The Sports Page

In mid-March, I published a column in SportsBusiness Journal in which I challenged the notion of whether ESPN’s relationship with the Poynter Institute, a respected journalism think tank, is in fact changing the ethical climate there.

I was shocked when, six weeks later, a representative of the Worldwide Leader replied in a column of his own.  I figured the column had gone the way of my lectures — in one ear and out the other (though to be fair, my lectures might not even make it into one ear).

I was even more shocked when USA Today referenced the debate and when Dino Costa at Sirius XM Mad Dog Radio wanted to talk to me about it on his show.  Dino was actually the one who informed me, on live radio, of the USA Today piece.  I had no idea.

Here it is, the end of the week, and I am back to my previous ivory tower obscurity.  But I was thinking of a statement in the ESPN column: “No sports media organization puts more resources toward transparency.”

He also complained that I offered no specifics.  He is right.  I should have mentioned the Bruce Feldman case or conference realignment, well-hashed though they may be.  Conference realignment would have been particularly strong, especially after the column compared ESPN’s reporting to CBS reporting on staff discord on “Two and a Half Men.”  Given ESPN’s role in conference realignment, in fact, it would resemble more CBS having a seat on the FCC, influencing network-related decisions and then reporting it without acknowledging the conflicts.

But let’s look at a more recent example.  The reporting on the new BCS playoff system.  Can we assume that ESPN has an interest in possibly broadcasting these games?  Thus, would it be in ESPN’s financial interest to add three additional games to the playoffs?  Of course.

But in reporting about the negotiations, did Mark Schlabach, Joe Schad or anyone at ESPN acknowledge this conflict?  Typically, when a media organization reports on a story in which they have a potential conflict of interest, they are open about it.  It might seem a bit excessive to viewers and/or readers, but the point is to be transparent and to show your readers that you care about it.

They are in good company.  FOXSports.com also ignored the conflict in their reporting on the negotiations, even though they can be expected to seek to benefit from the new system.

That’s what ethics is all about.  The extra mile.  A good form of TMI.  Going out of your way to point something out because you want readers to know that you care enough about it.

You don’t just say, as the column did, programming doesn’t affect news and news doesn’t affect programming.  A logical follow-up line would have been “end of story, so stop worrying.”  You acknowledge the potential conflicts of interest because you know your audience recognizes them too.

Sometimes the most valuable resource a media organization can put forward in promoting transparency is the words to point out any such conflicts ahead of their readers.  In this specific case, and in others.

The PGA has decided to do away with qualifying school in its present form, starting with the 2013 season.  I object.

Previously, the PGA divvied up its new tour spots between Q-School survivors (six aneurysm-inducing rounds) and Nationwide Tour survivors.  But next year, the PGA will change the way that players outside the Top 125 money winners earn their tour privileges.

At the end of August, before the “playoffs,” the Top 125 will be locked down.  The Top 75 Nationwide players and the players between No. 126 and No. 200 on the PGA Tour money list will play a three-tournament series in October.  The Top 50 in those three tournaments will earn PGA Tour privileges.  The other 100 will be returned to the Nationwide Tour.  The December Q-School will qualify players to join the Nationwide Tour.

So, we will be deprived of young college players such as Dustin Johnson, J.B. Holmes and Rickie Fowler going directly to the PGA Tour and writing their own Cam Newton-type success stories.  Straight to the Nationwide Tour with you young folks (unless you can earn enough money in tour events to qualify for the October series, in which case … ah, forget it).

And we will be deprived of stories like 2007 U.S. Amateur champion Colt Knost, who thought he had barely missed qualifying last year at Q-School, even weeping, only to find out that he had made the cut.

So what is the cause behind this change?  PGA Executive Director Tim Flinchem claims that Nationwide graduates have greater success on tour than Q-School grads, and statistics prove it.  But the real reason — no surprise — is money.

First, Nationwide is pulling its sponsorship after this year, and the PGA will have to find a new sponsor for the “feeder tour.”  A system that puts more promising young players on the tour and makes it even more relevant to PGA Tour qualifying is a stronger draw for sponsor dollars.

Second, those late-season tournaments — the “Fall Series” events that take place after the playoffs — have groused about their lack of relevance, and their sponsors were rumored to be threatening to pull out.  Now, not only will these events help set the field for the next year’s PGA Tour, but the season will officially start in October, so that these events will also help the next year’s golfers qualify.

(Of course, this adds a frantic note to the 2013 season, where golfers will have only eight months to establish their eligibility for the 2014 season, but that is part of the cost of doing business.)

In fairness, the October events will probably have all the drama of Q-school — in particular the last round of the last tournament, where the roster of Tour-qualified golfers will change with every bogey and birdie.  Still, the Q-school, with its six days of progressively hellish stress, has served golf and its fans well.

Can’t we have both?  What is sport if not prevailing through the deepest ordeal and then attaining the heights?  Those moments make golf the great sport, the un-qualified success, that it is.

Auburn’s notorious Journalism 101 class (now JRNL 1100) has claimed many victims.  Most forget the shame, especially if they survive a retake. PGA Tour rookie Gary Christian can only wonder what might have been.

Having sailed past the spelling test, he confronted the usage module. Strunk & White.  (The very mention sends a painful shudder through most.)  For a student who grew up learning Oxford English, it was a losing battle.

“It worked against 22 years of education.  I never studied, but that was one class I studied for,” he recalled.  “I got a 71.”  In the 101 grading scale, that is a failing grade. In its grading system, failing one exam means failing the course, regardless of your performance on other exams.  “I am not a fan of Journalism 101,” he said.

But journalism’s loss was golf’s gain.  Gary completed his degree in mass communication in 1995 (with honors), and now, a mere 16 years later, he has made it to the PGA tour.

His candid, easy-going manner has earned the attention of a growing number of golf journalists, as well as the tourplayers.com Web site.  (I’ll send you there to get his take on his first experience tailgating at Auburn in 1993 rather than detail it here.  It’s worth the trip.)

A warning about Gary Christian: He speaks English as if it were a second language. If you follow him on Twitter (@GazzaGolf1966), you might need a translator to understand the Brit.

After playing alongside Davis Love III, he declared him a “pucker geezer.” True, Davis’s pursed lips rival Renee Zellweger, but was that necessary?  He explains. “Pucker” means genuine.  “Geezer” means great guy.  “Maybe I should have called him a ‘diamond geezer,’” Gary says.  Yeah, much clearer.

And when he described world No. 1 Rory McIlroy as a “scouser” for his perm and “shell suit” (i.e., track suit) top, well, it certainly painted a picture of what one would look like, though Gary clarified that a true scouser would also wear several gold medallions — and be from Liverpool.

From his outgoing manner and his refusal to take himself as seriously as his game, Gary seems a natural for the broadcast booth, and even he acknowledges the possibility, acknowledging an English accent as meeting a job requirement.

But don’t think he plans to recycle other commentators, like Gary McCord (“Sometimes he tries too hard”) or David Feherty (“A little over the top for me. There is a very thin line between having enough material and having too much.”)

For all his talk of humor and pucker geezers, however, Gary is all business on the golf course.  His dress is as conservative as everything else isn’t.  Payne Stewart had his knickers, but Gary is leaving the shell top for the scousers.  “I’m pretty reserved,” he said.  “If you dress like a clown, you play like a clown.”  On those days you struggle, he pointed out, you don’t want to draw attention to yourself.

Performance-wise, Gary is off to a good start. He recalled that the first hole of his first PGA tournament, in Hawaii (tough gig), he hit his approach within 8 feet and birdied.  On the next hole, he lost his drive in a palm tree.

But overall, he has done well.  Of the 26 rookies on the tour, he ranks 7th in stats.  On the positive, he made five cuts in a row before barely missing in Puerto Rico.  The tough part has been turning those cuts made into high finishes.  He has one Top 15 finish and was toward the top in the Honda Classic before fading late and finishing tied for 30th.

He is one of four Auburn golfers currently on tour.  Gary is not as well-acquainted with the most successful of the crew, Jason Dufner.  He is closer friends with Roland Thatcher, whom Gary recruited to Auburn in 1995.  He has also developed a friendship with fellow rookie Will Claxton, who is 10 years younger but, like Gary, has found some success his rookie year, including a Top 10 finish at a tournament in Mexico.

“I’m good friends with him; he’s a great fellow,” Gary said of Claxton.  “He enjoys being around Auburn.”  Claxton came out of nowhere to make it through PGA Tour Qualifying School.  Gary said he credits it to “life changes, a new perspective.”

Gary is enjoying the ride too.  At Doral, his tee time was close to Tiger Woods’, so he warmed up next to him at the driving range.  “Standing next to one of the top five players in the history of golf,” he said.  “It was an odd reminder that this truly is a dream come true.”

But he still has time for fun.  Gary insists that in his future is a tourplayers.com video shoot of him having his back waxed, like Steve Carell.  Let’s see Tiger Woods or Rory McIlroy top that.

(The following has been published in the March 12 print edition of Sports Business Journal.  Many thanks to the folks there.)

I remember an illustration from youth rallies and assemblies.  The speaker would have someone stand on a chair, with a friend standing on the floor next to him/her.  The one on the chair would be challenged to lift the friend.  Impossible.

Then the speaker would challenge the friend to bring the one on the chair down.  One yank, and mission accomplished.  The warning?  It’s easier to drag someone down than lift someone up.

Perhaps someone needs to bring a chair to the Poynter Institute.  In their role as ethical watchdog for ESPN , the Institute risks dragging themselves down in their attempts to lift ESPN — or, at least, to be perceived as lifting ESPN.

The partnership was announced in March 2012 and hailed as a “new step in media transparency.”   Poynter Institute staff would review ESPN’s content and practices and comment as appropriate, while also addressing fan concerns and writing monthly essays.  ESPN would gain Poynter’s expertise in teaching and encouraging ethical behavior.

In theory.

In practice, the arrangement seems to be having little effect on how ESPN conducts its conflict-of-interest-filled daily business.

First, some background on the Poynter Institute.  An excellent training facility for all aspects of journalism, the Institute was funded by Nelson Poynter, publisher of the St. Petersburg Times and other newspapers, who willed controlling stock in his newspapers to the Institute as a funding source.  (Disclosure: I attended a seminar there in the late 1990s.)  It’s impossible to summarize for the purpose of this article.  Check the hyperlink above.

So it is not surprising that the essays themselves, by Kelly McBride and Jason Fry, are excellent, thoughtful and deserving of consideration by readers as much as by ESPN’s management.  But are they more than just words on a screen?

First, have you ever tried finding these essays?  You’ll need help, and here it is:  On the entry page, scroll down almost to the bottom.  Under “Feedback” is a link to “Poynter Review Project.”

The uninitiated reader might think the feature is dedicated to a review of the career of Michael Poynter, backup QB for Rice.  Understandable, because the name “Poynter” is meaningless to most outside of the journalism industry.  You’ll have to ask ESPN why they don’t put the word “ethics” there.

Vague as that is, it’s an improvement.  You used to have to go almost all the way to the right at the top menu bar, to “Page 2 & Commentary.”  It was buried at the bottom of the commentary list — not so bad, since Rick Reilly’s column was next to the bottom. (Of course, Reilly is hardly buried, since his columns by contrast are frequently featured on the ESPN front page.)

Second, what impact are the essays having?  McBride criticized the network’s lack of action after hearing the alleged victim’s taped conversations with former Syracuse assistant Bernie Fine’s wife.  Fry and McBride also criticized their slow coverage of the Sandusky scandal.

From a practical perspective, those columns might have encouraged more aggressive coverage of allegations in the case against former AAU president Bobby Dodd.  Of course, the lack of action in the Fine and Sandusky cases has caused reflection and reform across the board in such cases, but McBride’s and Fry’s particular critiques of ESPN were enlightening.

My concern is the impact on the broader conflicts of interest, involving ESPN’s double life as an outlet for objective news information and a producer of overly-hyped programming.  In these cases — for example, McBride’s appraisal of ESPN’s schizophrenic role in reporting and promoting college football realignment — the columns seem like window dressing.  ESPN lets McBride and Fry reflect and ponder, but ultimately they are left to their own ivory tower, worth only PR points for ESPN, with no real change.

A more recent slam came from Richard Deitsch of SI.com, in his best and worst of 2011.  He double-slapped both Poynter and ESPN for their lack of follow-up regarding allegations that ESPN analyst Craig James hired a PR firm to smear former Texas Tech head coach Mike Leach, whose book Bruce Feldman (then of ESPN) co-wrote.  Although Poynter mentioned the allegations, neither the Institute nor the Worldwide Leader has taken further action.  That earned a “dud” designation from Deitsch.

Their initial response to the charges of racism in coverage of Jeremy Lin did not appear until three days after the worst of the offenses — the “Chink in the Armor” headline that cost an ESPN.com editor his job.  Not very nimble.

The third concern involves ESPN’s payments to Poynter.  In an e-mail to McBride, I asked her for details on this.  She declined, saying that Poynter, although a non-profit, does not disclose the details of such client contracts.  (Disclaimer: True to form as a Poynter faculty member, McBride provided me much instruction and background in our brief e-mail exchange, even as I prepared an article that would criticize her organization.)

In this non-disclosure, I think Poynter errs.  Given their status within the journalism profession as an ethical stalwart, their transparency in this relationship should be above the letter of the law.  I don’t believe that Poynter is being bought off by ESPN, lending their name as sanctifying gloss over the network’s ethical derp-dom.

But I do believe that Poynter could head off any ethical misgivings while showing that they are truly the Worldwide Leader when it comes to journalism ethics.  It takes some organizational courage to show the specific financial benefits of such relationships.  But that courage is buoyed by confidence that what they are doing in their work with ESPN is right.

In fact, I don’t believe that ESPN will drag the Poynter Institute down.  But to extend my opening metaphor, I don’t believe that Poynter will raise ESPN up, either.  I’m thinking that, however long the relationship lasts, ESPN will remain at its level of ethics, and Poynter, from its lofty position, will end up with sore arms and improved finances.

Some sports page readers claim that Nick Saban intimidates Bama beat writes to the point of compliance.  But more than a few Auburn fans might wish that Auburn beat writers took the same approach.  Take the recent controversy involving Evan Woodbery of the Mobile Press-Register as an example.

The claim is that Evan, a Bama alum, has been using his position at the Press-Register to advance a pro-Bama agenda.  The centerpiece was a post on the Never to Yield Foundation calling for him to be replaced.  The writer of the post, by remaining anonymous, subjected Woodbery to treatment that the writer himself/herself was not willing to face.  But I will leave that for fans of irony.

I talked to Woodbery about this recently.  He said that the morning the post appeared, his email box was full — some hostile, some concerned, some supportive.  More than the usual day’s mail (which he says he always replies to).

Perhaps the post’s most curious and serious accusation was that Woodbery alerted the NCAA to violations related to the “Big Cat” recruiting weekend the summer of 2009, resulting in minor sanctions against the football program.  As he pointed out, Auburn turned itself in and the NCAA did not investigate but accepted Auburn’s self-imposed penalties.

Regardless, for Woodbery to take such an active role in a story violates just about every ethical principle of journalism and I am certain he would have been fired.  That he was forced to point all these things out in a response to the NtY post is also a shame.

The NtY post also provides a selective sample of articles to support a charge that Woodbery consistently trashes Auburn.  Conceivably, a Bama fan could produce a list of positive articles and claim that Woodbery is a sell-out.  In either case, the mind is made up and seeks only the evidence that supports it.  The fancy word academics use for that is a “polemic.”

But such is the world we live in today. And that is what troubles me about this situation, including the post.  It’s not the tactics that NtY uses, deficient though they may be.  It’s the philosophy that powers the tactics.

Whether in politics or in college football, readers don’t want information; they want reinforcement.  They are interested in only a few aisles in the marketplace of ideas.  They don’t want information that challenges their biases; they reject such information as inaccurate and the reporter as incompetent.  And if an independent press sees its mission differently, they will go elsewhere, to media that pander to their biases.

Translated to sports, it can get even crazier in its own way.  As Woodbery noted, college football in particular produces a passion that is unmatched by other sports.  Would an Atlanta Falcons fan complain because a Falcons beat reporter grew up in Charlotte or D.C.?

For newspapers, it is yet another threat.  Circulation has been flat for decades — since television.  Economic downturns are always tough on newspapers that rely on advertising income, but this one is intensifying the existing challenges.  With readers flocking to the Internet—and publishers giving away their content for too long—some newspapers are struggling to find reader income.  (I would point out that al.com, the Web site that hosts the Press-Register, Woodbery’s paper, seems to be ahead of the curve on this.)

The rise of fan-related pay sports sites, such as AuburnSports.com (Rivals), Inside the Auburn Tigers (Scout/Fox), and AuburnUndercover has also changed the game.  These sites, many staffed by former sports page veterans such as Phillip Marshall, do a great job of reporting on recruiting and other team developments.  But relying on direct financial fan support, they take a slightly different approach than do the beat reporters from the daily newspapers.

But whether in sports or politics, it’s sad to see the direction things are going.  In both cases, an independent press serves an important function — to make sure the game is fair for the participants, whether it takes place on the field or in legislative chambers.  And if the audience seeks only the information that confirms its preconceived beliefs, and ignores the rest, the likelihood for misconduct is greater, because those in power know that they are not being watched as closely.

It’s even more ridiculous when the facts don’t come close to matching the accusations.  Many claim that the Press-Register holds an anti-Auburn bias and endorses Woodbery’s behavior.  But Managing Editor Dewey English was a classmate of mine at Auburn in the late 1970s and is part of strong, respected leadership at the helm.  And for all that the Birmingham News is supposed to be a Bammer stronghold, the current publisher, Pam Sliddall, earned the enmity of Bama fans when her Twitter account at the time of her appointment included the confession that she was an Auburn fan.

On the sports page, many claim that the University of Alabama (i.e., Nick Saban) would never tolerate an Auburn grad covering its teams.  But I can think of three different situations where an Auburn grad does just that.  One of them, Rachel Baribeau (FoxSports), is no secret.  As for the other two, for the time being I will spare them the possibility of the shabby treatment being doled out on Woodbery.

So will the enraged masses get their wish?  Will Evan Woodbery trade in one crazy, passionate group of fans for another?  He told me he has no current plans, though anything can change.  I would hope that Woodbery, and any journalist, would never make a lateral move for that reason, because it would encourage such an attitude.

One group that endorses Woodber’s professionalism and ethics is his fellow journalists, both on and off the sports page.  I have chatted with them, and I have read their comments on message boards.  In their minds, his reporting is as solid as his professional ethics.

A final note: One such colleague reported writing such a defense of Woodbery and submitting it as a comment to the NtY page.  About a week later, it has not appeared yet.  That is fine; that is their business.  Thank goodness for newspapers that have the integrity to give space to their critics.  It’s not a matter of dishing it out vs. taking it.  It goes to a much deeper mission that means a lot more to journalism’s practitioners than readers realize.

The NCAA staffer’s blog attack on New York Times columnist Joe Nocera is noteworthy for a couple of reasons.  First, it’s definitely out of character for the NCAA to go on the offensive like that.  True, they took on Danny Sheridan for his insistent bagman publicity stunt.  But that had the feel of a one-and-done. 

Mostly, the NCAA is content to sit back and watch the proceedings with the equanimity of Albert Einstein.  As he once said, “Dogs have been barking at the moon for eons.  The moon is still there.”

But this Nocera thing has a different feel.  He has a well-deserved reputation as a top-notch columnist, mainly in the business sphere.  His work got him to the finals for the Pulitzer Prize in commentary in 2007 (which is another opportunity to point out that the winner that year was a classmate of mine, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution).

Last year, the Times moved Nocera off the business page and onto its editorial page.  And now, Nocera seems to be moving his focus from the business page to the sports section — in particular, the NCAA.  In December, he wrote an article for New York Times magazine on the NCAA’s pay-for-play proposal.

I blogged about and linked to this article soon after it came out.  It’s definitely not the best of the batch, using outraged language to prolong its belabored point over its many pages.  If you want something that truly breaks some new informational ground, check out Taylor Branch’s article from Atlantic magazine. 

A twice-a-week column isn’t enough, so Nocera has ramped up his blogging and used it to pester the NCAA.  Check the index and choose your poison.

As I mentioned at the beginning, Nocera’s article and the blogs that followed have caught the attention of the NCAA.  Dave Pickle, director of digital communications, tried to blast Nocera for factual errors and, even more disturbing, a supposed conflict-of-interest.

It originated with an error of fact in two Nocera pieces — that NCAA athletes could not have legal representation when accused of violating rules.  They are.  But in acknowledging the error — in the first sentence of the article — Nocera launched into a criticism of the Devon Ramsey case.

It was no worse than any other criticism by sports columnists.  But it must have rubbed the NCAA the wrong way, because they made some ethical charges, besides complaints about Nocera’s tone.  They claimed that he ignored a serious conflict of interest involving his fiancee, who is communications director for a law firm involved in litigation against the NCAA cited by Nocera.

In making that point, however, Pickle linked to a 2010 article in Slate that includes an editor’s note in which the Times mentions the conflict, which involved writing about Oracle,  and adds, “Mr. Nocera would not have written about the case if he had known of the law firm’s involvement [in an unrelated case against Oracle].”

The Slate article, however, blasts the Times and points out that the most successful law firms have hundreds of clients, and such perceived conflicts would be almost impossible.  With the Times’ well-known picky attitude, of course, its editors would sniff and suggest that Nocera date someone from a less-successful or give up on law firm employees altogether.

It’s a standard rule with a standard concept of “professional respect.”  When one of the so-called “big boys” runs an article, and a smaller outlet provides good information that contradicts, the “big boy” at least acknowledges it.

Not when the “big boy” is ESPN, apparently.  Let’s trace this one.

First, on Friday, January 23, Mark Schlabach of ESPN posted an article that claimed that alleged tree poisoner Harvey Updyke had turned down a plea bargain where he would have served 13 years and agreed never to attend another Alabama sporting event.  The article quoted an anonymous “source close to the case.”

Let’s stop here.  Thirteen years?  Serious?  On a plea bargain?  Updyke would probably get a better deal with a trial.  And as for not attending any Alabama athletic events, um, I suppose that carries some weight anticipating that Updyke would get time off for good behavior.

But wait?  The next day, in its print edition (remember those?), Ed Enoch of the Opelika-Auburn News quoted Updyke’s defense attorney, Everett Weiss, as saying that prosecutors have offered no such deal.  A named source disputed an anonymous source.  (Here is the link.)

Oh, wait — Schlabach does quote Charles Barkley, who was in town this weekend.  Big name.  Great quote.  But not a central figure in the case.

As I write this, it is Sunday evening, January 25.  And Schlabach’s piece remains on ESPN.com, unedited since Friday.  Information from a colleague has not been acknowledged.  Why not?

There is one good explanation, offered by one of my Twitter followers, Lesley/@Mrs_EDO.  She wondered if ESPN were aware of the article, but considered it pregame jockeying by the defense attorney.  It’s a possible scenario, but even in that case, shouldn’t it be up to the reader to determine that?

Two other possible scenarios were offered by Kenny Smith — Samford journalism faculty, frequent blogger and overall smart sports media guy.  One is that it was an honest oversight, though it is a continued honest oversight.  The other is a lack of commitment to the piece.  It’s done, and Schlabach has moved on.  For both Kenny and myself, neither scenario will make it into a “how it’s done” lecture.

And let’s be honest: Schlabach is usually a pretty spot-on reporter.  For all that the Auburn faithful might hate him for it, his early reporting in the Cam Newton scandal was indirectly verified by the ensuing penalties.  Note that pronoun: his reporting.

But whatever the scenario, the result is still the same: ESPN.com has an article on its Web site that lacks credible information.  At some point, the article should be updated.

And at least on this Web site, in this article, let’s give Enoch some credit for doing some good news gathering on this situation.  Schlabach and ESPN.com might be tacitly dismissing a colleague.  I’ll acknowledge it and say “job well done.”

UPDATE: As of Feb. 3, the article still did not contain the additional information.  Disappointing.

If you follow Twitter and sports, then you are aware of the mess that occurred last night, when the Web site OnwardState.com reported prematurely that Joe Paterno had died. The site reported the news at 8:45 p.m.

The news was quickly picked up and run, particularly by CBSSports.com, which issued an obituary at 8:47 p.m.  The news spread quickly across Twitter — with many expressions of sympathy.  By 8:57 p.m., however, the family issued a statement that Paterno had not died.  (Of course, by now everyone is aware that Paterno did in fact die the following morning of complications from treatment for lung cancer.)

The backlash began.  Retractions, deletions, questions.  The managing editor of OnwardState.com, which is actually a popular student-run sports and entertainment Web site, resigned. 

Indeed, the Web site appears to be “the biggest loser” here and will suffer a deserved loss of reputation.  You don’t make a mistake like this and shrug your shoulders.  Even more curious, to be honest, is the managing editor’s seeming amazement that the mistaken announcement was so quickly cited.  It comes off as naive.

Perhaps a better response would be to give some explanation of how the heck this happened, as a way of assuring it won’t happen again.  As it stands, the M.E. glosses over that part of it.  (Update: The site’s founder, Davis Shaver, explained what happened in a subsequent post.  The quick version is that the site’s two sources were an email that turned out to be a hoax and a less-than-truthful now-former staff member.  Read and decide for yourself.)

However, CBSSports.com, of all the major sports Web sites, is also coming in for its share of criticism.  They also ran with the story without confirmation (the link to the obituary is no longer available) and were forced to issue an apology. 

Even more, many claim that CBSSports did not cite the OnwardState report in its early reporting, which is a tacky no-no and, given the outcome, it almost seems calculating and self-serving.  CBSSports took the credit when the story was “true,” but deflected the criticism to OnwardState when it was false.

For proper citing: Jeff Sonderman of Poynter has done an excellent job tracing this (and apparently sacrificed his Saturday night to do it.  Here is his compilation of the tweets and links. 

The OS crew’s mistake is out there for all to read, as the latest (and one of the saddest) “Dewey Defeats Truman” moments in journalism.  Folks like myself, who teach journalism, feel deep empathy toward them, because we have seen other students face the same embarrassment, though perhaps not on the same nationwide scale.

Some would add that, at the very least, Devon Howard deserves credit for owning up to his mistake.  FoxSports columnist Jason Whitlock tweeted, “Can’t express how proud I am of the way you handled your mistake. You have the integrity to be an awesome journalist” (quoted in Romenesko.com).  By contrast, CBSSports.com did not own up to its mistake until almost midnight.

I call it “learning the hard way.”  The easy way is to take it slow and remember all those arcane principles your journalism prof taught you.  But the OnwardState team decided to take a foolhardy risk, and they will bear the consequences as individuals and as a site.

In an emotional situation like this, a journalist should have a governor switch on the scoop meter that says, “Whoa, let’s breathe for a second and make sure.”  Those who waited for confirmation can now at least rest in the assurance that it was not them and they were glad.

I won’t heap on them.  I will quote my only tweet during the whole situation — from announcement to retraction to discussion: “The death of a person, well-known or not, should never be treated as a ‘scoop.’ It’s about being right, not being first.”

Cox Media Group’s 97.3 The Zone might not be able to get Paul Finebaum away from WJOX, but they are trying something different in sports talk radio in Birmingham, with an Auburn alum sharing the helm.

Rachel Baribeau, Auburn Class of 2003, joins Kevin Scarbinsky of the Birmingham News for four hours of sports talk starting at 2 p.m.  They call themselves “Baribeau & Scarbo.”  (It rhymes.  Some might Southernize the pronunciation of her name to rhyme with “caribou,” but the former is the preferred pronunciation.)

First, a little background. When Cox revamped the station to a sports format last year, company reps made a conditional offer to Finebaum, according to the Birmingham Business Journal.  And Finebaum’s attorneys went to court to try to get him released from his contract with Citadel Broadcasting, which was recently purchased by Cumulus Media.

For the first few months, The Zone ran a rerun of the morning show “Rick & Bubba” in the 2 to 6 p.m. time slot.  It appeared that the station was keeping the slot open for Finebaum, should he be released from his contract with Citadel/Cumulus, which runs until 2013.

But the emergence of Baribeau and Scarbo would indicate that, for at least the short term, The Zone is going in a different direction.

According to Baribeau, the show is also going in a different direction.  “We are more interview-driven,” she said.  “It is a true sports talk program.”  Translation: No trash talk, no cast of characters, and no rumors.  In fact, The Zone, in its promos, proclaims, “Sports radio. Not trash radio.”

“Kevin Scarbinsky has been a journalist for 27 years,” she said.  “We double-check sources, we get statements from them.”

(Disclaimer: My listening experience for The Zone comprises less than an hour online, to get a sense of the content.)

John Olsen, program director for The Zone, noted that the afternoon show, like the morning show with Eli Gold and Stan White (radio game announcers for Alabama and Auburn, respectively), stresses inside information.

“Eli and Stan have Coach Saban’s and Coach Chizik’s numbers on their cell phones,” Olsen said of the morning show.  In the afternoon, “We have the people who write the blogs and the articles.  These aren’t guys who go from home to station and tell you what they read in the paper that day.  They wrote it.”

Baribeau expressed a “large distaste for negative content.”  She pointed proudly to the show’s “Pay It Forward” segment on Fridays at 5 p.m., which presents positive stories such as Eric LeGrand, the paralyzed Rutgers football player; former Alabama football player John Croyle, who runs Big Oak Ranch, a Christian home for children; and former Auburn player Steven Wallace, who runs a foundation that reaches out to underprivileged children.

For Baribeau, the radio show is the latest challenge.  After graduating from Auburn, where the RTVF major worked for Eagle Eye News and the baseball team, she spent her first five years in a variety of media gigs in Columbus, Ga., including sports talk, Friday night sideline reporting and local broadcast freelancing.

In 2008, she went to work for the Tuscaloosa News, as a multimedia producer for the newspaper’s TideSports site.  (Talk about paying your dues.)  In 2011, she joined FoxSports and Scout.com as a field reporter covering the SEC West and recruiting.  The Baribeau and Scarbo opportunity emerged in late November.

She is encouraged by the initial response to the program.  “The feedback has been tremendous,” she said.  “People appreciate a choice, an alternative.”  The program is also broadcast in Montgomery on 107.5 The Ticket.

Olsen added, “They have developed a pretty quick chemistry.  It’s a good alternative for sports fans in the area.”

 So what is the long-term prognosis for the program?  A medium like radio can be unforgiving and unstable.  Olsen is pleased with the content and the feedback so far, at the same time admitting that others above him make the decisions for the program’s future. 

Baribeau has been in broadcasting long enough to know the same, but she says, “I appreciate the commitment by Cox Media to do this, and we are doing the best we can.”

Still, Cox Media obviously feels that the Birmingham market can serve as the headquarters for two sports talk shows.  Baribeau and Scarbo have tried to set themselves apart with a show that is heavier on the information and lighter on the inter-caller drama.

The brief time that I listened in mid-January included an MLK Day-based discussion of the “Rooney Rule” (which encourages minority hiring in the NFL), with a sports attorney as the guest.

It’s an extension of Baribeau’s personality.  She is open about her Christian faith, and it’s reflected in her attitude and her approach, though not overtly on the program.

How that plays in the rough and tumble of sports talk radio is yet to be determined, of course.  Here is hoping she doesn’t catch the ill treatment fans wish they could heap on Tim Tebow.

Fans wanting to judge for themselves can check out 97.3 in Birmingham and 107.5 in Montgomery, or can stream the show at 973thezone.com.  The “Listen” button is at the top.