the public eye rather than just being himself. Of course every single participant in a reality show does that to a degree but I feel like Wallace is doing that even more than some others. I actually fast-forwarded through some parts of his segments and I suspect I will do the same in future episodes.

The Kasey Kahne segments were the most interesting to me. They showed him a lot with Kristi LaBonte, Terry LaBonte's daughter, who may or may not still be Kahne's girlfriend. LaBonte is an attractive woman but she definitely doesn't fit the usual profile for a driver's girlfriend which is a lot flashier in looks and attire, often with blonde hair. Even if they are still together now (the show was filmed months ago) I would not be surprised to see her replaced with another woman, or more likely several women, in the future who are more model-looking. That's just the way it seems to work these days, with the driver's significant others seeming to serve as status symbols. For Kahne's sake I hope he doesn't go this route - LaBonte would certainly be a lot more understanding of the way the racing world operates more than a lot of other women.

What really made me laugh was the scene in which they show Kahne supposedly being woken up by his alarm at 8 a.m. the morning of the Daytona 500 in his motorcoach. I'm supposed to believe that a whole camera crew got into Kahne's motorcoach without waking him up and was just sitting there in his bedroom waiting for him to wake up? I guess he could be a heavy sleeper but I'm skeptical. Not to mention what if he slept in the nude? Of course that wouldn't be shown but that would make for an embarassing situation for the crew. Last season there was a scene with I think it was either Jamie McMurray or Junior himself shirtless. My suspicion is that they are deliberately setting up some of these half-naked scenes with the young heartthrob drivers because they know the female fans love those shots. Some have said that it looks like Kahne has "morning wood" but while I didn't look all that carefully I don't know how anyone could really tell with boxers that baggy. I think that's just wishful thinking on a lot of fans parts.

What was really disturbing was one of the last scenes after the race in which a female fan was trying to get Kahne's attention so that he would go over to the fence where she was presumably to sign autographs and pose for photos. No joke, she was calling him over like he was a dog. "Come here little boy! Come over here! Come to Mommy! I told you to come over here!" That's just scary. Kahne is a human being, not a dog or a possession. He doesn't have to go over to the fence just because a fan is calling him over. What's really scary is that while there are plenty of fans who realize that it's not going to make a good impression to act like that towards the drivers, there are a lot of fans who see nothing wrong with screaming ridiculous things at the drivers or doing anything they can to get their attention. What they probably don't realize is how many people laugh at them when they do stuff like that, the drivers included and not in a good way. I certainly understand getting all freaked out when in the presence of my favorite drivers but I can't imagine ever calling one of them over like a dog.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:06 PM | Comments (0)

May 13, 2005

Changes Planned to Inside Nextel Cup

New VP Isn't Wasting Any Time

By June 27 there will be a new look to many of Speed TV's Nascar shows. Besides the ill-advised move to replace Krista Voda on Nascar Nation with Leeanne Tweeden, Speed plans on shortening Inside Nextel Cup from and hour and a half to one hour, replacing some of the talent on the show and using more in-car communications to make viewers seem like they are in the car during the race. I've got some issues with all three of these planned changes but particularly the first two.

In terms of the length of the show, the longer time has allowed the panel to discuss issues in some depth that they might not have been able to do on an hour show. They talked quite extensively about fire and safety as well as the James Finch incident and I'm sure we would not have heard the same amount of commentary if they only had a minute or two to talk about each issue. In addition, they are able to devote time to going over each race, which will become more important as the season goes on and there are more three-race weekends. In an hour they can only briefly mention the Busch and Truck races and that does a disservice to the fans who tune in to hear some commentary on those races in addition to what's said about the Cup races. With a longer show they are also able to interview the hot seat guests for longer which also adds to the show. The hour long shows were way too rushed and I'm extremely disappointed that they will go back to a format where they will just have to quickly gloss over everything instead of being able to spend time on anything. A more relaxed show is a much better show.

I also take issue with any planned changes to the panel on Inside Nextel Cup. Since one of the biggest reasons I watch the show is for Michael Waltrip, I certainly hope they don't plan on replacing him. I don't see how they can since his unique personality, commentary and his outrageous sense of humor is a huge part of the show. In addition, the interplay between Ken Schrader and Michael is priceless. They are hysterical on that show and Ken often also has some great insights. I think it's a big plus to have one driver from a multi-car, large organization as well as a driver from a small team that often struggles for success.

My feeling is that it may be Johnny Benson who gets replaced. As time has gone on it's seemed like Johnny has less and less to say each week. I guess part of that is becuase he is in the truck series and the races aren't as frequent but even when it comes to discussing what's happening in the truck series he doesn't seem to have as much to say as he once did. I don't know why that is but I can see Speed replacing him which I think would be a shame because I think it's a good idea to have someone who represents another series besides Cup on the panel. Or maybe they'll end up keeping Johnny and replacing Michael and/or Ken. Speed may want to cut down on the humor on INC, which I think is the best part of the show and go to a more serious format where they simply review the races without joking with each other or about their competitors.

I think it's a good idea to use more of the in-car communications to show viewers what it's like for the drivers during races. But if they are planning on doing something where they discourage the panel from commenting much on what happens during the races and instead make them simply show what happens - "Here's what Jimmie Johnson had to say after he caused another wreck" without any discussion that doesn't seem very interesting. Not to mention with the shorter show after every clip Alan Bestwick, if he gets to stay on the show, will be saying, "Oops, we're out of time!"

My feeling is that Speed thinks that many of their viewers aren't interested in any in-depth discussion of anything related to Nascar. That all fans are interested in is fluff pieces like they have on Nascar Nation or a race review that never touches upon any issues. Maybe it's not just Speed that feels that way given Fox's over-hyped Sexiest Driver Poll. Well, this fan and many other fans want some actual hard news coverage and discussion of the issues facing Nascar. It's really a shame that no one seems interested in giving us any of that kind of coverage of the sport, not on Speed and not anywhere else either.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:08 PM | Comments (0)

May 09, 2005

Would the Runaway Bride Have Gotten as Much Attention if She was a Minority?

Douglas Mackinnon Says No

Interesting commentary by Douglas MacKinnon, who was press secretary for former U.S. Senator Bob Dole, in which he says that the media doesn't care about the disappearance of minorities but focuses undue attention on the disappearances of young, attractive, white women. I would agree with him. I'm quite sure that every day there are people who unfortunately turn up missing. Yet the stories that we hear the most about, particularly from the cable news shows, are those that involve young white women. And unfortunately it's all about money and ratings. One anonymous person at a cable news network said, "We showcase missing, young, white, attractive women because our research shows we get more viewers. It's about beating the competition and ad dollars." That is a sad state of affairs that a lot of people are only interested when it's a woman who fits certain characteristics.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)

May 06, 2005

Krista Voda to be Replaced on Nascar Nation by Leeann Tweeden

Voda Leaving for Job in Pittsburgh

If there's any truth to this it's absolutely appalling that Speed is negotiating with Leeann Tweeden to take Krista Voda's place on Nascar Nation. I've discussed Tweeden before, here and here, and have a major issue with her being hired in any journalistic capacity. This is a woman who has had a relationship with at least one driver and has friendships with other drivers. As I discussed in relation to Marty Smith previously, I think it's a problem any time a reporter has a friendship with one of the subjects they cover in terms of their ability to be objective, let alone when they've had a sexual relationship with that person. What's even more disturbing is that according to Elliott Sadler, as noted in one of the above entries, Tweeden is also a liar. Even more reason why she should not come within ten feet of any kind of news show, as fluffy as it might be since you sure can't call Nascar Nation a hard news show.

Of course Speed will be willing to over-look any of these issues because Tweeden will probably bring huge ratings to Nascar Nation due to her popularity as an object of desire for many men. However, I wonder how Speed is going to handle it if Tweeden becomes involved with a driver or someone else in the garage area? It's been said, and I have no idea how true it is, that Tweeden was involved with several baseball players while she was a correspondant for "The Best Damn Sports Show" on Fox. So if there's any truth to that, perhaps Speed will just turn a blind eye like Fox might have.

In my opinion, Tweeden is a most unworthy replacement for Krista Voda.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:17 PM | Comments (3)

ABC's American Idol Inquiry Signifies a News Shift?

Changing Values of TV News

Some media analysts feel that ABC's "Primetime Live" investigation into allegations by Corey Clark that he had a "special" relationship with Paula Abdul signifies the changing values of television news. Some feel that the motive was for ABC to attack a rival network, others feel that it reflects what television journalism is now about. Former NBC news president, Larry Grossman said, "That's characteristic of the prime-time magazine shows at all the networks. They are nonfiction entertainment rather than dealing with the major issues of our time. . . . If it's a good story, it's a good story. The question is: What do they define as a good story?"

I think that's a very accurate summary of the state of television news. It's a sad state of affairs when an entire hour on a hard news program is devoted to whether Paula Abdul had an affair with an American Idol contestant, particularly when it probably doesn't make much of a difference in the long-run anyway given that the judges don't make the determination of who goes and who stays on AI. There's no doubt that an expose on AI is going to get huge ratings so I can understand why they would do that story. But aren't there more important issues that can and should be focused on? I can certainly think of a whole laundry list of issues that seem to matter more than the allegations of a contestant from AI who was thrown off the show and probably has an ax to grind.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:20 PM | Comments (0)

Increasing Number of People Getting Their News From "The Daily Show"

Tuning In To Jon Stewart

The author of this article mentions among other things that while on his book tour he's discovered that an increasing amount of people of all ages are getting their news soley from "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central. From what I've seen of the show Jon Stewart does an excellent job and it can be very funny. However, as the sole source of news? That's a little scary. I wouldn't depend on any one outlet for all of my news but if I did my choice wouldn't be a show on Comedy Central no matter how good it might be.

I don't always have time but I try to read, listen and watch multiple news sources as much as I can. I always read at least two newspapers a day, check out any number of news related websites from all across the country and also watch some TV news. I like the TV news the least because often they do gloss over or do very superficial stories. When a story interests me I will often go looking for more coverage on it, either on CNN or a similar cable news station or somewhere online, perhaps in local papers. I guess that's all because I'm an information junkie and I like to be as informed as possible about what's going on in the world around me. Of course it's impossible know everything about every single event or subject but I try to keep up with as much as I can, particularly about the things that interest me.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:54 PM | Comments (0)

April 29, 2005

The Saga of One Rejected Spin Magazine Intern Wanna-Be

An Intern's Inner Turmoil

Krystal Mess

Krystal Grow is a college student and aspiring journalist who wrote an article for the North Adams Transcript where she was interning about her failed attempt to get an internship at Spin Magazine. Her article drew a lot of attention, and not in a good way, because it was linked to on Jim Romenesko's website on journalism which is where I saw it. I guess the way Grow comes across in her article is typical for many college students who sometimes seem to think that everything should come easily for them because they are so wonderful. Grow assumed that the Spin internship would definitely be hers to the point where she looked for an apartment in Manhattan and was devestated when she didn't get it. Confidence is a very good thing but it also pays to be realistic and take into consideration factors such as how many other people also probably applied for the intern position.

Not only that but taking a swipe at the editorial intern coordinator and basically saying that she didn't believe his excuse for not getting back to her with the reasons she was rejected quickly that they had fallen behind in their production schedule, isn't a wise idea. Does she not realize that this person probably has another responsibilities besides coodinating the intern program? Not only that but it isn't a wise idea when you're trying to break into a very competitive field to take shots at someone who is already in the business because you never know when you might run into them again.

In the second article the writer apparently spoke to Grow, who she says is a very nice and hard working person. What jumps out at me is that Grow says she got her start by writing horror stories in junior high that featured members of her favorite rock bands. Well, a little advice for her - mentioning that you wrote real person fan fiction, especially since a lot of people probably won't remember that it was long ago in Junior High, isn't a great idea when you want to be taken seriously as a journalist. Even more of a bad idea if she happens to still write real person fan-fiction. In a perfect world we'd be able to write whatever we wanted without it reflecting on us, but in reality particularly when it comes to trying to get hired, it's amazing how much the little things can matter. Of course Grow knows this as one thing that didn't impress the Spin internship coordinator was the crazy font she used on her resume which was interpreted to mean that she wasn't serious.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:52 PM | Comments (0)

April 27, 2005

"New York Daily News" To Be Featured in New Reality Show

Will Air on Bravo

I'm not a huge fan of most reality shows but occassionally there are a few that will catch my interest such as Ceasar's 24/7. A six-part show which will air on Bravo that will focus on the newsroom of The New York Daily News sounds like it might have potential. The show will will follow editors and reporters as they cover stories and try to meet deadlines. If this show is a success they may continue it with newsrooms of other newspapers.

Perhaps the reason the show sounds so interesting to me is because I read the Daily News every day. But I've also always been interested in the media and the way journalists operate so I'm looking forward to getting a peek behind the scenes. Of course no reality show is truly "reality" but hopefully a show on Bravo will make more of an effort in that regard than a show on MTV or Fox. The only unfortunate thing is that the show will not air until next year.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)

April 22, 2005

Tech Editor on the "Today" Paid by Tech Firms to Promote Their Products

Paid Up to $15,000

My thanks to my friend Melissa for sending me a link to this article. The tech editor for NBC's "Today" show, Corey Greenberg, was found to have taken payments from many tech firms including Apple, Sony, Hewlett-Pakard and others to act as a spokesperson for their products. Which means that when he was supposedly objectively reviewing those companies products on the "Today" show and elsewhere as "news" he was promoting products he has financial ties to. No way could he possibly claim to be objective.

James Oppenheim, the technology editor for Child Magazine, also found himself in hot water over the exact same kind of issue in that he was also making TV appearances for companies he accepted payments for. In fact Child took it so seriously, that they severed their ties with him. Sue Geramian, a vice president at the parent company of Child, Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing said, "We view this as a breach of journalistic ethics." Of course she was also quick to say that he was not representing Child when he made those problematic TV appearances.

I highly doubt that those two are isolated incidents. It's amazing how much "news" is really disguised ads, as I've discussed recently in relation to Nascar.com. But you see it on morning news shows and elsewhere too. Just the other day I saw it on "Good Day New York" Fox 5's morning show here in New York. They did a segment on the importance of eating a healthy breakfast based on a study done by Tropicana. So they had someone in talking about what a good breakfast might constitute and of course they mentioned Tropicana every five seconds. There was never any mention that I can recall of the person appearing in the segment being from Tropicana but if they weren't they surely received money from them in some form given how much they touted Tropicana and the study results. Kind of scary to think of how often this probably happens without a lot of people thinking anything of it.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:47 PM | Comments (0)

April 21, 2005

Another Ad Posing as a News Article on Nascar.com

Winfuel

A while back I wrote about how an article on Nascar.com about "Fatback" McSwain using Trackpass to crew chief from home when he was recovering from back surgury and couldn't get to the track was nothing more than an ad disguised as a news article. Well there's another one on Nascar.com. The above article about Winfuel is clearly meant as a promotional piece for that suppliment. In fact it's obvious that at least several paragraphs, maybe even most of the article, are directly taken from official promotional materials from Winfuel.

Now there are plenty of people who have wondered what Winfuel is all about and the page that this article appears on is devoted to sponsor and financial features. So it's not like it's outrageous for there to be an article on Nascar.com about Winfuel. However, there are ways of writing articles on products and companies without making them into thinly veiled ads. Perhaps those at Nascar.com think that their readers won't pick up on it, but I think most people can probably recognize that article for what it is. I'd also guess that they would probably have a lot more people reading all the way through if it was more than just a plea for people to order Winfuel (phone numbers and website address conviently provided).

Posted by silverdsl at 02:28 PM | Comments (0)

Interesting Definition of Journalism

From LA Times Column on Apple Suit

There are many who look down on blogs, websites or even those who work for smaller or obscure media outlets. Some feel that unless someone is writing for an established media outlet their opinions or information they present are less worthy. Some even feel that those people should keep their opinions to themselves. But in speaking in relation to Apple's suit which is seeking to force some websites and blogs who have recieved and published proprietary information about Apple to reveal their sources, Michael Hiltzik from the Los Angeles Times has an interesting definition of journalism.

He says: "The truth is that the only useful way to define "journalist" is functionally: As anyone who hunts down suppressed, overlooked or misunderstood information of public interest (even trivial interest) and presents or explains it to an audience. The medium of publication is irrelevant. Newspapers, magazines and TV and radio services aren't invariably exemplars of serious news gathering; many are brainless, irresponsible or purveyors of propaganda. Conversely, although many weblogs and websites are outlets for wingnuts and noodniks, many others provide trenchant and incisive news and analysis."

Really he's dead on. Some blogs and websites have uncovered news, some of it serious and very newsworthy. Some news shows from mainstream media outlets are filled with fluff and little hard news. I watch Fox 5 here in New York a lot and they are most definitely guilty of that. I am amazed when stories about dogs running down the highway, American Idol and other relatively "light" news take precedence over hard news on their newscasts or on "Good Day New York." But I might go to a website or blog and find more hard news analysis and coverage than on anything that Fox 5 does.

Increasingly the ways in which people get their news is expanding. No longer do they just find out what's going on in the world via the evening news or the morning paper. Blogs and websites are providing people with information they might not know about otherwise. And as the author of the above column states, those folks also deserve to be called journalists and have equal protection under the law as such.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)

April 20, 2005

More on Mitch Albom

Free Press Killed Negative Review of Albom's Book

The investigation at the Detroit Free Press continues into the circumstances surrounding the publication of a Mitch Albom column that contained fabricated descriptions of events. The managing editor of the Free Press, Thom Fladung, acknowledges that it was a breakdown of their system but he believes that the reason that this is being made into such a big deal is because of how well-known Albom is given that he is a best selling author and also makes appearances on ESPN. It's true that incidents like this are going to get more attention when they involve large newspapers or "name" journalists, but I think that the overall issue of accuracy in journalism and media ethics is of concern to a lot of people right now. I've certainly discussed it enough in this blog.

What might speak to how this occured is that Fladung admits that preferential treatment had been given to Albom at the newspaper. For example, a negative review of one of Albom's books by a freelancer was killed before it ran. That's amazing to me. The Free Press is there to disseminate information to readers and provide news, not help Albom sell books. But apparently Albom was treated with kid gloves and that probably explains how his column slipped through. He was probably allowed to do things that no other writer would be allowed to do, such as write a column about an event prior to when it actually occured as if he had been there. And even if one of the editors thought that the column might be a problem with how he was treated there, how likely was it that anyone would say anything? Probably not very likely.

The other interesting thing is that Albom apparently didn't treat a lot of his colleagues very well. So now there aren't that many people who are willing to stand up for him. That shows the importance of treating people with respect and as you'd like to be treated because otherwise at some point down the road when you need people in your corner to support you no one will be there.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:57 PM | Comments (0)

April 15, 2005

Boston Globe Freelancer Fabricates Story

The Globe Has Journalistic Standards?

So a Boston Globe freelancer from Nova Scotia wrote a story about a seal hunt that had supossedly taken place the day before as if she witnessed the scene personally. Only one problem - the hunt had been delayed by weather and never happened, in spite of all the details the writer provided.

From the correction from the Globe, "The author's failure to accurately report the status of the hunt and her fabrication of details at the scene are clear violations of the Globe's journalistic standards. Because the freelancer was not reporting from the scene, Globe editors should have demanded attribution for any details she provided about the hunt itself." Well, another issue I keep harping on in his blog besides Michael Waltrip and Steve Park is the way the Globe (mis)handled the BDD situation which also involved a fabricated story with no attribution. So the Globe has said they will never use that particular freelancer again, so why are they still involved with BDD who did something similar which would also be a violation of most media outlet's journalistic standards? I understand BDD isn't the same thing as a freelancer but it seems to me that the same journalistic standards should be applied across the board.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:39 PM | Comments (0)

April 14, 2005

Man Posed as Sports Reporter at Countless Sports Events

Faces Charges

This is pretty incredible. Since 1998 at least, Mark Sabia has been a presence at New York area sporting events covering them for a service he called Westchester Cable Services. He's just been arrested on five felony counts of falsifying business records and 16 misdemeanor counts ranging from petit larceny to criminal impersonation by the Queens District Attorney who says that Westchester Cable Services doesn't exist. What's unbelievable is the scale of what he did. He scammed media credentials out of all the New York area sports teams for both regular season and post-season games, was in press boxes and media rooms, was a presence at pre- and post-game interviews and interviewed players for one-on-ones. Only problem was that none of this was actually used as the basis for any real story or distributed to any media outlet though Sabia claims otherwise.

The scary thing is that despite what the MLB spokesman would like us to believe, people posing as members of the media, both as journalists or photographers, or otherwise scamming their way into sporting events of all kinds isn't as rare as it should be. Some will forge credentials either to get press passes or forge the passes themselves. Some just want to say that they've snuck in and beat the system, others are amateur photographers or journalists who want to have covering that type of event on their resume. What worries me is the possiblity that someone could one day scam their way into a press pass for reasons that could ultimately prove harmful to competitors and fans alike. I've already heard about camera equipment and laptops being stolen out of media rooms, I'd hate for anyone to get any ideas to do anything even more criminal. Which is probably why the MLB spokesperson is saying this happens so rarely so no one thinks that it's an easy thing to do. And I would guess that it isn't very easy and involved a large degree of research, hard work and luck to actually scam a press pass. Sabia got away with it was because he was always at these events so no one had any reason to suspect that anything was amiss he had been "covering" the local sports scene for so long.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:58 PM | Comments (0)

April 13, 2005

Leeann Tweeden a Liar?

A couple of months ago I discussed how Leeann Tweeden from The Best Damn Sports Show appeared on a radio station and talked about going out drinking and to a strip club with Nascar drivers Hermie Sadler, Elliott Sadler and Dale Jarrett. Well, now Elliott was on the same radio station and was asked about that outing and he claims that it never happened. So my question is why would Leeann make this story up? Or if it really did happen why would Elliott be denying it now (other than because his brother and Jarrett are married. Not that anything necessarily happened but it doesn't sound good a night out at a strip club with Leeann and her friend). The whole thing is very peculiar to me. It's not unusual for two people to have completely different versions of events, but there is a pretty radical difference between "We all went out to a strip club" and "I'd never hang out with her," which is apparently essentially what Elliott said.

Way too many times to cite each one I've discussed in this space the importance of good journalistic ethics and integrity. Leeann doesn't really cover hard news so the standards for her type of reporting is much less. Still, she is a member of the media and as such I think it's a problem that she might be a liar. If her night out with Elliot is a lie, what else might she be lying about either on Best Damn Sport Show or in interviews? If she really did make the whole story up you have to question everything else she's said too.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:54 AM | Comments (0)

April 11, 2005

No One's Defending Albom

Last week I blogged about Mitch Albom, The Detroit Free Press reporter who fabricated events for a column he did about the NCAA basketball tournament. At the time Albom had simply apologized for what he did and it appeared that nothing more would happen. However, unlike the Boston Herald who choose to ignore their own problem with a staff member who didn't practice good journalistic ethics/standards, the Free Press's editor had harsh words about this incident and there will be an internal investigation as to how this column was allowed to be printed when any number of people from Albom to his editors knew he wrote about something that didn't happen yet. And as it turned out never happened period. Most are expecting that Albom will be fired and I agree that the Free Press might not have any choice but to do that particularly if any other problems turn up in his previous columns. It's a shame because he's a very well-regarded and respected sports writer who had published a number of books.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)

April 07, 2005

Detroit Free Press Reporter Writes About Events That Never Happened

Albom Apology

More Than Just an Apology Required

Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press interviewed two NBA players who said that they intended on flying in to watch their alma mater, Michigan State University, play in the NCAA final four on Saturday. So he wrote a column on Friday that appeared in the paper on Sunday which described the two of them at the game, in the stands in MSU gear and even how they flew in to get to the game. Only one problem. Neither player ended up attending the game. And even if they had the entire column would have still been a huge lie because Albom made up the entire thing from thin air, based on his interviews with those two players, rather than having seen it himself.

That's appalling. Not only did Albom make up the events that formed the basis of his column, his editors knowingly published it. There is no way that those editors couldn't have know it was false considering the column was written on Friday for a game that hadn't taken place yet. It makes one wonder how much else has been in Albom's column, or the paper in general, that has been made up? Sure, it makes for a great column that these two players love MSU so much that they are going to drop everything to attend the game but that's the kind of story that should be written after it's confirmed that they actually went to the game. Albom talks about making assumptions - well, you know what they say about assuming things...

Posted by silverdsl at 03:07 PM | Comments (0)

April 04, 2005

More Than 35,000 Stories About Pope In One Day

Wow!

Just to show how influential the Pope was, in the 24 hours after his death there were more than 35,000 stories both online and in print media and broadcasts round the world. That's just a staggering amount of stories and rightfully so. Just to put that number in context, when Bush was re-elected there were only 3,500 stories in the 24 hours that followed.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:09 PM | Comments (0)

April 01, 2005

Liz Smith Out at Newsday

Nastiness Ensues

Long-time gossip columnist Liz Smith has been let go from Newsday, yet another high-profile columnist who is no longer affiliated with the paper. Newsday says that it's a contract dispute and blames Smith giving them late notice that she wanted to re-new her contract as the reason that this happened. But since Newsday offered her a new contract at only 5% of her salary, it appears that may only be an excuse and the real reason is budgetary concerns. Smith was probably making at least $1 million a year to do her columns, so that's a good chunk of money to be saved if she's no longer there. Instead of accepting Newday's ridiculous offer, Smith signed with the New York Post and her columns will continue to be nationally syndicated.

It's sad to see what's going on over at Newsday. Liz Smith gone. Ed Lowe gone. Marvin Kitman gone. And there are probably many others, fine reporters whose names I'll never know who are no longer there directly or indirectly because of financial issues that Newsday is experiencing.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:52 AM | Comments (0)

March 25, 2005

Longer Pre-Race Show More Popular?

So Says Producer

Neil Goldberg, the producer of Nascar on FOX, says "Most fans seem to like the longer pre-race show format," said Goldberg. "Last year with commercials and race start times, the half-hour format seemed a bit short. I think that you will find most of the pre-race shows will run between 40 and 50 minutes before on track opening ceremonies commence. For most this seems to be a good fit." I say nonsense. I haven't heard one person say they like the longer pre-race yet. Perhaps there are some people, some where who love all the pre-race filler but universally, at least online, almost everyone seems to think that the expanded pre-race is a waste of time.

I don't think I've heard anything in the pre-race show for a long time that is breaking news or of much significance. Sure, sometimes they do an interesting interview or one of the commentators shares a viewpoint that I hadn't thought of before. But for the most part, though they do review some news, the pre-race contains a lot of fluff. With the 40-50 minutes of pre-race by the time the race actually starts sometimes viewers are sitting in front of the TV for almost an hour and a half before the race actually starts. That's a waste of time in my opinion. Give me a half hour pre-race which includes the on track opening ceremonies and then start the race. That's what I'm there to watch - the race. Not meaningless interviews where no hard questions are asked or a bunch of talking heads. I sure don't care about the driver's answers to stupid questions like "Blondes or Brunettes" or who the latest winner of FOX's sexiest driver poll is (a blog entry might be forthcoming on that particular subject because that poll bugs me). Unfortunately based on what Goldberg is saying it appears that they have no intention of making any changes to the pre-race show any time in the near future.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:09 PM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2005

A Major Oil Refinery Explosion and No One Cares?

Texas Refinery Explosion Kills 14

Perhaps to say that no one cares is an exaggeration since surely in Texas they care very much. But I was surprised that the explosion at the BP plant in Texas that killed 14 wasn't a lead story either last night or this morning on the news. Aside from the fact that it was a massive explosion that killed 14 people and injured more than 100 others, gas prices could go up slightly due to how much gas is produced at that plant since the explosion could have an impact on their other operations there. So it would seem that it would be a fairly major story. Yet last night the only reason I knew it happened was because of a story on Yahoo since the TV news, at least while I was watching, didn't cover it. Oh, Fox gave plenty of attention to the American Idol fiasco at the top of the news, but nothing about this massive explosion. And this morning "Good Day New York" said nothing about it.

Even on CNN this morning there was a good ten minutes of coverage about Terry Schiavo before they even got to talking about the explosion and when they did it was the briefest of reports like it was no big deal. Obviously the Schiavo case is a major story with a great deal of emotions on both sides but doesn't the deaths of 14 people in a huge explosion merit more than 30 seconds of coverage? Perhaps instead of rehashing the same interviews with the same people in relation to the Schiavo case, they could have spent a little more time discussing what happened at the plant, why it happened and how it might effect gas prices, especially since the rising gas prices are on a lot of people's minds right now.

But thanks to the internet I'm able to find out more about this story via the above Yahoo article and later I will take a look at the site for the local papers in Texas that will surely have more expanded coverage.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:18 AM | Comments (0)

March 22, 2005

Boston Globe: MIT Publication Forced to Retract Two Stories

Anonymous Source Can't Be Found

Apparently a technology publication at MIT ran two stories about Hewlett-Packard by a New York Times freelancer on their website last year which were based on anonymous quotes. After they received a call from HP, they retracted the stories because they could not verify the accuracy of the quotes and an investigation could not find anyone at HP that matched the source, who was supossedly an employee. Nor were they found in the membership rolls of the professional organizations they supossedly belonged to. So it appears that both articles were completely false.

These two paragraphs interest me the most from the article:
"Robert Zelnick, chairman of the department of journalism at Boston University, said Technology Review practiced ''very questionable journalism" by running a harshly critical article about HP based entirely on the words of a single anonymous source. ''I think that it is riding a scrawny horse much too fast and much too far," Zelnick said.

He also said a retraction is not enough; Technology Review should find out whether G.S. really exists. ''In this case simply saying we cannot vouch for the story . . . is an unsatisfactory end to it," Zelnick said. ''If the story was worth doing in the first place, it's worth following through."

I can't help but think of the Boston Globe/Boston.com's own problem in relation to their Boston Dirt Dogs site which I discussed a few times in this blog. BDD had an item which everyone knew was false because it was based on a source that didn't exist and the story wasn't taken down until after Nomar Garciaparra spoke out about it. And there hasn't been one word said publically that I know of by the Boston Globe or Boston.com to address the situation and reassure their readers that they care about journalistic ethics or accuracy in their stories. Zelnick said that the MIT publication shouldn't have just retracted the story but gone further. BDD didn't even publically retract the story - it simply disappeared from the site so the Globe/Boston.com did even less than the MIT publication. I think the Globe and Boston.com should consider themselves very lucky that one of their competitors like the Boston Herald didn't pick up on that story and write an article along the lines of this article about the MIT publication.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:59 AM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2005

Interesting Column in Slate on Anonymous Sources

Anonymous Sources Should Be Used With Care

Jack Shafer writes in Slate about why he doesn't like anonymous sources and I would tend to agree that they can be very damaging, particularly if editors and reporters don't have strict guidelines about using material from those sources. USA Today has extremely strict guidelines, which can be seen in Shafer's column, and this is a very good thing. I wish other large publications would also follow guidelines like that.

The problem with anonymous sources is that they often have some sort of agenda they are trying to push. If the source knows that they won't be identified in the story they will speak a lot more openly. Which is good in a whistle-blower type situation where someone might fear reprisals for speaking out. But it can also encourage someone to feed a reporter half-truths or complete misinformation. Most media outlets will suppliment statements from anonymous sources with information from those people who are willing to go on the record, either to dispute or confirm what the source might say. But the damage is often still done, pro or con, because often readers or viewers assume that if a media outlet is reporting it then it absolutely must be true. That's why it's very important for media outlets to be careful about checking for accuracy and to have strict guidelines about the use of information from anonymous sources.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2005

Marty Smith: Nascar Too Hard on Knaus

Smith: Penalty to Knaus Too Harsh

Marty Smith of Nascar.com wrote a good opinion piece today which has some very valid points about how Nascar's penalty to Chad Knaus, crew chief of Jimmie Johnson's #48, is excessive. In fact Smith feels that the penalty is "perposterous." Smith goes on to detail an explanation, from Jimmie Johnson, about how the car passed pre-race inspection and due to a issue with a wedge bolt, the problem that they were penalized for was caused accidentally during the race, not that Knaus or the team were intentionally trying to cheat. Smith is on the right track in saying that Nascar should punish cheats but only after making sure that a team was actually cheating, which perhaps the #48 team was not doing.

All of this may be entirely correct but I can't help but wonder if the tone of Smith's article would still be one of outrage at an injustice if Jimmie Johnson wasn't involved. You see Johnson is one of the drivers that Smith is good friends with and I can't help but wonder if that effected the way this piece was written. In this entry a number of months ago I touched upon this topic, but it highlights why reporters have to be extremely careful when it comes to friendships, especially close friendships, with the subjects that they are writing about.

Smith may be the most objective reporter in Nascar, but his friendship with Johnson and other drivers puts him in a position where it raises questions about how those friendships influence what he's writing about. Such as did Johnson call him to ask him to write this piece as a favor to try to sway how people feel about the punishment given to Knaus and the team? Or did Smith include certain information or leave out other information that would portray Johnson and the team in the best light possible? Or would Smith still feel the punishment to Knaus was so ridiculous if a driver he wasn't friends with was involved? I happen to like Smith a lot and I think he's a good writer who often has some very good points about current events in Nascar. So I'd like to think that he tries to be as unbiased as possible. But is he really when it comes to his friends?

Posted by silverdsl at 11:42 PM | Comments (0)

March 11, 2005

Look Who Has a By-line on Boston.com

Reporting From Spring Training

At other news organizations going with a story without making sure it's accurate and then lying about the source would bring heavy reprimands. But at Boston.com apparently it leads to writing stories about spring training and being featured on the main site. It really boggles the mind. How am I supossed to trust Boston.com as a news source when their reporters are apparently not held to very high standards?

At least the completely false story about Nomar Garciaparra has been removed finally from the BDD site. It's unfortunate that it was only removed after Nomar had to say something publically, even though it was known by BDD and Boston.com well before that the story was false.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:22 PM | Comments (0)

March 09, 2005

Newsweek to Change Policy After Controversy Over Cover Illustration of Martha Stewart

Photo/Illustration Credits Will Go on Cover

Unlike a certain other media outlet, Newsweek has responded quickly to last week's controversy that many felt misled readers. Newsweek ran a photo illustration of Martha Stewart on their cover but did not label it as such so some readers probably had the impression that somehow Stewart had been released from prison early to do a photo shoot. However, the reality was that Newsweek pasted Stewart's head on another woman's body. Realizing how bad it reflected on a news publication to not clearly label content properly so that it's clear to readers the reality of what they are seeing or reading, Newsweek both apologized to its readers and announced a new policy. Credits for all photos and photo illustrations used for covers will be included on the cover, instead of being buried on the table of contents page as had been the standard previously. That way it will be clearer to readers whether an image is an actual photo or something that was created by the magazine. It's very important for news outlets to have the trust of their viewers/listeners/readers, otherwise their audience will turn elsewhere for their news to sources they feel are more believable or accurate.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2005

Still More on BDD

From Bostonsportsmedia.com

Well, if there was any doubt that the Nomar refuses a ring story was 100% bogus the following exhange was heard on ESPN as reported by Bostonsportsmedia.com: (note: normally I wouldn't cut and paste so heavily from another site but I feel it's important to get the word out that the Nomar story is completely false.)

Rick Sutcliffe: That article written in a Boston newspaper about Nomar not wanting the ring, that was total bogus. The lady later admitted that Nomar said he would absolutely take that ring, with pride, he was really upset that that story got out, and we just want to clarify that for everyone, that Nomar is going to take that ring, with pride…(onto a few seconds of Cubs discussion)

Gary Thorne: We thank Nomar for calling and letting us know about it. (play by play action) This is so great, I’m so happy the hear that.

Sutcliffe: (talking about what type of guy Nomar is, standup, etc. Doesn’t make sense for Nomar not to take the ring.)
We’re glad to be able to get the true story out, because we all read it. We all read what was written

Thorne: That’s the kind of stuff I mean… unless, I don’t know how it could be an accident, but if it wasn’t, then I hope that person who wrote it is fired. That’s inexcusable, that’s absolutely inexcusable.

Yes, it most certainly is inexcusable yet thus far Boston.com has not addressed this issue in any way, shape or form that I can tell. I'm wondering if now that this has attracted Nomar's attention if they will still be able to turn a blind eye to it?

I understand that SS is trying to use the excuse that he was set-up as a way to wiggle out of trouble. He most surely was set-up and it's shady that someone would deliberately try to decieve him. But on the other hand, that doesn't excuse him for failing to follow some basic guidelines that all journalists are expected to follow. And yes, SS is a journalist or at the least there is an impression that he is given how many folks look to him as a news source, that his title at boston.com is "sports producer," that his site isn't labeled as a blog, that he's sent by boston.com to cover spring training for them, etc...

In the long run Boston.com/The Boston Globe would be better off addressing this in some way now. Even if it's just to more accurately label the the site as a blog, like they do with the other blogs on their site. Because if they don't they may find themselves in even more hot water down the road if BDD is allowed to continue to operate in this manner. I can only hope that behind-the-scenes this matter was somehow addressed though given how many are questioning their credibility after this I would think that Boston.com/The Globe might want to say something pubically as well.

Besides Bostonsportsmedia.com who have continued to cover this story for good reason, there are a few others discussing it as well: SouthCoastToday.com, A Large Regular and New Media Musings.

Posted by silverdsl at 06:32 PM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2005

Wild Speculation Regarding Steve Park's Wind Tunnel Appearance

I label this as wild speculation because I have absolutely nothing to back up any of this up and it may be completely inaccuate. But I was thinking a little more about last night's Wind Tunnel interview with Steve Park and how off it seemed. And I got to thinking about how often Steve has blamed the media for many of the problems he experienced regarding how he was percieved in the garage area. He's even made some remarks of that nature recently. So I can't help but wonder if the Wind Tunnel folks were trying to send a message to Steve and others that they and the rest of the media aren't to blame for what he went through. That(they might think that since) he was the one who wrecked, that he made a mistake with the steering wheel, hence everything he's gone through is on his shoulders, not the media's. It's that steering wheel question that really sticks with me - why ask that four years later when it doesn't really matter? I'm probably totally wrong and it's just a matter of an interview gone bad with no intent there but I can't help but wonder.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:33 AM | Comments (0)

March 06, 2005

Steve Park on Wind Tunnel

Maybe it's because I'm already in a bad mood but I thought Steve Park's appearance on Wind Tunnel was a bit of a downer. I really didn't think it would be possible considering how awesome his win was last week and how happy he's been since but somehow Wind Tunnel managed. The problem was how much of a focus there was on Steve's accident in 2001 during which he suffered the brain injury that caused him to miss time and derailed his career. Of course the injury is part of who Steve is and was a life-altering injury in many ways so there will probably not be many interviews or articles that don't at least touch on this subject. But Dave Despain and the other host of Wind Tunnel very much made that the focus of the entire interview. I would expect the accident to be discussed but four years later I think there are other subjects to cover in more depth such as the truck series, his team, more on the win, etc...

Perhaps the message was supossed to be one about how much Steve has overcome and that's true. But showing footage of the wreck even more than footage of him winning, asking Steve to discuss the gory details of how the wreck happened, if he thought his career was over when he was trying to come back from the injury and any number of other wreck-related questions just seemed excessive to me. It's no wonder that Steve looked so serious as soon as they went to him to start the interview - perhaps he knew what he was in for. He barely smiled once this entire interview and that's really a shame considering how happy this win made him.

In addition, Wind Tunnel asked for viewers to send in emails and call in with questions for Steve. Yet they used only one email and one phone call. I guess using more would have interferred with rehashing the accident in as much detail as they seemed to want to do. Couldn't they have gone over the win, the celebration in Victory Lane and everything else in as much detail? Sure, some of that stuff was discussed, as well as how Steve ended up with Orleans Racing and how great they are to him, but it was like they had been saving up all these questions for all these years to ask him and they weren't going to let him go until he answered them all. Steve's interview with Claire B. Lang on XM last week touched on some accident-related issues but the majority of it was a celebration of his win and about how bright the future is for him. I don't want to see puff piece interviews that don't discuss anything weighty but I did expect something a little more like the XM interview, certainly more upbeat.

I'm sure Steve is used to talking about the wreck but it still can't be easy to rehash some of this stuff. Especially when it comes to having to say that perhaps the wreck happened because he make a mistake with the steering wheel or how he was an outcast in the garage area because of what everyone thought about him - I'm sorry but that has to bring up a whole host of feelings that are better left in the past. Especially when there's so much good stuff to focus on in the present and future. Steve made a comment about how what happened at DEI with the #1 team when he returned "really hurt my heart." Well, it really hurt my heart to see this interview.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)

March 03, 2005

Boston Dirt Dogs

I'm not going to comment too much on the details of the Boston Dirt Dogs fiasco but any baseball fans who consider the website Boston Dirt Dogs a legitamite source of news about the Boston Red Sox should read the March 2nd and 3rd entries at bostonsportsmedia.com . And why might you ask do I not want to comment on the specifics of the BDD situation? Because I would risk getting unending nasty emails from someone whose initials are "SS," which is what this person has done to many, many others who have been the slightest bit critical. With just the little bit that I've written here I probably am already at risk.

But in general, journalistic ethics and journalistic responsibility are extremely important issues. Particularly in light of a number of major scandals, including one at The New York Times, a Boston Globe affiliated company, in relation to reporters who made up stories, sources and didn't fact-check. There will always be errors but a media outlet has a responsiblity to try to be as accurate and factually correct as possible. And that responsiblity extends to every employee who writes for and represents their company.

ETA: And if it's true as reported on SoSH that one "SS" told a user who was trying to organize a campaign to increase closed captioning for hearing impaired fans that he would sabatage said campaign because he didn't like a comment that person said about BDD on SoSH, nevermind that this user was for the most part until that comment a huge BDD supporter, that is just horrible and inappropriate to say the least.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:20 PM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2005

Newsweek Uses Fake Martha Stewart "Photo" on Cover

Fake Martha

What is Newsweek thinking? It's one thing to touch up a photo in Photoshop but the use of photo illustrations which are basically fake photos needs to be done only when extremely necessary and should always be labeled clearly so as not to confuse readers. However, Newsweek decided that with Martha Stewart not being available for a photo shoot for obvious reasons, they would fake a photo shoot. So they took Martha's head and stuck it on the body of a model that they used on the front cover with the headline, "Martha's Last Laugh." There is nothing on the cover to indicate that this is a photo illustration not a real photo and I'm quite sure that many readers will think that somehow Martha got out to do a photo shoot.

A news organization has a responsibility not to mislead their audience. And it seems to me that is exactly what Newsweek did here.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:24 PM | Comments (0)

February 25, 2005

An Ad Disguished as an Article on Nascar.com

Clever

So this week due to back surgery, Michael "Fatback" McSwain, Ricky Rudd's crew chief won't be able to be at the race in California. So an assortment of people thought up a way that he could crew chief from home using technology from Racing Radios, Nextel and Trackpass. Essentially Fatback will follow along in real time using Trackpass, presumably with help from the TV broadcast, and then communciate with the team via the radios.

What gets me is that this article isn't much more than a thinly veiled ad for Trackpass. Buy Trackpass! If Fatback can use it to crew chief a race from home every fan should have it too! Of course it's a promotional piece for Racing Radios and Nextel too. There is a legitamite story here about how these companies made this all possible but this article is way too much of a sales pitch than I think is necessary. Trackpass actually is a great tool for following along with a race and I love using it to listen to Michael Waltrip's radio communication with his team. But I think most fans can come to the conclusion about it's benefits without it getting shoved down their throats in a promotional piece disguished as a news article.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:40 PM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2005

Leeanne Tweeden

Leeanne Tweeden has modeled and worked for a number of years in sports broadcasting. Currently she is a correspondant for "The Best Damn Sports Show." Aside from the fact that she is a beautiful woman, I've got to wonder how she gets jobs covering sports. The reason being is that she hangs out with and has even dated some of the athletes that she covers. Dale Earnhardt Jr. is one in particular but there have been others, possibly many others. One of the first rules about good journalism is that you have to keep your objectivity and you can't get to close to the people that you cover. There are always some exceptions but it seems like Tweeden crosses any number of lines. Which may explain why she is a correspondent for BDSS and not for ESPN.

According to what was posted on one racing board she did a radio interview this morning and it's incredible to me that she has no shame in saying some of the things that she says. At the very least if she's going to hang out with these folks she should learn to use some discretion and keep stuff to herself! What's even more incredible is that in spite of the fact that she will spill stuff about the drivers (and presumably other athletes she's been involved with) none of them seem to think twice about hanging out with her. One of her gems from this morning was about how that even though she "bumped uglies" with Junior she has no problems in getting or doing interviews with him. Then she told a story about how the other night she and a friend went out drinking and to a strip club with Hermie and Elliott Sadler, along with Dale Jarrett. Hello, Hermie and Jarrett are married - maybe it's not the wisest idea to talk about that kind of night out on the radio. Not to mention that perhaps going out drinking and to strip clubs with these guys isn't the best way to be taken seriously, though I suspect she doesn't care about that.

In the interview it was said that she is going to be doing a piece on Michael Waltrip today or tonight. Gee, do you think Brooke Hondros, Michael's PR woman, is going to be paying close attention to that one? Though with how careful Michael is about public perception I highly doubt he would let himself get into any kind of a situation with her on or off camera that might end up biting him in the ass down the road.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:58 AM | Comments (0)

February 15, 2005

Photographers Upset With NFL Over Super Bowl Arrests

Arrests

I meant to blog about this sooner but it got lost in the shuffle. At the Super Bowl two respected sports photographers, Mike Seger of Reuters and Robert Seale of The Sporting News, were arrested for being on the field after the game when they weren't supossed to be. At the last minute, literally, the NFL changed their policies about what photographers could be on the field for the post-game celebrations. For years the photographers working the sidelines had been allowed on the field to take photos of the players celebrating or walking away in dejection but just a few minutes before the game ended an annoucement was made that the NFL was no longer going to allow that. While I understand that the NFL wants to cut down on the number of extra people running around on the field after the game and getting in the way, the photographers have a job to do too and taking pictures of the post game celebration is part of it. Arresting photographers on the field seems a little extreme, especially since the rule change was announced only at the last minute.

What gets me is that while NFL security was having working photographers for major publications and organizations arrested, there were apparently any number of people sneaking into the Super Bowl who had no reason to be there other than to say that they beat security. There were two guys who forged press passes to get in and this guy who pretty much makes a hobby of sneaking into all sorts of sporting and entertainment events. Not just into the stadiums but onto the field or into the locker rooms. There is almost no way that security at any event will be 100% perfect but perhaps the NFL might want to take a look at cutting down on those people who are sneaking into the Superbowl rather than arresting people who belong there and are just doing their jobs.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:47 PM | Comments (0)

Matt McLaughlin Responds

So this morning I get an email from Matt McLaughlin who some might remember I discussed here and here regarding his release from racingone.com. Apparently Patty Kay had contacted him regarding my questions about her article on Insider Racing News. And what you might be wondering did Matt have to say? Well, he cut and pasted into his email correspondance that he was asked to keep confidential. Given that I'm not going to say exactly what it was that Matt sent me other than it's very similar to what's been reported elsewhere.

I go back to what I say often - anyone can say anything on the internet. Even in real life it's very easy to spin something or make something look one way when in reality it's only one side of the story or something else actually happened. But on the internet it's even easier. So at this point in the face of Matt McLaughlin making certain claims, and R1 making certain claims, both of which contradict each other, I still haven't the foggiest clue what the real story is. And I'm starting not to care all that much. If these folks want to go after each other so be it. Hopefully McLaughlin will end up getting the money he says is owed to him by R1 and he will go on to write successfully for another site while R1 goes about their business of running their site and everyone will peacefully co-exist. What still bothers me is an apparent lack of followup on the part of most internet journalists in writing stories ripping R1 for firing McLaughlin without including comments or anything from both sides for balance and fairness.

In the end, eventually it will probably be revealed who actually bought R1. But as I've said before when it comes down to it, even if it was an ISC/Nascar/France family entity, I think it's probably not part of some big conspiracy.

Posted by silverdsl at 09:35 AM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2005

Matt McLaughlin Revisited

So the furor over Matt McLaughlin's firing from Racingone continues with more accusations of a Nascar conspiracy with R-1 furiously denying all of this. What is bothering me about all of this is that this incident is being used as a basis for various internet journalists, as well as countless fans to make a case for how Nascar is trying to silence all their critics. Yet there has been no definitive proof what-so-ever presented anywhere to my knowledge that states for sure a)who bought R-1 b) that whoever did buy the site was a Nascar/ISC/France family entity c) and that their sole purpose for buying the site was to fire Matt, thus eliminating one of their critics.

Patty Kay wrote an article in which she referenced that R-1 was bought by ABC Promotions, a ISC entity. I assumed that she checked this information with her sources, as most journalists do. However, when I contacted her out of curiosity, she indicated that she was relying on an item on Jayski's. She suggested that I contact Jay from Jayski's and when I did he indicated he had put the item up based on what Matt told him and it was to save both of them from having to answer countless emails. Since Jay also said that whatever happened with R-1 and Matt was between them, the implication was that he never checked with his sources about what the story was either. So that means that all of this is on the basis of what one person is saying, someone who clearly has some major issues with the company that fired him. Matt may very well be telling the complete and total truth, as what he is saying isn't out of the realm of possibility, yet when it comes to making accusations about a conspiracy it would seem that some of the folks writing stories about this issue should be doing some fact-checking and research beyond what one person is saying.

That's especially true since SEC filings show no ISC entity called ABC Promotions. There is an ASC Promotions, the showcar division of Americrown, ISC's food and hospitality services division which services all the tracks, but thus far no one has clarified exactly who bought R-1. So there is no telling if someone is confused or mistyped or there is actually no ISC connection to who bought R-1. In addition, R-1 is sending out emails which state that ABC Promotions does not own the site and that the France family/Nascar/ISC has nothing to do with Matt getting fired. Of course that still leaves open the question of who bought the site as another ISC/Nascar entity not called ABC Promotions could have bought them but right now it's a case of he-said/he-said and there seems to be no way of really knowing what the story actually is, particularly since no one has to my knowledge actually looked into any of this before writing some very scathing articles about this.

Some are offering as proof of the new owners intent things that have gone on at the R-1 message board. They say that the most negative critics of Nascar get banned. Well, considering some of the remarks users on that board made were outright insulting of both Nascar and the drivers it's no surprise that some of them might have been banned. That board is barely moderated, has been a mess for a long time and the users who are complaining have no idea how much leniency they've had over there. What goes on there would not be tolerated in a lot of other places. Besides that, R-1, as owners of the board can do whatever they want with it and censor their users as much as they want. You hate to see that happen but they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

Part of the problem with all of this is that if Nascar's sole reason for buying R-1 was to silence Matt McLaughlin they didn't do a very good job. Matt will be in demand to write for any number of sites, he can start his own site or he can look for a job in the mainstream media, given that he is a good writer. Any number of those things could potentially garner him even more of an audience than the one he enjoyed at R-1. Not only that but there are countless others who write critically of Nascar all the time. One only needs to look through the links to articles Jayski posts to see that. Not to mention all the heat that Nascar takes on countless fan forums. So it would seem that they have a lot of work to do if they want to silence all their online critics, inluding this author who has never been shy about taking shots at the sanctioning body or the drivers if need be.

Undoubtably, Nascar does look to control the media and what they report on as much as possible, making sure that they are portrayed in the best light possible - every organization and individual does this. As one who worked in public relations, I know this extremely well. The larger the organization the more resources they have too. But the idea that they purchased R-1 for the sole reason of quieting one of their critics, well, I'm a little skeptical about that, especially in light of the fact that thus far no one is willing to step forward to clarify who actually bought the site. I can't help but return to my original feeling that regardless of who owned R-1, the style of Matt's writing had gotten too caustic and occassionally insulting, for R-1 to be able to tolerate any longer.

Oh, and for anyone who plans on sending me hate e-mails filled with nastyiness over this issue because I'm not automatically buying into the conspiracy theory, like has been done to others, save your bandwidth. I've heard it all before from those who feel that the appropriate response to disagreeing with someone's opinion is responding with insults. When someone has to respond to something they don't like with insults that's a reflection of the person making the insults, not the person with the unpopular opinion.

Posted by silverdsl at 01:27 PM | Comments (0)

February 04, 2005

Fired for Plagiarism

Ken Powers was a reporter for The Worcester Telegram & Gazette who for the past five years covered the New England Patriots. But yesterday he was fired for plagiarizing material from a column by Sports Illustrated writer Peter King. Additionally, an investigation discovered that he has been stealing material from others since at least September of last year. So Powers was quoted as saying to a Boston TV station "I am disappointed that a 20-year spotless record doesn't mean anything," he said. "The termination is a terrible injustice to me."

I saw a comparision between Power's column and that of King and there is no question that he plagiarized significant portions of the column. It's incredibly blatant and I'm astonished that he didn't make more of an attempt to change things around. But if he had been stealing material for months without getting caught then perhaps he assumed he never would be. What he was doing was stealing from online columns which have less of a readership so it probably gave him a false sense of security.

His comments about his firing being an injustice just stuns me. What did he think was going to happen? He says he has a 20-year spotless career but who knows how many other pieces might have been stolen from someone else without anyone noticing? It's one thing if he made one error in judgment but once you find out he's been plagiarizing for months it's a pattern and you have a lot less sympathy for him.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:42 AM | Comments (0)

February 03, 2005

Matt McLaughlin Released from Racing One

From Jayski's: and Where is Matt McLaughlin? here is a message from Matt.....
Matt McLaoghlin was released from the Racing One site Monday at the behest of the new ownership, ABC Promotions, an entity owned by the International Speedway Corporation and the France family. I talked to Matt and as of now he is has nothing new lined up though he is actively looking for a new home and talking to anyone interested in hiring a writer.

Racing sites all across the web are in a tizzy because Matt McLaughlin who was a popular writer at Racing One, a site that covers racing with an emphasis on Nascar, was released this week. Most people think that this is grossly unfair and another sign of how Nascar is trying to shut up those who are criticizing them. Well, I think the issue with McLaughlin is much more than that regardless of how he'd like to spin things.

I used to love reading McLaughlin's article. He didn't hesitate to be outspoken in expressing his opinions on the state of the sport and I would look forward to reading his analysis of every race. But over time I stopped enjoying reading his articles. Part of the problem was that they were so overwhelmingly negative but more than that increasingly he was taking shots at some of the drivers, particularly those he didn't like, in a way that I thought was crossing the line at times into bashing. Not to mention sometimes it seemed like every article was filled with the same old harsh rants and negative predictions. It's fine to be negative but sometimes it's good to mix things up.

Of course I'm biased but if I read one more comment along the lines of how much Michael Waltrip sucks and he shouldn't even bother showing up at this track or another in a race preview I was going to scream. But it wasn't just Michael that he would take shots at. I believe Robby Gordon was another favorite victim of his. I have no problem with a writer being critical of the sport or the drivers and calling them out when they do something wrong, even if their target happens to be one of my favorites, but I think it needs to be done in an appropriate manner. When it comes to a media outlet, online or otherwise, opinion pieces are fine but there aren't many serious sites that are going to allow someone week after week a platform to go after all the folks they can't stand in such a harsh manner. And increasingly it seemed to me like that was what McLaughlin was doing with Nascar as a whole as his main target. So if it's true that a Nascar affiliated entity bought Racing One then it's no suprise that they got rid of him. I'm just suprised that it didn't happen sooner even under the old management.

McLaughlin is a good writer. However, his style of writing, especially as it's evolved now with his apparent dissatisfaction with the sport is more suited for a different kind of site.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:36 PM | Comments (0)

January 19, 2005

Anna Benson to Get Reality Show on VH-1

Anna Benson Reality TV Star

Anna Benson, the model and wife of Mets pitcher Kris Benson is going to get her own reality show on VH-1, which will apparently chronicle her life as a baseball player's wife. One might ask why she is worthy of a reality show as opposed to the wife of a more well-known player like Alex Rodriguez or another superstar. Well, the reason would be that Anna is not only beautiful but is also known for talking to anyone who will listen about the graphic details of her sex life with her husband. Kris seems to have absolutely no problem what-so-ever with his wife's behavior, which seems a little odd since I'm sure that her comments make him the butt of many jokes among his teammates.

One of her most memorable recent comments was on the Howard Stern Show where she said that she would sleep with all of her husband's teammates if he ever cheated on her. Other comments include talking about how she hadn't had sex with Kris in Shea Stadium... yet, and taking credit for guiding her husband's career, as well as providing guidance to the team's he's been with. Ms. Benson apparently thinks she's the most intelligent woman on the face of the planet and that everyone should be anxious to hear everything she has to say. It's true that people look forward to when she give interviews but that's mostly so they can laugh at her.

I wonder how the Mets feel about this show? Given the nature of much of her most publicized comments this show could end up being very embarassing both for the Bensons, though I suspect they have no idea just how ridiculous this stuff makes them look, and for the Mets organization. It could end up being an interesting summer for the Mets and not just because of what happens on the field.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:45 AM | Comments (0)

January 18, 2005

Photos of Young Victims of Tsunami Offend Some But Not Others

New York Times Readers Offended

Star Tribune Readers Not Offended

I've discussed before in an entry or two the issue of graphic photos and how often readers are offended when newspapers print those type of photos. What I thought was interesting is how New York Times readers wrote to complain that they thought it was inappropriate for the Times to have printed photos of dead Tsunami victims, some of whom happened to be children. Meanwhile at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, they didn't get any complaints when they printed a photo of parents grieving over their dead child's body, though they expected some. One might think that readers in the Mid-West are more likely to be offended by photos of the young victims of the tsunami that lost their lives but that is apparently not the case.

In relation to the Star Tribune, they spend considerable time thinking about whether or not that particular photos should run. They did get complaints about a photo they ran which showed an Iraqi election official being pulled from his car moments away from being executed and a photo of the Randy Moss fake mooning incident. The readers who complained about the Iraq photo felt it was too graphic for children to see. Yet, the man in the photo hasn't been killed yet. The photo is shocking to see that these things happen in broad daylight in Iraq and it was exactly that reason which prompted the photo editor to run it. Why is it the newspaper's responsibility to shelter these folks' children from things that are shocking or disturbing? It seems to me that is the responsiblity of the parents themselves. As for the Randy Moss incident, one reader felt that the newspaper shouldn't give him so much attention by running his photo because it will encourage him. That may be true that Moss enjoys the attention, but a newspaper can't stop printing news photos because the subject is an attention hog. That deprives the reader of knowing what exactly it was that Moss did that got people so worked up.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)

Fox Blurs Cartoon Rear End Because of Fear of FCC Reaction

Family Guy

This is ridiculous. The networks are so concerned with getting hit with huge fines from the FCC that they are even concerned with what is in cartoons, even those meant for adults. A naked rear end on The Family Guy was blurred out in one of this past weekend's episodes in spite of the fact that five years ago it was aired unblurred without any problems. Not only was this rear end on a cartoon character but it was a completely non-sexual situation. Sure, cartoons and animated shows can cross the line just as much as any other show can but I think that Fox feels they need to blur an innocent butt show on a cartoon that isn't meant for children is scary. That indicates that far more is probably censored as well, much of which we never hear about. It's truly chilling the effect that Janet Jackson's naked breast has had.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:17 AM | Comments (0)

January 11, 2005

I Don't Care Why Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt Split

Jennifer and Brad Done

This morning on Good Day New York, one of the lead stories scrolling on the bottom of the screen was speculation about why Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt have decided to separate after four years of marriage. Am I the only person who doesn't care? Affairs, disputes over when to have kids or maybe they just grew apart in a way they didn't think they could overcome. Maybe they'll eventually divorce, maybe they'll get back together, I don't really care either way myself. I just don't understand what the facination is with the need to know the exact details of why it happened when it isn't anyone's business in the first place.

I'm the first person to admit that sometimes a good piece of gossip interests me. That's probably true of everyone. But I don't feel the need to know every detail of every celebrity's personal life. Sure, if it effects the way they do their job or it's particularly newsworthy then I think that it's a legitimate topic of discussion. But speculation about why a marriage has failed? They may not even know themselves all the reasons why. I just think it's unfortunate that there's such a need to know and so much media attention is being given to this story when there are probably much more interesting and more worthy stories to report on.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:38 AM | Comments (0)

Incident Taints Randy Johnson's First Day in New York

Randy

On his way to take his physical, the last step before becoming a member of the New York Yankees, Randy Johnson took exception to a TV cameraman from WCBS who was trying to film him walking down the street. Johnson grabbed the camera with his hand to obscure the shot, told the camera man to "Get out of his face," and "Don't talk back to me" when the camera man tried to defend himself. Yankees security then shoved the camera down. Later Johnson apologized and said that the past few days were "overwhelming." Well, better get used to it because in New York the media doesn't step aside and stop filming when they see you coming just because you're "overwhelmed."

I'm sure it's often a pain in the ass to deal with the media all the time. But here's a camera man just trying to do his job and get some tape of RJ heading to his physical for the evening news. If RJ doesn't want to stop and chat all he has to do is keep on walking. Instead he makes it into a confrontation for no apparent reason. It's been said that he gave an interview on WFAN in which he said he was "afraid" when he saw the cameraman running towards him. I'm quite sure they had camera people in Seattle, Houston and Phoenix, some of whom probably rushed towards him at times. That's what happens sometimes because they want to be sure to get their shot. After 20 years in the game he knows what the media is all about and how they operate. I find it very hard to believe that RJ at 6'10" was afraid of a cameraman coming towards him, something that has surely happened to him any number of times before.

I've always loved Randy Johnson the pitcher. He's impressive and dominating on the mound. However, at times Randy Johnson the person could use some improvement. He's got a reputation for being surly and he's gotten into it with teammates to the point where fists have almost flown. In addition, some have said that he has been known to be rude to fans as well when he doesn't feel like dealing with them. The things is that as long as he pitches well and wins his behavior will be tolerated both by fans and by the team. Already many are making excuses for his run-in with the cameraman, saying that it's not really a big deal. Well, if it was Jason Giambi who had a run-in with a member of the media fans would want him strung up outside of Yankee Stadium. And if it were a member of the Red Sox everyone would be saying how unprofessional and unclassy that player is.

Unfortunately I think it's highly unlikely that this is the last incident of this nature with RJ. While I'm sure there are plenty of times that he is pleasant to be around, there is no doubt that he has a history of lashing out and I highly doubt that's going to stop just because he's a Yankee.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)

January 10, 2005

CBS Fires Four After Bush Memo Probe

Four Fired

Independent Report

I haven't gotten through reading the entire report by the independent panel hired to look into the 60 Minutes story about President Bush's military service that may have been based on faked documents, since it's huge, but I did read the first few pages which summarize the failings in relation to the segment. At every stage, the whole process was faulty. It's pretty incredible that at such a large news organization, this segment made it to air without the proper authentication of the documents and in spite of some big questions being raised about all of it. In addition, afterwards CBS News dug in their heels and defended the piece even though the evidence that the documents might be forgeries continued to surface.

As a result of the report, four staff members at CBS, the producer of the piece, the producer of 60 Minutes Wednesday, his assistant and a Senior Vice President were fired. Dan Rather who narrated the report has already apologized and said that he would be stepping down so the panel did not recommend that any action be taken against him though they also felt that he made some of the same mistakes that his colleagues did. So we have four people who have been fired over at CBS but I have to wonder how many other people had a hand in that mess. Perhaps the report will give more details but there are probably others who were involved.

CBS definitely has some work to do to get back their credibility.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:35 AM | Comments (0)

January 04, 2005

Full Impact of Tsunami Disaster Slow to be Realized by News Organizations?

A Late Start On Tsunami Story

Peter Johnson, who covers media related issues for USA Today, notes that it took nine days before any of the network news had their news stars reporting directly from the scene of the disaster. While he notes that most networks had reporters on the scene in hours and that it struck during a holiday week, one might think that a disaster of such proportions would bring out the big-guns for each of the networks. Of course there is reason to hold off since there were more important things for the people in the region to worry about than tripping over cables and avoiding camera people. Or did were the networks just slow to realize how big of a story this really was?

I'm not sure about the networks who it seems to me were deludged by video and stories about what happened when the tsunami hit. Those videos and the survivors stories, as well as the huge death toll in eleven countries, make it hard to miss how huge of a disaster this was. However, while there are many people who are shocked and saddened by this tragedy (which seems like too weak of a word) there are also those who don't seem to get it. I've encountered people who are complaining about the wall-to-wall coverage on the news about the tsumami. This is one of, if not the, biggest disasters of the modern era. When 9/11 happened there was non-stop coverage for weeks. And while this isn't terrorism related and it didn't happen in the United States, personally I think that more than 150,000 people losing their lives and countless others being injured is worthy of major coverage. I know some people would prefer to live their lives in a bubble where they don't acknowledge anything bad that happens, but that's not realistic. If there was any story this side of 9/11 worthy of big-time coverage this is it.

Posted by silverdsl at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)

Vince Neil Drops F-Bomb on Leno; No Fines Likely

Oops!

A newly reunited Motley Crue performed live on the Jay Leno Show on NBC on New Year's Eve and just after midnight as the band was performing, Vince Neil shouted to drummer Tommy Lee, "Happy f**king New Year's, Tommy!" But unlike other situations in which TV stations might have faced fines for the use of profanity, it appears that in this case there will be no penalties handed down by the FCC. The reason being that the curse was uttered outside of the FCC's "safe harbor" in which things that are considered indecent are prohibited. In addition, the f-word was edited out when the show was re-broadcast later on the West Coast. And I listened to the Crue's performance and didn't catch what was said so more than likely a lot of people had no idea what Vince said. But I would guess that NBC will start using a five-second delay in the future for live shows, even ones that where there's been no need for one in the past.

In relation to the overall Motley Crue performance they were okay, though nothing great. I was surprised that they didn't perform their new song and instead did "Dr. Feelgood" and "Girls, Girls, Girls" but that could have been a request by the producers since if I remember correctly the new song isn't as upbeat as those two songs. Being that it was New Year's Eve the show probably wanted them to perform fun songs.

The other guys looked pretty good but Mick Mars looked really horrible. It's clear that his bone-wasting disease has really taken a toll on him. Perhaps he feels better than he looks but I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't able to get through the entire tour. Already a rumor surfaced that Dave Navarro would be taking his place but that was quicky denied by Navarro himself. Of course a denial to a rumor is often followed by that rumor coming true. Strange how that works lots of times.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:18 PM | Comments (0)

December 10, 2004

Ed Lowe Leaves Newsday After 28 Years

Lowe Leaves

Ed Lowe, well-loved for his columns in Newsday, which feature stories about Long Islanders, has taken a buyout and will be leaving without even a farewell column. "I came to Newsday during its ascendancy and loved every minute of it," he [Lowe] said. "I have no interest in being around while it's circling the drain." Well, isn't that a depressing commentary on the state of affairs at Newsday?

I read Newsday every day and I haven't liked the direction the paper has took for a while. It just seems like there is less in-depth coverage than there used to be. In addition, there's also the circulation scandal which makes one question what's going on with Newsday management. It's really unfortunate what has come to pass over there.

Lowe may end up at the Long Island Press where his columns will probably fit right in.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:34 AM | Comments (0)

December 05, 2004

Jayski's to be Hosted by ESPN

New Partnership

So the racing news and rumors site Jayski's will be hosted by ESPN.com after January 1 as they try to expand their motorsports coverage. I hope it's true what Jayski has said that he will continue to operate the site exactly as he has been and not let his partnership with ESPN effect what he posts on the site. Jayski's is a great resource for the latest news, links to articles and for information about the various teams and I visit every day.

Some people don't like that he publishes rumors, and some things definitely have to be taken with a grain of salt, but more than once he has gotten news before anyone else which is probably why ESPN wanted to hook up with him. Generally he does a good job of handling rumors, writing them to reflect that they are rumors and correcting stuff that is inaccurate when he gets more information.

This partnership reminds me of the partnership between Boston Dirt Dogs and Boston.com. They wanted to take advantage of his unique content, the occasional rumors about the Red Sox that he gets before anyone else and the heavy traffic that goes to his site. ESPN obviously also wants a piece of Jayski's traffic. I think down the road we will see more of these types of partnerships between semi-professional fan sites and the websites for newspapers and other media outlets as they seek to add interesting content which will create traffic for their sites.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:26 PM | Comments (0)

December 02, 2004

Nascar on TNT/NBC to be Televised in Hi-Def

In part from Jayski's:NBC/TNT Races in High-Def: Beginning next year, NBC and Turner Network Television (TNT) will televise their entire portion of the 2005 NASCAR schedule in high-definition.

This is awesome news and I hope Fox follows to do the same! I watch the majority of the races at Jim's house where he has a hi-definition TV. Seeing the races in hi-def will be unbelievable! I can't wait!

Posted by silverdsl at 03:07 PM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2004

Cecil Fielder Sues Newspaper for Libel

$25 million suit

I wrote previously in this entry about Cecil Fielder how he had apparently lost $47 million due to gambling and bad business decisions. Now Fielder is suing the Detroit newspaper that first published the story, and the writer who wrote it, for libel for $25 million, claiming that they printed exaggerated and reported inaccurate information to make it seem like he is a compulsive gambler who abandoned his family. It appears that Fielder doesn't deny that he is in debt. In fact he says that he intends on repaying everyone that he owes money to. Well, I guess if he wins this lawsuit he will have all the money he needs to repay his debts.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:23 PM | Comments (0)

November 29, 2004

Should Newspapers Print Photos of Illegal Activities?

Photos of Drug Addict Shooting Up Creates Controversy

Rob Finch, an award-winning photographer, took a series of photos of a homeless drug addict going about her day-to-day life for an article in The Oregonian. Some of the photos he took included ones of her shooting heroin which were subsequently printed in the paper after some internal debate by the paper's editorial staff. The controvery over these photos is two-fold. One, what was Finch's responsibility to stop this woman from engaging in illegal activity and whether he was a party to what she was doing by being there taking photos without intervening. And second, should the paper have published the photos?

On the first issue while Finch was with the woman he stressed that he didn't want her to do anything different than she normally would when he was around and using and selling drugs was part of her day-to-day routine. So apparently if he was going to get an honest portrayal of her, this was part of the package. In addition, Finch says he spoke to her more than once, concerned about her safety but he realized that he was there to document, not save her. More than that, even if Finch were to intervene and stop her from shooting up while he was there to take pictures of her more than likely she would have just saved the drugs until when he wasn't around. A photographer who is there for just one day could not possibly say or do anything to prevent this woman from being homeless or a drug addict. Finch had a job to do which was to document this woman's life, which as one might expect from a homeless drug addict often isn't pretty.

As for the second issue one concern that the paper had was that the most common heroin addict in that area is not African-American females but white males so they felt this might not be an accurate portrayal of the average heroin addict and might contribute to racial stereotyping. But as noted in the column this was a woman who wanted her story told and publishing the photos gives light to a problem that exists and effects many people of all different backgrounds. The paper made sure to mention prominantly that the most common heroin addict in the area are white males so they found a way to handle that issue. The other concern was probably that it might be irresponsible to publish photos of illegal activity but as one of the editors points out they shouldn't be covering up problems in their community. The photographer in question did nothing to encourage the illegal activity, he simply documented it. Which is what the paper is doing, reporting on a segment of the population that doesn't get much attention.

Posted by silverdsl at 02:33 PM | Comments (0)

November 23, 2004

Pit Bulls Cancelled

From Jayski's: # Pit Bull goes poof: 'Pit Bull,' the weekly NASCAR discussion show on Speed featuring a panel of print reporters, will not return for 2005. In an e-mail to the show's participants sent Tuesday, Speed Channel president Rick Miner said "we live by ratings and 'Pit Bull' did not make the cut for 2005."(ThatsRacin.com)(11-23-2004)

Yeah right, low ratings! I think that's just an excuse to cover the fact that Nascar was extremely unhappy with the tone of that show. The reporters on that show could be very critical of the governing body and I think Nascar didn't approve of a whole show to showcase them. It's true that the show could be way too negative at times but I think it's important that there is an outlet for even unpopular opinions. I'm just glad that all these folks also work for other media outlets so they can continue to share their thoughts with their audience that way. I don't care for everyone who participated on Pit Bulls but if not for some of them I think there might be some stories that would never see the light of day.

Posted by silverdsl at 08:34 PM | Comments (0)

November 10, 2004

Instant Replay in Baseball

MLB to Consider Instant Replay

One of the topics at the baseball GM meetings this week is going to be whether MLB should impliment Instant Replay. The NFL, NBA and NHL all use instant replay to review calls so some feel that MLB should have it as well. It appears that there are a number of GMs who are in favor of it, including Yankees GM Brian Cashman. So the GMs are going to discuss it.

Well, one has to wonder why they're even bothering to talk about it. This topic came up last year and went no where and the same thing will most likely happen this year as well. Especially when you read Bob Watson's comments about "not seeing it" and about how the Comissioner is also against it. So if MLB's higher-ups don't want it then instant replay isn't going to happen.

Personally, I think it's a good idea. Of course it shouldn't be used for balls and strikes because then the game could get bogged down with challenges to every ball or strike call. But for plays in which there is a question about the call or the closest umpire didn't get a good view of the play it seems like this is a good way to make sure that the right call is made. Tradition is great but sometimes change isn't always a bad thing.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:51 PM | Comments (0)

October 29, 2004

Press Conference on Hendrick Plane Crash

Transcript of Press Conference

Today all of the Hendrick Motorsports drivers and crew chiefs plus Tony Stewart assembled for a press conference from Atlanta Motorspeedway to answer reporter's questions about the plane crash last weekend. It was broadcast over the internet via Nascar.com and I attempted to watch but while the video came in clear as anything the audio was barely audible. Still, it was obvious even without being able to hear too many of their words how deeply saddened all those assembled were over the tragic events.

Brian Vickers in particular was extremely upset to the point where in his statement he said that he would not be answering any questions. He spent just about the whole press conference with his head down and it was said that at one point when the drivers were asked about memories of Ricky Hendrick Brian appeared to break down in tears. My heart just aches for him and all the rest of the people who have lost friends and loved ones. I'm glad that there are obviously so many people around Brian who will help him get through this as best as possible - he obviously needs all the support he can get.

On another note, there seem to be a lot of people who feel that it's wrong for there to be so much media coverage of this crash. The photos of the wreck or the driver's reactions should never see the light of day according to these folks. The memorial service shouldn't have been televised. And the drivers shouldn't have had to do the press conference. I don't agree. Like it or not, this is a major accident that involves people who are prominent in the Nascar community so the intensity of the coverage is justified. Not to mention I don't think that bad or upsetting news or information should be hidden away.

The photos might be disturbing in some ways but life isn't always pretty and the photos can tell the story in a way that words may not be able to. In addition, they serve as a record of what happened, can make the story hit home harder and also act as a way to remember. I think the media does it's audience a disservice when they shelter people from photos that might be upsetting. Of course they need to be sensitive to the families of the people involved. And of course there are very few instances when the most graphic shots of bodies are newsworthy enough to be used, a topic I discussed in an earlier entry. But in this instance I believe that the photos that were used in various places were important to help tell the story.

As for the memorial service if the families didn't want it televised I'm sure it wouldn't have been. I think it's a way for all the countless people who can't attend to share in the memories and the grieving process. There are so many people who are greatly saddened by the crash, many more than can ever fit in one building for a memorial service. So televising the service is a way for these people to feel like they were there.

The press conference was not easy for those who had to speak but it was probably less painful to try and answer some of those questions then than have to repeat the same answers over and over again. The reality is that they are Nascar drivers, very much in the public eye, and fans want to hear how this effects them.

Posted by silverdsl at 04:30 PM | Comments (0)

October 27, 2004

What did he expect in a room full of Media?

Clinton's Off-the-Record Request Ignored

Former President Bill Clinton gave a question and answer session at the Magazine Publishers of America meeting in Florida recently. Prior to the session the moderator noted that all of Clinton's comments were off-the-record, meaning that his comments should not be printed by those media outlets in attendance. Apparently a significant portion of people there completely ignored the request.

When I still worked in public relations one of the first things my boss at the time told me is that there's no such thing as off-the-record. Sure, there are some reporters who will honor an off-the-record request but unfortunately there are just as many who will use what is said without a second thought. There are even some reporters who will ask you to speak off-the-record to get you to confide in them and then also use those remarks. Some reporters care very much about journalistic ethics but for some reporters getting the story is more important. And unless you have a long-standing relationship with a reporter it can be hard to know who is trust-worthy.

Even if you have a relationship with a reporter and have spoken off-the-record with them 100 times that doesn't mean that on the 101st time they won't burn you. There are times in which a reporter learns of something or a quote is said that is so newsworthy that they feel obligated to use it. I think that is probably what happened with Gary Sheffield and Bob Nightengale of USA Today. The two have a long-standing relationship and are friendly. Nightengale wrote about incendiary comments that Sheffield supposedly made about the Red Sox questioning their committment to winning. After the quote was printed Sheffield denied saying it but I suspect that he made the comments to Nightengale thinking it was off-the-record and either Sheffield didn't specifically say not to use it or Nightengale thought the comments were so newsworthy that he had to break his promise to not use it.

Friendships between reporters and the subjects they cover are discouraged because of how sticky things can get not just in relation to on- and off- the record but also in terms of how that friendship can influence coverage. That doesn't mean that reporters can't be friendly and chat with the people they cover but a deeper friendship can be tricky.

Which brings me to Marty Smith of Nascar.com. He has admitted he is friends with some of the drivers he covers including Dale Earnhardt, Jr. and Jimmie Johnson. Not just friendly in that he will chat with them when he sees them but actually hangs out with them away from the track. He has said that he doesn't let this influence the way that he covers them and he has never made them any promises about only doing positive stories about them. To his credit he has not seemed to shy away from criticizing Junior or anyone else when need be. However, I wonder how he handles on- and off-the record? What if Junior or another of the drivers he is friends with says or does something in his presence that is worthy of coverage? Does he ignore it? Would he not report on it himself but alert a fellow member of the media? I enjoy Smith's writing and my impression is that he trys not to let his friendships bias his writing but still I wonder if there are things he deliberately leaves out or writes in a certain way at times to protect his friends.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:59 PM | Comments (0)

October 26, 2004

Howard Stern Challenges FCC Chairman on Air

Stern Calls in to Radio Show

During a radio call-in show, Howard Stern got into a heated exchange with Federal Communications Comission Chairman, Michael Powell, in which he accused Powell of only getting his position because Colin Powell is his father. Stern had apparently been alerted that Powell was going to be on the show and called in because he felt that Powell had avoided answering all his questions. Besides the comment about nepotism , Stern of course made his feelings known about how ridiculous he felt the fines against his show were.

In 2006 Stern will be moving exclusively to Sirius satellite radio. I wonder what he's going to do for attention once he doesn't have the FCC to battle? There was actually an article in Newsday about this over the weekend. Some of the allure of the Stern show is that he pushes the boundaries both of good taste as well as what is allowed by the FCC on the airwaves. On satellite radio he can say anything he wants so there might be some degree of excitment that is missing once he's not subject to the rules of the FCC.

I've listened to Stern from time-to-time. Some of the celebrity interviews can be funny and interesting. Some of his material can be offensive but most of it is just juvenile. It also seems like Stern keeps on doing the same routines over and over again. I guess the only way to get some fresh material and invigorate himself is by moving to a venue where there are few rules and he can do whatever he wants. But what will he complain about?

Posted by silverdsl at 11:54 PM | Comments (0)

October 25, 2004

Pit Bulls Done?

Another From Jayski’s: Pit Bulls to be put down? NASCAR executives love the new television package that has boosted national coverage of their sport the past three years, but it's no secret they're not fond of one of the newest pre-game shows, Saturday night's Pit Bulls [usually 6:30pm/et, also known as Pit Hogs by Jimmy Spencer], on Speed, the Fox cable subsidiary. Pit Bulls is Fox' specialized version of The Sports Reporters, and its irreverent, politically-incorrect stance on many NASCAR racing issues has drawn a surprising following among stock-car crews [I never miss it], who sometimes express amazement that NASCAR officials have allowed the show to continue. Pit Bulls follows a distinctly different line from the typical NASCAR pre-game and post-game racing shows, which are frequently little more than public-relations showcases for NASCAR-approved themes, promoted by a bevy of drivers, some of whom, like Michael Waltrip [on Inside Nextel Cup, see next blurb], have lately increased their criticism of the show. Now it appears that the Pit Bulls show may be ripe for Brian France's axe at the end of the season, according to TV sources, who say the show could be sacrificed in post-season NASCAR-TV negotiations to appease Daytona executives.(Winston Salem Journal)(10-25-2004)

I’m not a huge fan of Pit Bulls as I agree with those who think they have a tendency to be too negative. However, there have been times that I think Pit Bulls have discussed issues that are glossed over elsewhere. The idea that Nascar wants to get rid of the show because of the content is chilling. We all know that they want to shut up the people who criticize them and I guess this would be one way of doing it. But I think it's important that there are people who can voice their opinions openly in a public venue where Nascar and others might take notice. Because the drivers certainly can't make most of their honest opinions known too freely.

Posted by silverdsl at 12:12 PM | Comments (0)

October 22, 2004

Boston Herald Readers Outraged Over Graphic Front Page Photos of a College Student's Death

A Tabloid's New Low

After the Red Sox won the ALCS against the Yankees drunken college students in Boston went on a mini-riot to "celebrate." As the police were trying to quell the disturbance 21-year old Emerson college student Victoria Snelgove, who was an innocent bystander, was accidentally hit in the eye by what is supposed to be a non-lethal projectile fired by a police officer. Unfortunately she died from her injuries.

So the Boston Herald, not known for their journalistic integrity, printed a full-color photo showing Ms. Snelgrove collapsed and presumably dying on the sidewalk, on the front page of today's paper, along with an additional black and white photo inside depicting a bystander checking her pulse. As one might imagine Herald readers were horrified to pick up the paper and see these images.

In the column above Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix argues that the Herald hit a new low by printing these photos which add nothing to the story that couldn't be known via the accompanying article. I tend to agree that the Herald probably erred in using these photos, at least in full color on the front page. However, photojournalists do important work in that their images often capture newsworthy events. Life isn't always pretty and working photographers can't put their cameras down in spite of ugly or distrurbing events that unfold in front of them. So the question is how and when should photos like these be used?

Many readers felt that the photos are insensitive to the family. I definitely agree with that. Here is a young woman who is well-loved by her friends and family and the horrible last few minutes of her life are printed in the newspaper for all to see. I would guess that is extremely disturbing to say the least. However, from the newspaper's point of view there are probably many family members of the subjects of photos and stories that they run who are upset by what goes in the paper. So the newspaper has to weigh sensitivity to the family versus the newsworthyness and importance of the photos.

Then the newspaper has to take into account the community they serve and what the reaction to these photos would be. Small town newspapers usually shy away from graphic photos while bigger newspapers that serve a more tolerant and perhaps less sensitive readership have a tendency to run more graphic photos. We saw this in relation to prior photos that are referenced in Kennedy's column such as some recent photos of American soldiers who were killed in Iraq - some newspapers ran those photos front and center but others shied away because they knew that their readers who be extremely upset.

There is also an argument that could be made that says that a newspaper has a responsiblity to report the news and print photos regardless of how their readers react. Some stories should envoke horror, anger, disgust and sadness from readers because they are horrible stories. I don't think stories should be sugar-coated to go down easier as that tends to lead to facts being omitted. Graphic photos could also lead to a story having more of an impact and that is what some people thought was the case in relation to the photos in the Herald. But words can be just as powerful as a photo.

Graphic photos shouldn't be used specifically to sell newspapers and I suspect that is the case with the Herald. Just like when the New York Post used a graphic photo of a woman comitting suicide by jumping off a building on their front cover, I think the Herald was aware of the shock value of the photo and wanted to use it to move papers. Which is definitely the wrong reason to use the photos. In fact the Herald is probably enjoying all the attention they're getting from running these photos which is a shame because it takes away from the real story - that an innocent bystander, happy that her favorite team won, ended up dead instead of back in her dorm room at the end of the night.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:22 PM | Comments (0)

October 21, 2004

The Curse Heard Round the World

Rusty Wallace Says Janet's To Blame

It's been almost three weeks since Dale, Jr. said "shit" in Victory Lane during a live TV interview on NBC after winning at Talledaga. You'd think it was discovered that he has bodies buried in his backyard with the amount of attention this is still getting. Mostly that's because Nascar had no choice but to fine him $25,000 and take away 25 points after punishing other drivers in a similarly ridiculous way earlier in the year and that could potentially have an effect on his championship run. Nascar's worst nightmare is a scenario in which Jr. loses the championship by less than 25 points.

Rusty Wallace thinks this is all Janet Jackson's fault and I agree with him to a degree. Without her wardrobe malfunction on live TV the FCC wouldn't be so anxious to crack down on offenders and Nascar wouldn't be so worried about drivers who curse during interviews.

However, the "whole mess" as Rusty refers to it wasn't caused by Janet Jackson. It was caused by Dale, Jr. being unable to give an interview on national TV without cursing. Janet Jackson didn't force Jr. to curse - he's the only one responsible for what comes out of his mouth. I'm not offended by cursing and it's very true that children hear and are exposed to much worse and more damaging things every day. I also strongly feel that drivers shouldn't have points taken away for something that doesn't happen on the track but I also think that a grown man should be able to give an interview without cursing. Especially when he knows that he can be punished for it. Nascar's rule may be a stupid one but it is their rule and the drivers have to abide by it.

Rusty goes on to say that he thinks that it took the realism out of the sport and I've heard something similar from a lot of other people in that they feel that Nascar is trying to suck the personality out of the drivers. Again, I agree to an extent in that I think Nascar is way too controlling about some things such as what goes on in Victory Lane and that takes away some of the fun out of things. But I've seen plenty of people give interviews, with a full range of emotion and personality, without cursing. I don't think it's too much to think that a 30-year old can speak his opinions freely and express his emotions fully in a TV interview without having to resort to cursing to get his point across.

Posted by silverdsl at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)

October 19, 2004

XM Gets Even Better

XM and MLB to Sign Deal?

Huge news for baseball fans - you may soon be able to listen to broadcasts of your favorite teams no matter where you are in the country via XM satelitte radio. So perhaps this explains why XM didn't go after Howard Stern? According to this article tomorrow MLB and XM are going to announce a huge deal in which every single baseball game is broadcast on XM over the next eleven years. I don't know how this will work in terms of what channels the games will show up on. I hope they aren't going to take some of the music channels off the air evenings (or the Nascar channel) to accomidate the games. The deal is worth $470 million which is big money but probably worth it for XM.

Posted by silverdsl at 11:55 PM | Comments (0)