Sportswriters Who Don't Get It

Over at SportsJournalists.com the brawl in Detroit (OK Auburn Hills) was a big topic of discussion as you may well expect. What was unexpected (to me at least) was the play a particular thread got.

The question was asked whether ESPN should be actively participating in the Detroit PD's (OK Auburn Hills PD) investigation (ESPN had simply allowed the police into their production truck to review video from the game).

Common sense says to me that this is a non-starter - of course ESPN should co-operate. However, the question got six pages of debate - a debate that seemed to reveal more about the sportswriters (and journalists in general) than it did to actually answer the question (which was a non-starter to begin with).

The first few who posted supported ESPN but then "JR" (most of the members at SportsJournalists.com use anonymous screen names) posted the following:

It's not the media's job to "aid police investigations" any more than it is the media's job to support Bush's war.

At minimum ESPN should demand a court order.

Now in full disclosure - I've met "JR" in real life and he's a publisher in Canada not a sports journalist but his post had resonance among other board members (also please note how quickly George W. Bush got dragged into this - it's as if when first viewing the video of the tape most journalist's first thought was "this never happened under Clinton" - unbelievable).

"Shotglass" later responded:

And it strikes me that the simpler issue here is, do you want to help justice being served, or do you want to hinder it?

No reason, no reason at all to make this an adversarial thing with the police. Just give them full access.

The voice of reason and common sense. Why is this an arguable point?

Why? Because some journalist seem to believe that there is more honor in the Mafia sense of "omerta" than in assisting the police in any way (I was going to say that this is unbelievable but I guess there is a reason journalists are being lumped with lawyers and used car salesmen in terms of how much the public trusts them. Just for proof - a well know Boston writer later in the thread ends with, "Forget 'I love you.' The three best words in the English language are 'I can't remember.'" He gets kudos for this from other journalists. Omerta and obstruction live hand in glove with no moral qualm for some journalists I guess). Oh and again in the spirit of full disclosure - when I posted on the board I was often at odds with "Shotglass" but when a man's right you give him credit.

"2muchcoffee" responds:

That the Auburn Hills PD should have been taping the game. Alternatively, they shouldn't get jacksquat without a warrant.

The normally levelheaded (and humorous) "PCloadletter" chimes in:

You don't work for the police, and you don't want the public to have the perception that you work for the police. If your video is really going to help find justice here, they can get the damn warrant. It's not exactly hard to do.

Someone should explain that co-operating means working WITH not working FOR. I can't think of anyone (well maybe with the exception to journalists) who saw the police officer reviewing video in the ESPN truck and who came away thinking that ESPN has sold out to "the man".

To be fair to "PCloadletter" - he later adds:

And the cops can have any video that has actually aired; it's unaired stuff that they would need a court order for. (A point I should have made a while ago.)

But he never explains why an adversarial relationship between ESPN and the police has to exist in the first place. To him it seems a given. This adversarial relationship gets support from "ink-stained-wretch" (note: cops = bastards in his worldview):

If the footage has been aired. Police can quickly get a court order for the originals. If the cops are in there looking at raw footage, different angles, etc. I'm calling the lawyer to fight the bastards.

Do I turn over, sans a court order, anything the cops want? Not in my lifetime.

"Seabasket" (fellow Red Sox fan) cuts to the quick:

If you wouldn't choose to help the cops in this situation, you're a dick, plain and simple.

"Seabasket" is 100% right but what he fails to understand is that many journalists just don't realize that they are being dicks. Many in the public see or hear this stuff and they do think "what a dick" with the reporter being blissfully unaware of his/her dickhood. I mean this question got six pages of debate!

Speaking of being unaware of acting like a dick - "TigerVols" tries to hide behind the 1st amendment and adds (when he is called on that ridiculous argument):

All this does is further cement the idea in the public's mind that the Government=Media, that they are both one-in-the-same.

Talk about clueless. Yeah - in the public's mind George Bush controls the New York Times. He's actually serious in his belief. Wait it gets better (better meaning worse in this case). "Fenian-bastard" chimes in:

But, you have to admit, most of the "people" have forgotten what their rights are, and probably look at them all as "loopholes" if they think of them at all, and thus, wouldn't be outraged if the Auburn Hills PD torched the Bill of Rights in the parking lot. So "where's the outrage?" isn't really a measure of very much any more.

First off putting "people" in scare quotes is condescending to begin with but consider that this "bastard"s argument is that the "people" aren't smart or educated enough to know their rights or when they should be outraged so it is up to journalists to tell them what they should care about. Talk about being a horse's ass (full disclosure "Fenian-bastard" is in real-life a nationally known writer but I think he's a total dickhead and I've made that pretty clear to him).

We get more commonsense from "Lugnuts" (SMYT!):

It's an interesting issue to raise, but the video is in the public domain. Even though the NBA and/or ESPN technically owns it, there's a doctrine for stuff like this called "fair use."

Besides that, sometimes you have to be pragmatic and use common sense.

If the President had been shot, and NBC News captured it on video, does NBC turn it over to the authorities ASAP so the guy can be caught, or does NBC wait for a court order?

Common sense. Pragmatism.

"Lugnuts" knows what she is talking about because she is a TV reporter. What I found amusing (and revealing) is that she is backed up by two other "sports journalists" based upon them watching fictional TV shows like SportsNight and Law and Order. Hey - if you saw it on TV then it must be true!

Six pages of debate on this! Yeesh.

Again in full disclosure - I wrestled with posting my thoughts on this matter but I decided that this site is for my thoughts and opinions and this subject has bothered me most of the weekend. Also the people at SportsJournalists.com have shown no hesitancy to quote other boards like Sons of Sam Horn - so it would be a double standard if they thought what they were debating was a private affair.