The Sports Page

Survey Says: Margin of Error Indeed

Tue, 14 May 2013 07:27:36 -0400

I recently had a dust-up with ESPN’s Darren Rovell about the reliability of Poptip poll results.

Poptip is a program that allows users to conduct quick surveys on Twitter, and then compiles the results.

No harm, nothing foul. But apparently some folks got into it with Rovell about references to a “margin of error” in his Poptip polls.

So being a professor and a math nerd, I thought I would convene a quick session on surveys, if for no other reason, to explain why some people (like me) get so agitated when Poptip polls claim a margin of error.

A margin of error is one measurement of how closely a sample’s opinions reflect the population as a whole. You might also see it called a “plus/minus.”

The issue here involves, not the size of the sample, but how it is drawn. As anyone who has studied statistics will tell you, the margin of error is relevant only when the sample is drawn from the population by some mathematical formula.

Poptip polls — like the quick polls on the front page of ESPN — create what are known as volunteer or convenience samples. They cannot reflect the population as a whole, because they are drawn from people who happen to be on the ESPN page, or see a Darren Rovell tweet, and vote.

They are fun, and they give people a chance to voice their opinions. But that is as far as it goes. The results reflect only the people who voted, not sports fans or voters as a whole. Even responses in the tens of thousands (“mass,” as Rovell described it to me) have no statistical meaning beyond those who vote.

When a pollster uses a random sampling method, he/she has mathematical tools available to predict how close the results are to the population as a whole. Not perfect. Not always right. But as Nate Silver demonstrates, carefully drawn data in skillful hands can yield rich information.

I’m not here to spoil anyone’s fun. If you want to do a PopTip poll, have at. It looks like fun. But don’t talk margin of error. That’s just putting lipstick on a statistical pig.

Does the NFL Own the AP's Annual Top 10?

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:27:00 -0500

Is the AP’s annual list of Top 10 sports stories biased toward the NFL?

If you have asked me a couple of weeks ago, I would have guessed that the list was biased toward New York — citing the ranking of the Giants’ Super Bowl win as the No. 8 story of 2012. The Miami Heat’s NBA championship was totally off this most recent list, despite what it meant both to LeBron James’ legacy and to the wider question of free agency.

When I tweeted that complaint, in reply to Awful Announcing’s posting of the list on its Twitter feed, one of AA’s followers, @randyjalisco, replied, “Or just NFL bias.”

That sent me looking through the previous Top 10 lists. And based on a limited sample, I can say — Mr. Jalisco might have a point.

Unfortunately, I could go back to only 2009 to get complete AP Top 10 sports stories lists. While the wire service has been releasing its Top 10 list of news stories for years, full lists are spotty before 2009.

The executive summary: Every year since 2005, the Super Bowl has been ranked higher than the World Series or the NBA Finals. Twice before then, the World Series ranked higher, but the trend is toward the NFL’s big event.

Even based on a four-year sample, the difference is obvious. Compare the three major pro league sports: NFL, MLB, NBA. In the past four years, the Super Bowl is ranked in the Top 10 all four years. The highest ranking was in 2010, when the Saints’ victory was the No. 2 story (understandable, given what the victory and team meant to post-Katrina New Orleans).

During those four years, the World Series winner made the Top 10 three times (all except this past year), but every year, the Series ranked lower than the Super Bowl.

The NBA Finals makes the Top 10 only once, in 2011, when the Dallas Mavericks beat the “Big Three.”

If you took an average rating, and assigned the sport No. 11 when it did not make the Top 10 to keep it from having more than a minimal effect, here are the average rankings for the past four years: Super Bowl, 4.75; MLB, 8; NBA, 10.

A glance back through the pre-2009 years (thanks to a couple of friends who work for AP and found the old features, though not any actual lists), can add some casual light to the stats above.

2008. The New York Giants’ victory over New England in the Super Bowl was No. 2, and the Celtics’ turnaround NBA championship was No. 5, of the five listed. Michael Phelps and the Olympics were the top story, of course. No World Series.

2007. Only the Top 5 stories were mentioned, and none of those involved major pro championships, though baseball was No. 1 (Bonds and steroids) and NFL was No. 5 (Belichick and video cheating plus Patriots’ start).

2006. The Steelers’ Super Bowl victory was No. 6, and the Tigers’ World Series win was No. 9. It was a good year for Tigers — the pro golfer’s six straight victories, even after the death of his father, was the top story — seems so long ago, doesn’t it?

2005. Baseball topped football, and every other sport, in this list, which includes only seven stories. The World Series win by the Chicago White Sox was voted the top story, with New England’s Super Bowl victory ranking No. 5 — the last time baseball topped football.

2004. Unfortunately, the only Top 10 list for the AP involved worldwide sports stories, so none of the three major pro sports leagues were mentioned. The top rated story, in fact, was Greece winning the 2004 European Championship in soccer. Now you know.

2003. The entire list is given. The Florida Marlins’ surprise World Series victory was No. 3, and the Tampa Bay Super Bowl win over Oakland (which recently made it back into the headlines after Tim Brown alleged that coach Bill Callahan threw the game) was No. 8. The Kobe Bryant sexual assault scandal was the top story.

Making the Top 10 for any event is tough. It takes into account important stories that do not directly deal with actual games: the Jerry Sandusky child molestation investigation was the No. 1 story the past two years. And the Summer Olympics will always intrude every four years, more often than the Winter Olympics.

But the trend is there. Maybe the Super Bowl being one game, rather than a multiple-game series, enhances its stature. Or maybe, as @randyjalisco said, the list has an NFL bias.

Considering that the game takes place almost 10 months before the list comes out, while the World Series finishes less than two months before, only heightens the event’s perceived impact.

So come late December, you can lay odds that, regardless of which Harbaugh wins, the NFL will have laid the PR groundwork so that this year’s Super Bowl will be rated one of the Top 10 sports stories of 2013.

The Sports Media Post-Te'o

Sat, 26 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500

As the sports world moves on (if that’s possible) from the Manti Te’o case, sports journalists still need to stop, take a breath, and reflect on what we have learned from this.

To be honest, journalists are poor practitioners of self-reflection. We tend to move on to the next story, promising to do better next time and looking for an article to paste over our previous mistakes. But we need to wrench the gut a little here.

Witness the eagerness to sweep everything under the rug based on Te’o’s interview with Jeremy Schaap. Whatever you feel about Te’o, however, does not relate how the sports media handled the story. Or, to paraphrase Lee Corso, “Not so fast, my friend.”

Much of the debate has centered on the reporting by Pete Thamel of Sports Illustrated and Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN, the highest-profile of the many who reported this story. Both admitted to noticing the red flags in September, when Te’o spoke of his “girlfriend’s” death and how it affected his play in the Irish’s big win against Michigan State.

So now, the debate is, to what extent should Thamel, Wojciechowski and others have double-checked on this. Thamel pleaded a tight deadline in his defense. Would SI have delayed the article for a few unconfirmed facts? Based on this experience, the answer would be different now. But back then? We don’t know, because Thamel apparently did not ask.

One troubling aspect of all this is the extent to which everyone, Thamel and Wojciechowski included, seems to be engaging in shoulder-shrugging more than serious reflection.

For example, Peter King of SI tweeted, “And for those crucifying @SIPeteThamel, crucify me too. He’s tremendous. I back him unequivocally.”

King can be excused for rushing to support a colleague, which is understandable, but his statement represents a rhetorical “straw man” that distracts from the real issue. No one is out to crucify Pete Thamel. His article and reporting, like the others is another matter.

In journalism, we separate the product from the writer once it is written. We put our heart and soul into what we write, then step back and let it be cut to pieces by editors, to improve it. Let’s follow the same principle here.

Good reporting is good reporting because it informs and engages the reader with facts, many of which were not previously known. It’s not good reporting because a good reporter writes it — although good reporters earn their reputation through their work.

The converse is true. Pete Thamel and Gene Wojciechowski are not bad reporters. But this was bad reporting.

So where do we go from here? So many supporters seem to be throwing up their hands, as if such situations are inevitable. ”What are we supposed to do?” they ask. ”Demand to see the body?”

No, but neither are we supposed to give up and accept that factual errors are inevitable. David Griner, writing for the Poynter Institute, uses the response from “This American Life” and Ira Glass, when a story about injuries and abuse at an Apple factory in Africa turned out to be false.

What we have seen instead falls far short, and we need to strive to be better than that. Journalists are supposed to skeptical, not cynical. We are supposed to have our B.S. meter fully engaged, regardless of the source.

And that is one factor here: The desire of all involved to believe the best about Te’o. That was one of the most scathing indictments of Thamel, by Josh Levin of Slate. Many more in the media are guilty of wanting to believe the best about Te’o, so that they unfairly dial down their B.S. meter. The word for that is “bias.” Would they have been so trusting toward an SEC football player?

My hope as we move on from this is that all sports journalists, from Sports Illustrated and ESPN down to the local weekly, will learn from this. If a fact cannot be confirmed, stop and confirm. As this story demonstrates (and it is not a once-in-a-lifetime disaster), it’s worth it.

Imagine if Thamel or Wojciechowski had asked their superiors for a delay to double-check a couple of red flags. Imagine the article that would have resulted — a well-intentioned but naive college football player hoaxed by a fake girlfriend, culminating with her supposed death before a big game. Imagine the heartache and missteps this would have saved Teo and his family.

What if one journalist had done his or her homework?

Talk about a hero.

Manti Te'O and the Stories We Hope Are True

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:58:00 -0500

After the Manti Te’o story broke on Deadspin, I was not able to write much about it because:

1) When the story broke, I was on my way back from Birmingham, helping a good friend who needed a ride back from UAB Hospital.

2) Then I taught a 6-9 graduate class.

3) Then I crashed, because of 1) and 2).

So now, the next day, with a story that has spread and been critiqued with lightning speed, I will link you to some excellent stuff on the topic, better than I would come up with in my post-Wednesday exhaustion.

First, check out the original Deadspin article. Great reporting explained in detail. It will take a while, but realize that these two guys did their homework. Note that the term “libel” is never mentioned in discussing this, even among Te’o supporters. Their reporting is why.

So the question is, how did sports journalists like Pete Thamel of Sports Illustrated and Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN allow themselves to disseminate a story that has turned out to be so false?

A piece by Josh Levin of Slate is very much to point on this. He compares Thamel’s treatment of Te’o to his treatment of Tyrann Mathieu, and finds some troubling contrasts.

(And having just heard Pete Thamel interviewed on Dan Patrick’s show, in light of Levin’s comments, the bias is troubling.)

And finally, the Poynter Institute published an article that lays out the best strategy for Sports Illustrated, ESPN and the reporters involved from here on out. It calls for transparency and gut-wrenching self-examination. Whether the parties involved follow through on this is debatable, of course, especially in light of Thamel’s comments on Patrick’s show.

(One critique: The writer, David Griner, makes some unfortunate slams on sports writing toward the end. The same critiques about the hazards of access could be written about government reporters. I feel that good sports journalism is good journalism. It is no different than any other form.)

My only comment involves the mindset Thamel and Wojociechowski brought to their reporting. Both claim to have found what would have been perceived as “red flags” in their reporting. Both chose not to follow through.

One reason? Consciously or subconsciously, they wanted the story to be true. In a tweet, I mused as to whether they would have double-checked the story had it involved Mathieu or Cam Newton. Only they can answer that question.

But moving on from here, sports reporters — all reporters, for that matter — need to realize that even stories that seem too good to be true should be double-checked, regardless of what we want to believe about the individuals who tell them.

(Credit where credit is due: My good friend Troy Johnson reminded me that my advice to “sports reporters” should be extended to all reporters, so I made that change, and I appreciate his point.)

B'ham Sports Radio: Who Will Own the Zone?

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:44:46 -0500

Birmingham is sports crazy, and these days sports radio in Birmingham is almost as crazy.

I wrote about Paul Finebaum and the changes that might be on the horizon as his contract with Citadel/Cumulus broadcasting comes to an end. But where Birmingham sports radio is concerned, expect more.

In particular, ESPN 97.3 the Zone, the station that had been trying to lure Finebaum from 94.5 WJOX, is itself up for sale by its parent company, Cox Media Group. Like Finebaum’s contract, a big change for ESPN 97.3 is likely to be announced this month.

To understand the reason behind the sale, you need to also grasp how media companies — and the FCC’s approach, have changed. This is no fire sale by a company desperate for cash.

Instead, as Birmingham radio veteran Bill Thomas points out, Cox, as a multimedia company that is predominantly newspaper and television-oriented, is selling radio stations in the six markets where the company does not own TV stations or newspapers. The other five markets are Louisville; Greenville-Spartanburg, S.C.; Richmond; southern Connecticut; and Honolulu.

Not so long ago, the FCC was reluctant to allow a company to own more than one media property — newspaper, radio station or TV station — in a market, to ensure a variety of viewpoints in every market.

But that was before the Internet, which has created both a wider spectrum of voices and a more difficult financial setting for traditional media. So the FCC has relaxed its reluctance, and media companies like Cox — seeking every marketing advantage they can — are looking for multimedia ownership in top markets.

The only person to publicly announce an interest in buying The Zone 97.3 is David Dubose, Cox’s vice president and market manager for Birmingham. He has put together an investment group, Summit Media, that has submitted an offer.

Dubose would not comment on the chances of Summit’s bid being accepted, but it seems to have a lot going for it, for several reasons.

First, the bid is for all of the stations in all of the markets. That certainly makes for a cleaner transaction for Cox.

Second, Dubose himself is also a strong advantage to the offer — particularly in Birmingham. He and a couple of business partners launched two of the city’s most popular stations — 95.7 Jamz FM and 98.7 Kiss FM — in 1996, selling them to Cox two years later. He has been with Cox since.

Don’t think that 97.3 the Zone is the jewel in the crown for this deal. ”The Zone is one of many stations in the Birmingham group owned by Cox, but is still in its start-up phase. WZZK, Jamz (WBHJ) FM and Kiss (WBHK) FM constantly rank as the three most highly-rated Cox stations in town,” Thomas said. ”They are the most valuable properties.”

But sports fans are more interested in Bama than Bieber, so the news that 97.3 the Zone was for sale so soon after it announced its interest in Finebaum might have seemed a bit contradictory.

Not to worry, according to Dubose. The Zone will be around for a long time, with a continued emphasis on local programming. ”We frankly think that as radio is beginning to evolve, those stations that are best positioned to perform well into the next decade have strong local content,” he said

For 97.3, that includes programs like “Eyes on Auburn,” a two-hour weekly program on Tuesday nights featuring Justin Hokanson of AuburnSports and former AU football player Rob Pate. The station has also made a heavy commitment to high school football, with live broadcasts and a statewide scoreboard show.

Sports fans who prefer to hear Colin Cowherd making it up as he goes along, or Mike and Mike talking over each other, can turn to 107.3, which broadcasts ESPN’s national programming.

The other choice for sports fans, WJOX 94.5, has also been upping its game. After losing ESPN to 97.3 the Zone, the station and its parent company, Citadel/Cumulus, announced a partnership with CBS Sports Radio. CBS has been increasing its profile within sports radio, and Birmingham is one of many stations that have added its programming.

As of this week, CBS Sports Radio is providing content 24/7, adding names like Doug Gottlieb, Jim Rome, and John Feinstein. So Birmingham is one of many cities that can benefit from a lively ESPN/CBS content rivalry, locally and nationally.

That is just what the FCC was hoping to promote with its earlier ownership restrictions, and demonstrates how, in today’s fragmented media content world, the competition is there.

One final note, and it relates to the CBS Sports Radio network: Rachel Baribeau, a 2003 Auburn RTVF grad has just moved over to the CBS Sports radio station in Atlanta, 92.9 The Game, co-hosting an afternoon talk show, “Game Time,” with former Steelers QB Kordell Stewart and veteran broadcast Carl Dukes.

Baribeau had been co-hosting an afternoon talk show at 97.3 the Zone, but accepted a new position in the Atlanta market a couple of months ago.

Finebaum: What's the Right Call for Paul?

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:47:43 -0500

When it comes to sports, few broadcasting markets are as hungry and crazed as Birmingham. Thus, the changes that are on the horizon should bring as much attention as fiscal cliff negotiations. Forget that: more attention. I mean, here the negotiations will result in real change.

Probably the two biggest changes, which will interest all fans, involve sports talk show host Paul Finebaum and the ownership of 97.3 The Zone.

This blog will cover Part I: Finebaum. As everyone who has been following him knows, his contract with Citadel Broadcasting (and its owner, Atlanta-based Cumulus Broadcasting), which owns WJOX, ends on Jan. 21, 2013. Attempts to get out of the contract early (citing changes forced on him by Citadel before it was purchased by Cumulus) to pursue an offer by Cox Media Group and 97.3 the Zone, resulted only in a lawsuit that was settled over the summer.

So now, with the Jan. 21 deadline looming, can we expect a big change in Finebaum’s situation? He agreed to talk to me about it, knowing his comments would appear on The War Eagle Reader website. You might remember, after an article about him appeared in The New Yorker about a month ago, a listener asked if any media outlet existed that had not interviewed him. “The War Eagle Reader,” he quipped. Now he can cross that off the list.

Finebaum could not talk much about the pending change. (We’ll come back to that in a few paragraphs.) But one thing that he did confirm is that he is now being represented by Nick Khan, of the high-powered Creative Artists Agency. Khan is typical CAA stock: One of his other new clients is Kirk Herbstreit (adding to a roster that already included Nancy Grace and Keith Olbermann).

Previously, Finebaum was represented by Russ Campbell, who is named in the courtroom papers unsealed and presented on the Birmingham Business Journal’s website. Campbell is more of a sports agent; his clients include Gene Chizik and, until a couple of months ago, Bobby Petrino. And Finebaum said he was reluctant to discuss the change, which was made in August. until now because of his respect and appreciation for Campbell, who represented Finebaum in his legal struggles with Citadel/Cumulus

“Russ has represented me for a while, and he is my friend,” Finebaum said. “I decided I needed an entertainment agent.”

Even so, with a new agent and possibly new opportunities, he was reluctant to discuss any pending changes. It’s clear why. In the June 1, 2012, issue of Talkers magazine, John Dickey, COO of Cumulus, addressed the possibility that Finebaum would move to The Zone when his contract ended on Jan. 21. ”He will never work for Cox in Birmingham,” Dickey said, bluntly. Talk like that makes the situation beyond delicate.

The contract — you can link to it above — sheds more light on Finebaum’s situation. First, according to the original contract, which was signed in January 2007, even if Finebaum were to end the contract amicably on Jan. 21, 2013, he would not be allowed to broadcast within a 50-mile radius of Birmingham for the next 90 days, because of a non-compete clause (Section 11[c]).

Then, in an addendum signed in November 2007, Citadel added a matching clause, which gives the company the right to “enter into an employment agreement with Employee for monetary terms which are substantially similar to the monetary terms of any bona fide offer which Employee has received.”

Cumulus has continued to move aggressively in the sports radio market. Cumulus has dropped ESPN and picked up the new CBS Sports Radio network for many of its affiliates,including WJOX in Birmingham, as of Wednesday, Jan. 2. So they might want to keep Finebaum in the package that now includes Jim Rome and Tim Brando.

Finally, if you read Finebaum’s contract, you realize that it is an employment contract. Despite his show’s success and growing popularity, Finebaum holds no ownership interest in the program or any of its related projects (the website or podcasts, for example).

Thus, while I could not ask Finebaum about his priorities for a new contract, it would certainly make sense that at this point, given the show’s expanding popularity and nationwide footprint on Sirius XM, he would seek an arrangement that allowed some ownership stake of his program. Or he could conceivably even create his own company to produce the program and syndicate it himself to individual stations or through a company such as Cox.

Or try this scenario (which a friend suggested, though it exists only in the imagination): Assume that the SEC decided to spurn ESPN’s mega-billions and create its own network along the lines of the Big Ten Network — the main difference being the quality of the football teams, of course. Given Finebaum’s friendship with Mike Slive, SEC commissioner, and his stature within the SEC, a television version of Finebaum’s show, like “Mike & Mike” on ESPN2, would be a natural for the afternoons.

Finebaum’s show has remained an attractive property over the years, with much interest from prospective bidders. It was when he jumped from Clear Channel to Citadel in 2007, and it remains so today.

So as Jan. 21 approaches (with an extension of up to 45 days allowed), Finebaum’s listeners and those who hate can expect that the drama on the show might originate not from Legend and Tammy, but from Finebaum and his parent company.

If Petrino were named coach ...

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:07:57 -0500

This is not one of those wild parallel reality articles; I’m not that talented. It’s my take as a faculty member on the just-concluded search for a head coach.

For those nine days, I lived in fear that somehow, Auburn would name Bobby Petrino as head football coach.

Yes, I know that most Auburn fans are glad the process is over and want to move on. I’m glad too. And it might be that for us academics, the desire to beat a dead horse comes with the cap and gown. But I think some reflection is in order.

In my opinion, hiring Petrino would have sent the wrong message to our student-athletes and to all of our students. The message would have been this: Doing the wrong thing is OK, as long as you win. Consequences are for losers.

In fact, I was willing to resign my position on the University Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics if the hire were made and had expressed that willingness to friends who would hold me to it. It might not seem like a big deal; I am finishing a three-year term.

But I could not have continued as a faculty member on the committee if that were the philosophy of the athletics department. Thank God it’s not.

For me, the issue was not so much Petrino’s oft-ridiculed affair with an Arkansas athletics staff member. He must bear the weight of that privately, and it looks like he will, for a long time.

It was that he created an ethical nightmare for his school, and might have violated the law, by hiring that staff member to a better-paid position on the staff of a state university. As I posted in an early tweet, any athletics director would be crazy to hire Petrino, knowing that he had done that.

And let’s not forget that within the Jetgate scandal, Petrino made his own missteps by not informing his athletics director that he was seeking the Auburn job. Obviously, that would have threatened the process’s secrecy, but once again, Petrino subverted ethical principle to his own interest.

At the NFL level, that’s another debate. I won’t talk about what happened in Atlanta. But on a college campus (and as I frequently state, this is college football) this is serious stuff.

Despite appearances, a college campus is not an FBS football factory. It is a setting where thousands of mostly young men and women, some of them athletes, learn at a variety of levels — academic, social, and yes, ethical.

We enforce an academic honor code, and when a student crosses that line, he or she should be prosecuted. And not just to be punished for trying to succeed by breaking the rules. The idea is for students to recognize that there are consequences for academic dishonesty. We don’t publicly announce individual student verdicts, but they know the process is there. If there were no consequences, cheating would be even more of a problem than it is now.

But it’s hard to expect students to accept that, when they know that a football coach catches a break because of his winning percentage.

In so many ways, critics complain that college football is out of control. At Auburn, $11 million in buyouts to a fired coach and his staff supports the argument. An eagerness to hire a disgraced coach because of his winning percentage would have added to that perception.

For all of the heat Jay Jacobs has been catching, his record in promoting the academic welfare of student-athletes has not been mentioned. Under his leadership, our students have shined. Football player Ashton Richardson was a finalist for a Rhodes Scholarship. Soccer player Katy Frierson and diver Dan Mazziaferro were finalists for the prestigious Walter Byers Postgraduate Scholarship.

But his search committee did not hire Bobby Petrino. And for that I am grateful.

The 'Sports' Stories We Don't Care About

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:00:56 -0500

After reading about Brian Downing and Garrison Stamp in the most recent issue of ESPN the Magazine — the Bama teabagger and his unconscious LSU victim — I must admit: I considered the article, and the two individuals, a waste of my time.

As I tweeted about it, one of my friends compared the article to the disproportionate amount of air time given to Harvey Updyke in the ESPN 30 for 30, “Roll Tide War Eagle.” The comparison resonated with me. Who cares about this man?

Before I proceed, a few disclaimers: I am an alumnus of Auburn University, so you might dismiss my comments as Tide trash talking. And I am a faculty member at Auburn with the scarlet letters “Ph.D.,” so you might dismiss my comments as elitist trash talking. That is why we disclose — so that you can incorporate it into your appraisal of my thoughts.

Having admitted to both, I will make my point: While good sports journalism can bring us the compelling stories of competition and struggle, victory and defeat, neither of these stories are worth the resources of quality sports journalism.

First, the magazine article on the teabagging incident. The mundaneness of the situation is amusing. An district manager for a sporting goods store chain (it almost reads like a character written for a Lifetime movie) goes off for a football weekend with friends, gets drunk and drags his testicles across the face of a passed-out fan of the opposing team, who has been abandoned by his friends.

End of story. That’s it.

Put that alongside the stories of Michael Jordan battling the flu in Game 5 of the 1997 NBA finals, or a Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal Grand Slam final, or Eric LeGrand’s heroic efforts to overcome paralysis following his football injury?

You can’t.

Try though you might — even turn the magazine or your tablet sideways so you can read between the lines — there is nothing there. Just a pathetic incident involving two people as forgettable as I am.

But that didn’t stop ESPN from sending Mark Winegarder to interview multiple sources, and Greg Miller to take dramatic, Annie Liebovitz-esque photos, to produce 7,000 words and poignant portraits.

If one of my journalism students expended that much effort on that topic, I would recommend time management classes. Spend your precious hours on something worth it. But of course, after taking the time to read it — precious minutes in my day lost — I felt the same way.

To say that Downing and Stamp represent anything worth reflecting on in sports is to say that a guy who got irate about the presidential election and threw a beer bottle at his dog is making a grand statement about democracy.

He is not, and Downing and Stamp are not. The LSU-Alabama game is relegated to a side note to dumb-ass behavior that could just as easily have taken place anywhere else, after any event, sports or not.

The existential gaze of these characters in cliche poses with 1990s music video lighting and angles might be intended to somehow expose the deep conflict of their soul. Instead, it highlights the gap between what they did and what makes a great sports story.

ESPN 30 for 30 applied the same treatment to Harvey Updyke in relating his contribution to the Auburn-Alabama rivalry. Again, at the end of the program, we are left frustrated: Why am I forced to care about this guy? Why is ESPN wasting precious seconds of a documentary on an uninteresting individual who did something stupid?

As Updyke has become the journalistic equivalent of the “gift” that keeps on giving (his confession to an Auburn school newspaper reporter being the latest), I feel my attention being assaulted by the neverending story.

And it’s most disappointing that ESPN the Magazine would waste their time on Downing and Stamp. For years, I have admired the long-form features presented in the magazine (much more than the shorter department-type stuff, but that’s another issue). You put the name “Wright Thompson” in a byline, and I am there. But articles like this mock the magazine’s higher aspirations.

The best of such journalism, sports or not, is to find the true human drama behind the real moments in sports. In some cases, the greatness is defined by the individuals involved, not by the profile of the story. The Wright Thompsons and Gary Smiths (Sports Illustrated) of the world are the rising tide that lifts all boats — subject, reader and sport — to the heights of humanity.

But when you have a high-profile story where the individuals (apologies) lack greatness, where is the substance behind the style? Is this all sizzle and no steak?

For years, newspapers promoted “telephone book stories,” where you could open the white pages, put your finger on a name and find a story worth writing about for every individual. Interesting reading in a local newspaper, definitely.

But this turns the idea on its head. It takes a regrettably ridiculous situation and tries to make it into a story worth telling and whose characters’ actions are worth exploring. It fails, but the failure is in the concept, not the execution, which is doomed by the concept.

Sometimes, when a student makes a lowbrow comment in class, I tell him or her, “You know, you don’t have to express every thought that pops into your brain.” I would offer the same advice to any sports journalist. We don’t have to cover every story that is out there, even in this content-starved Internet world.

Forget 15 minutes of fame. These stories are not worth 15 minutes of interest.

To Philip Lutzenkirchen

Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:19:54 -0400

My first memory of Philip Lutzenkirchen was when he had scheduled an appointment with our Communication and Journalism department chair during his official recruiting visit in 2008.

The chair at the time, Dr. Mary Helen Brown, referred me to his highlight video on YouTube. Plenty of high-high-highlights. My favorite was of him blocking a punt and running it in for a touchdown. He didn’t exactly run it in. He stood head and shoulders over everyone on the field, so he basically jogged in, swatted the ball away from the punter’s foot, picked it up and carried it into the end zone. Opposing players jumped around him like Jack Russell’s leaping at a man holding up a Frisbee. Lutzie made it to the end zone no problem.

Now, with this tweet Saturday that he will miss the rest of the season, it’s fitting to remember what he brought to Auburn. I always called him “the mayor of Auburn University,” with his popularity and influence on campus. It is just sad to see it come to an end.

Of course, Lutzenkirchen signed with Auburn, even if the midst of the Tuberville turmoil. In one of his tweets, he said he never regretted his decision to come to Auburn. Nor did his fans.

Philip actually enrolled as a major in the department (good job, MHB), so we remained in cordial contact throughout. At one time, I think he was a radio-TV-film major, though he ended up majoring in communication. RTVF seemed a natural major, particularly after his ESPN fame for a highlight where he tipped an end-zone pass to a teammate as he leaped out of bounds.

The clip earned some studio time on ESPN — an appearance that, he admitted, he was not pleased with. He was too rough on himself. It wasn’t worse than 90 percent of the interviews you see on ESPN (and better than almost all of Skip Bayless’s and Stephen A. Smith’s rants).

The summer after his freshman year (which included touchdown receptions against LSU and Mississippi State), I requested that he serve as press conference guest for our 2010 Summer Journalism Workshop for high school students, noting that he was after all a major and that would help us recruit.

He and Morgan Toles, a women’s basketball player (who sadly also had to stop playing for injury reasons) did a great job. Lutzie had a good sense of humor, even when one young lady’s press conference question was, “Are you dating anyone? Kidding!” From an instructional perspective, that gave me a great opportunity to warn the students about asking creepy questions.

Trivia buffs: At that conference, we learned the meaning of his name: “light” (lutz) “of” (en) “the church” (kirchen). I’ll leave further comment on that to the ode-sters.

The press conference, obviously, was the impetus of Philip’s contributions to Auburn’s dream season. Big TD passes against South Carolina, Georgia (twice) and, of course, Alabama — the catch that gave birth to his TD dance deemed “the Lutzie.” A somersault-capped catch in the national championship game.

Even in 2011, as Auburn struggled on many fronts to an 8-5 season, Lutzenkirchen had his moments — the best being a one-handed grab against Ole Miss that made the Top 10 for several of ESPN’s endless array of Top 10 segments. Unfortunately, the catch also led to the first of many injuries that Philip would endure — a torn labrum that required shoulder surgery.

But as he remained at Auburn, his favor among the students increased — enhanced by a decision to return for his senior year. Whether in person or on his popular Twitter account (a weird stretch of letters — oh wait, it’s his last name), Lutzie became something of a campus icon.

So as this year descended into something of a disaster, fans felt a particular heart tug for the tight end who had given a lot to his school. When the second half against Arkansas opened with an illegal procedure by #43, it seemed a fitting indication of how bad things had gotten.

Then, as fans processed another disappointing loss, this time to Vanderbilt, word that a hip injury would end Lutzenkirchen’s career at Auburn deepened the sadness.

Lutzenkirchen’s tweet — “Sad to say it is over at Auburn. Thanks for the opportunity to play in O&B on Saturdays. It was the best decision of my life to be a Tiger.” — was an appropriately classy handoff by the popular player and sparked hundreds of replies.

Philip is a frequent presence in Tichenor Hall, as one of our majors. He is friendly to all of the professors he encounters. It’s one of the qualities that makes college football so special. These are not just players who score touchdowns to make fans’ lives better. They are our students and classmates, and we appreciate them in that regard.

He had decided to time his academic progress so that he graduated after his final season — no cursory graduate studies. I usually represent the department at fall graduation (it’s the coolest weather, so the most comfortable for those bulky caps and gowns), and I look forward to the moment when Ric Smith announces his name as a student one last time.

I will remember another moment as well. Soon after the semester began, as I walked from my car parked at Comer toward the Science Center, I heard a voice call: “How’s it going?” I turned. Philip was waving to me as he called over his shoulders. Like I told my students, that doesn’t say as much about me as it does about Philip Lutzenkirchen.

Steve Spurrier and the Media Mess

Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:31:31 -0400

There is so much not to like with this Steve Spurrier-Ron Morris dust-up in Columbia, S.C. It’s hard to find anyone doing the right thing.

1. Start with Spurrier. His remarks seemed directly not only at Ron Morris, the offending sports columnist for The State in Columbia, but also at any sports journalist who would be tempted to take on the Old Ball Coach.

It just seems a bit creepy when a coach turns his attention to the media who cover him and complains. Most coaches don’t like the criticism that is written about them. They are not expected to celebrate the First Amendment when they are on the receiving end of a blast. But most coaches ignore it.

When Spurrier crossed that line, it was unfortunate and unnecessary. It started with a refusal to answer questions both at a press conference and on a conference call. It finished with a blunt statement on his weekly radio show.

2. Morris is not off the hook either. The breaking point for many besides Spurrier came when Morris, in complaining about Spurrier’s high-handedness and the university’s unwillingness to rein him in, compared the situation to Penn State. Throwing such analogies out require great care. He was forced to apologize, but he should have known better.

As to whether Ron Morris is the journalistic buzz-saw Spurrier alleges, check out his recent column on Spurrier’s decision to play Connor Shaw against UAB. I’ll be honest; I’ve read worse. This doesn’t come close to what Skip Bayless would have said or what Jason Whitlock would have written in similar conditions.

But this is the article that Spurrier was referring to as “very negative, critical toward me, slandered my name, my integrity,” adding, “The guy’s trying to tarnish and ruin my reputation as a coach.” Really, Coach? He comes off sounding awfully thin-skinned.

True, much of the controversy surrounding Morris involves an article he wrote more than a year ago that accused Spurrier of “poaching” Bruce Ellington from the USC basketball team. The facts for that are definitely in dispute. But the more recent column is light years away from that.

3. WOLO-TV, the ABC affiliate in Columbia, also looks bad. The station managers cancelled the “Mondays with Morris” segment in light of the controversies. The timing of such a move looks bad enough, almost like pandering to Spurrier.

But WOLO general manager Chris Bailey compounded the mistake with a statement that includes the following gem: “Free speech … was originally put in place to protect media and writers from government censorship. It does not, however, protect the writer from consequences in the realm of public opinion or the marketplace.” Perhaps, Mr. Bailey, but that is because the assumption is that the media themselves will enforce high standards of free expression and debate in the public interest, rather than cutting and running when the heat is turned up.

With this line of thinking, the station would be justified in refusing to air controversial editorial comments on important political issues, because it is the station and not the government making the decision. That is sad.

4. Finally, the other journalists covering the University of South Carolina are not looking too brave. Their silence on the issue is disturbing. The only protests against Spurrier’s words came from national media like Gregg Doyel at CBS Sports. The only local protest came from Dan Cook of the Free Times, a Columbia weekly. Nothing yet from the daily sports media.

It seems like Spurrier is getting a free ride from the beat writers covering USC. They are open to the accusation that they are allowing Spurrier to intimidate and manipulate them. And, the argument continues, they are letting him get away with it because they know that, as a winning coach, he has the fans’ support regardless of the ethics of his actions.

It is similar to the situation in Alabama (disclaimer: I am an Auburn fan), where the press covering Nick Saban seem reluctant to criticize or even address his treatment of the media. Before the Western Kentucky game, when Saban went off on the sportswriters for underestimating WKU, the writers mainly joked about it. The national media again was left to take Saban to task for a truly strange rant.

In both cases, the sports writers know that the fans — their readers — support the coach. When the coach directly criticizes the media, the fans might respond by canceling subscriptions, or clicking on other websites. It seems like the sports writers would rather “play ball” with the coach then stand up to him when he crosses the line, as Spurrier did with Morris. They are intimidated by their readers as much as the coach.

Obviously, the treatment is different for coaches who are not winning. Can you imagine what would happen if John L. Smith at Arkansas or Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech complained about the media at this point in the season? The local media would rise up and attack.

Now think about coaches like Mark Richt at the University of Georgia. He receives his share of criticism and comment, but does he chastise and try to manipulate the media? He deals with it and moves on.

A colleague brought up another point. Communities like Columbia, S.C., and Tuscaloosa, Ala., have a more provincial feel to them where coaches like Spurrier and Saban can get away with such treatment of the local media. But the larger the city, the harder it is to pull that off.

Lane Kiffin knows that he can’t get away with it at USC, try though he did. Any coach, pro or college, who would try that in New York City, Chicago, Washington, and maybe even Atlanta (considering Richt’s approach) would only make a bad situation worse.

But win or lose, big town or small town, what Steve Spurrier is trying to accomplish with the media in Columbia is wrong. And I wish that more journalists would have the courage to stand up to him on it.

Remembering Paul Davis

Thu, 27 Sep 2012 07:36:50 -0400

To learn that Paul Davis had passed away certainly caused sadness to many who love journalism and appreciate its rich history in Alabama. Those of us who knew him were bummed too.

The basics: Paul died Monday after a brief illness. He had been in declining health for some time. The sad news of Monday brings to an end a newspaper career that will not be replicated — not because of the changing nature of the industry, but because Paul represented a generation of journalists whose fire and advocacy seems a lost flame today.

There are those who knew Paul better than me, and the Alabama Press Association’s obituary has great detail on his career. But I will do my best to remember the man as I knew him. Maybe others can fill in the blanks in the comments section. Here is what I admire most about Paul:

1. At the age of 25, he was there when Gov. Wallace stood in the door of Foster Auditorium, refusing to allow African-American students to enroll at the University of Alabama. When Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach arrived with the Alabama National Guard, he met privately with Wallace. Only one journalist would be allowed to report on the meeting, and Paul’s name was drawn. He even came away with a photo of him with Katzenbach and Wallace. Not surprisingly, I could not find the photo on the Internet. (Getting it scanned is definitely on my to-do list.) But I use him as an example to my students of someone who was not intimidated by the weight of a historic moment.

2. Paul’s crusade in the late 1960s uncovering mistreatment of mentally handicapped kids and mentally ill adults at state hospitals represents the best of journalism — advocating for those unable to speak for themselves. His work in the Tuscaloosa News was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize, and though his work was not selected, the rewards of having federal courts intervene on behalf of the patients was far greater. Eventually, he would be appointed to the state Department of Mental Health Board of Directors.

3. I met Paul in 1977. He had purchased the Auburn Bulletin from the Neil Davis family, and the Bulletin had been awarded the printing contact for The Auburn Plainsman. We certainly made life miserable for Paul’s production crew, which included his son Allen, who is now an executive with Media General. Well, maybe our damage was limited to Wednesday nights. The old print shop is now Bloodhound’s. I visited the building for the first time in 2003, when it was the Auburn Ale House. Heavy deja vu walking up and down those stairs. Thank goodness the ink smell was gone.

4. From then on, these past nine years, Paul enjoyed his “lion in winter” phase. He continued to publish the Tuskegee News. After Tallassee News Publisher Jack Venable passed away, his family accepted Paul’s bid to purchase the newspaper, wishing it to be sold to someone who believed in community journalism. His columns continued, and while his conclusions might have irked many, his reporting was spot-on.

And the honors rolled in. The Lifetime Achievement Award from the Alabama Press Association. The first community journalism award from the Auburn University Journalism Advisory Council. The Memorial Service Award from Auburn’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors. And others.

Appropriately, Paul was a frequent visitor to our Friday morning breakfast group. It had started as a book discussion group by Neil Davis at The Grille. Before I started attending, apparently a roof tile fell on Paul one morning, sparking conspiracy theories. As his health began to fail, his visits became less frequent, but he was always on our minds, and in our prayers when word came that he was not doing well.

A few weeks ago, I was at Golden Corral with a friend. Paul and his wife, Gayle, were there with one of his sons, and he insisted that we join them. He seemed tired — the edge of his wit did not have me backpedaling, as it usually did — but he was enjoying the meal. I did not know it would be the last time I would interact with Paul. Now, I feel blessed that it was granted me.

I’m glad to be a faculty member of the journalism program at Auburn. Maybe we have the next Paul Davis among our current or future students, or maybe even among our alumni. But for now, I’m grateful for the work and the example of the original.

When God Hated SEC Football

Sat, 22 Sep 2012 06:56:12 -0400

These days, Southern football and evangelical Christianity have forged a strong bond. But it hasn’t always been that way.

At least, so wrote Andrew Doyle of Winthrop University, in an article he wrote titled, “Foolish and Useless Sport: The Southern Evangelical Crusade Against Intercollegiate Football.”

In fact, the article was published about 15 years ago, in the Fall 1997 issue of the Journal of Sport History. I came across it while doing some other research, and the topic naturally interested me (as did the mentions of Auburn University). But keep in mind that basically all of this stuff is his.

The Auburn-Georgia game in February 1892 is considered the first intercollegiate football game in the Deep South. But the arrival of football did not impress the local clergy.

The Rev. C.L. Chilton, pastor of the First Methodist Church in Auburn, declared that this “foolish and useless sport [was] more properly called a fight.” He gave an injury report for both teams, but the sprains and broken bones listed were a denunciation of the spectacle.

Chilton, like many church leaders, was concerned that football would overwhelm the academic mission of the Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical College, as it was known as the time. “Here in Auburn, football is the one engrossing theme during the season. The whole thing is a travesty upon higher education,” he complained. Even the daily practices were popular: “Learned professors hasten to the scene of the fray,” he said.

Some might argue that football provided exercise to build strong young men, but Chilton was unimpressed: “Any young man can acquire that at home in the useful emoluments of cutting his mother’s yard or driving his father’s plow.”

The Wesleyan Christian Advocate in Georgia joined the criticism that immediately followed the game: “And so the sacred altars, whose incense has been so inspiring to our people in the past, are broken down, and these gods of the sensual and material man have set up their altars instead.” To the WCA, the game represented “a swing back to Olympic Greece and her barbarian ideals.”

So how could such an outrage happen? The WCA blamed it on the South’s defeat in the Civil War. Social degeneration allowed football to find its way onto Southern campuses. “This new outbreak in the South, in contrast with the sturdy integrity of our past history, is but a natural result of lowering the standard of citizenship and manhood.”

To others, it was another cultural evil brought down from the North whose effects would be felt deeply on the college campuses. W.P. Fleming, a teacher and Methodist church member writing in the WCA, urged Southerners to resist “the athletic craze [that] is just beginning to take southern colleges … before our higher education will be degraded into what it has already become in some institutions of the North.”

Alabama and Auburn played for the first time the year after Auburn and Georgia. By 1900, the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Montgomery said the behavior of fans who attended that years game in the state capitol “is such as to startle and shock the community.” Indeed, the Alabama Christian Advocate described football’s ability to “convert a crowd of students, inflamed with liquor and excited by loyalty to their institution, into a howling mob of toughs, gamblers, and drunkards.”

Even after Auburn stopped playing Alabama, the Tigers continued to travel to Birmingham to play games. Seeing the students flock to the city’s saloons, the president of the state Women’s Christian Temperance Union asked the Auburn president to stop scheduling games in Birmingham. Unfortunately for the WCTU, the bigger cities provided bigger ticket sales, so the request was ignored.

As part of the greater debate on the usefulness of sports like football, many pointed to its role in building strong young men imbued with a commitment to teamwork and sacrifice toward a common goal.

But these Southern writers were not buying the “manhood” argument. The WCA exhorted the universities to “hold the standard of scholarship high, so as to require true manhood to reach after it, and when it is attained, we could feel that we have real men as our sons and not mere prize fighters.”

The ACA complained that the mind was subordinated to the body on campuses that embraced football: “The ideal man is the one that can kick, rather than the one that can think.”

It’s amazing to think that because of the pressure, the University of Georgia trustees banned football shortly after the first Auburn-Georgia game, though they caved to pressure from students and the media a year later. The University of Alabama restricted the Alabama team to home games. That restricted football so much that Alabama played only four games overall in 1896 and 1897, and did not field a team at all in 1898.

Eventually, of course, all of this changed. The evangelical church has come around, and institutionally speaking is one of football’s biggest supporters. And the University of Alabama even allows its team to play away games (though getting them to the Auburn campus would take a few more decades).

"Red and Dead"?

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:12:44 -0400

Most of the top student staff of the Red and Black, the University of Georgia student newspaper, resigned en masse last night. Why and what will happen from here is not clear, and might change in the time it takes to write and post this. But here is a try.

The resignations were announced on a WordPress blog Wednesday night. The blog was written by now former editor-in-chief Polina Marinova (an alum of the Auburn Summer Journalism Workshop for high school students). The walkout seems to center on changes created by the Red and Black board of directors, which not only added non-student staff to the student newspaper, but gave editorial director Ed Morales, also a non-student, full editorial control over the newspaper, as reported by the Athens Banner-Herald website.

The students were also dismayed by a draft internal memo on editorial policies. The memo had the usual stuff that every student journalist is exhorted to strive for, but also an unfortunately worded directive to strive for the “good” over the “bad.” That seemed to erode the newspaper’s traditional watchdog function.

At this point, it’s wise to point out that the Red and Black is structured differently from the Auburn Plainsman. While the Plainsman is housed within the Office of Student Affairs, with the Journalism Program providing a faculty member as adviser, the Red and Black is independent. So don’t assume that this is the University of Georgia asserting control over the paper. This is an internal struggle.

And a struggle it is. The students have set up a Facebook page, titled “Red and Dead,” posting information and responses from alumni and others. You can click there for updates, etc. They had also set up a Twitter account, @redanddead815, to allow for expressions of support. But the account was suspended — for following too many people too quickly, according to the Red and Dead Facebook page. They are hoping to get it reinstated.

One obvious question is, Could something like this happen at Auburn? In the sense that anything can happen anywhere as long as it fits within the laws of nature, yes. And we’re still less than 15 years away from the Comm Board censuring a student editor for criticizing a board of trustees member.

But at least at this point, Auburn is blessed with a structure that grants the students freedom of content. The adviser does not look at the newspaper content until after the content is produced, whether on the Web or in print. The students can consult with the adviser at their initiative beforehand, particularly in cases that might involve libel or other forms of trouble. But the adviser does not control the newspaper.

(Disclosure: I have just finished 2-1/2 years as Plainsman adviser. Austin Phillips is assuming the role as of fall semester. And aside from an irrational hatred of all things Kyle and Kurt Busch, he is 100% solid. He will continue this tradition of student-written and student-produced.)

Where does it go from here? I would imagine that meetings are going on this morning. I am hoping that it comes to some kind of resolution that brings the students back to the Red and Black and gives them the authority to continue the tradition that has guided the student newspaper throughout its history.

Until then, break out the popcorn and click on those “Red and Dead” Facebook page links. This is drama worth watching.

Michael Carvell and the NCAA, I mean AHSAA

Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:47:05 -0400

In reporting on the Watergate Scandal, for one story Carl Bernstein was trying to get a source to confirm a hot news tip over the phone, but the source was hedging. So finally, Bernstein told him that he would count to 10, and if there were any reason to hold off the story, the source should hang up. If the source was still on the line, he would assume the story was solid.

You can imagine what happened. The source got confused and did not hang up, and Woodward and Bernstein went ahead with a story that turned out to be inaccurate.

While it’s not a scandal that will reach the White House — at least not at this point — what transpired between Michael Carvell, recruiting reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Anita Paige, mother of Auburn commit Reuben Foster, at least belongs in the same filing cabinet.

Carvell reported, with Paige as his named source, that NCAA investigators had talked to her and her family about her son’s recruitment. But it turned out the Paige and the family had talked to investigators from the Alabama High School Athletic Association, not the NCAA.

If you look at the article, you will notice that in her quote, she does not specifically use the term “NCAA.” She says “they” and Carvell inserts the clarifying term in parentheses. This shows both her confusion and his confidence that he had his story right. If he knew he was trying to hide something, he could be expected to misquote her to hide his mistake, but he didn’t.

That mistake was unfortunate enough and caused Carvell some embarrassment. But Carvell made another mistake, in my opinion. Rather than admit the error, apologize and move on, he put the blame on Paige. In the update linked above, he claimed that he specifically mentioned the NCAA to Paige and that she confirmed it.

Then, later, he added, “When reached at 9 p.m. Monday and asked to clarify whether Monday’s meeting was with the NCAA or Alabama high school officials, Paige responded, ‘I can’t say. I’m not allowed to comment on that.’ He also tweeted, “Reuben Foster’s mother declines to CLARIFY if she met with NCAA or AHSAA” (emphasis his).

Perhaps she was embarrassed by her mistake. Maybe AHSAA instructors told her not to talk about it at all. In any case, she deserves better treatment than being thrown under the bus by Carvell.

Carvell is the professional journalist in this transaction. Paige is not as experienced with the media, though you could argue the recruitment of her son is providing a degree from the school of hard knocks.

If Carvell were to simply apologize and move on, most of us are perceptive enough to see what happened, and we would appreciate his graciousness to his less-experienced source. Instead, the perception is that he is undercutting a source who was kind enough to talk to him with probably no warning.

One reason we teach journalists to respond in this way is from a long-term perspective. If future sources knew that Carvell would treat them that way, they would be less likely to pick up the phone when he called.

This is one rationale for protecting anonymous sources. To be forced to reveal a source would jeopardize a reporter’s future investigative efforts. But the reporter needs to be just as careful in preserving his/her integrity toward sources.

I have emailed Carvell to get his side of the story. Again, I have no doubt that there was genuine confusion on Paige’s part, causing Carvell to move ahead with a story that he thought was solid. Carvell has a reputation for being a top-notch professional reporter. I have no doubt that he is, but when something like this crops up, he needs to be careful, even as he seeks to protect his reputation.

A reputation for accurate reporting is precious. So is a reputation for treating people the right way.

Ryan Lochte, Tiger Woods, and the Simple Narrative

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:17:00 -0400

Sportswriters sure seem cheesed at Ryan Lochte. Winning only two gold medals in five races (though medaling in all five), left them cold. Gregg Doyel of CBS tweeted, “One-hit wonder Ryan Lochte needs a nickname. I know! ‘Vanilla Ice.’”

Why is Doyel (and no doubt other sportswriters) so indignant? Simple. Lochte messed with their simple narrative.

Sportswriters — too many journalists, it seems — prefer simple ideas to build their narratives around. Complex stories, with too many layers, are just, um, HARD.

Going into the London Olympics, it seems, they had set down some basic narratives:

Lochte: The new Phelps.

Phelps: NOT the old Phelps. Slacker.

You get the idea. It applies quite easily to other sports like men’s basketball, gymnastics, and tennis. They allow for some wiggle room — who will fit the pert champion gymnast narrative? — but they have it ready to aim and fire.

So when Lochte wins only two gold medals out of five — an amazing accomplishment for a swimmer — the disappointed writers turned on him. Phelps trashed their narrative too, but in a positive way, so they could write about him in heroic terms (all earned, of course).

But Lochte reminded them of how tough it is to win so many gold medals — thus making Phelps’ accomplishment that much more amazing. They didn’t appreciate it.

For most of the summer, pre-Olympics, sportswriters have been weaving one of two simple narratives about Tiger Woods.

1) Tiger is back.

2) Tiger is washed up.

Based on how Tiger did the week before, or even the day before, sportswriters built off this simple narrative. The fact that pro golf is a little more complex than that — 16 golfers have won the last 16 majors — is of course inconvenient. Better to feed off the “dominant Tiger” narrative that powered golf for so many years.

But sports are like life in so many ways, not the least of which is its complexity. That is where journalism can help readers — not by reinforcing the illusion of life’s simplicity, but in dealing skillfully with its complexity.

Journalists can handle it. It just takes work, and thought, and critical thinking. It’s easier to have a simple narrative and throw in the hyperbole and the clever similes. Boom! Instant Rick Reilly!

Readers are smarter than they’re given credit for. They recognize this, and separate the wheat from the chaff in their search for information. They can pass on the simple narratives and savor the good stuff put out by the true reporters.

The shame of it is when an athlete like Ryan Lochte gets blasted, simply because he didn’t fit with the simple narrative that sports journalists had laid out.

He has had a great Olympics. He is not Vanilla Ice.

A Little Poop in the Brownie Mix

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:30:00 -0400

Tom Hoffarth is no doubt celebrating the attention his blog about Erin Andrews received. If only he gave that much attention to his spelling. It’s been a sticking point since everyone and his/her pet began blogging. How important are spelling and grammar?

But Hoffarth is no casual blogger who caught a flyer. He is a staff columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News. Granted, it’s not close to the L.A. Times, but I think the News employs copy editors.

Why then, did he describe her as “self-depricating” and note her “naivety”? (NOTE: Both misspellings have been corrected. I guess a lot of folks like me are serving as after-the-fact copy editors.) And why, in a comment to Jim Romenesko’s blog, did he say, “I cant’ believe others in the media dont’ see through it anymore.” (I’m shocked that Romenesko cut him a break in correcting those as well.)

In his Twitter profile, Hoffarth describes himself as a “bad speller.” So does that give him an excuse to play fast-and-loose with his spelling? Because he knows he does?

How would Hoffarth respond if Andrews misspelled such words in something she wrote? Would he crow that it was evidence of her incompetence instead of charm, as in his case?

His critique of Andrews was a recycle of past slams. As one of my students, Justin Ferguson (@theoneandonlyJF) noted, “(Hoffarthrth) just wrote her into the stereotype.” That works better than anything I could write.

(A disclaimer: As the pic above indicates, I have interviewed Andrews and, yes, she was kind enough to give me a few exclusive minutes when the ESPN GameDay crew was in town for the Iron Bowl. But realize that this is not a defense of Andrews. It’s about the spelling — which stinks regardless of how kind Andrews was to me.)

But to my old-school way of thinking, Hoffarth undercuts his arguments with poor spelling — on early versions, at least. In the Auburn journalism program, we preach that spelling is as much a factual matter as news information. Students have to pass a spelling test with a score of at least 83 as part of our JRNL 1100 course, which all students must pass to apply to the major.

Misspellings, hardly endearing incompetence from a befuddled amateur, undercut a journalist’s credibility — whether a college student or an LA Daily News columnist.

Applying an analogy I’ve heard elsewhere, misspellings are like poop in a brownie mix. How much is too much? Would you eat brownies knowing that there was even one speck in there?

Hoffarth was celebrating the number of followers he picked up from his Andrews slam — though of course he coyly dismissed it as evidence of her undeserved fame. I’m not one of those followers. I’m still leery of the quality of what he’s serving up.

The Media v. Zeke Pike

Sat, 07 Jul 2012 09:56:00 -0400

As I read the growing body of work surrounding the arrest of Auburn freshman Zeke Pike, I found myself involuntarily grimacing.

The facts are pretty clear. Pike was cited for public intoxication on Saturday. By Monday, he was heading home. It was the latest chapter in a troubled story.

What troubles me is the news that is being leaked since then. Kevin Scarbinsky of the Birmingham News published a column that implied Pike was suspended from his high school team for using synthetic marijuana. He quoted an e-mail that administrators sent out the day after Pike was suspended, warning parents about the drug.

Charles Goldberg, Auburn beat writer for the News, weighed in with his own confidential source who said it was not Pike’s first off-the-field issue, according to an anonymous source.

This story intersects the two circles of my Venn diagram: college faculty and sports journalist. And that is why I grimace.

Yes, we have a highly recruited Auburn quarterback, whose behavioral problems make for great copy, and whose Twitter trash talk is legendary. For him to be arrested and to be sent home for the summer is news.

Beyond that, do we really have to dig? Can’t the sharks ignore the blood in the water for once, and focus on other things?

Every college has students who flame out amazingly their first year. Tuition, room and board down the disposal, with few quality points to show for it. You won’t read about it, but it’s sad.

By the time they get into the journalism major, when I encounter them, a few are making major comebacks, bringing up their GPA as they find focus. That is, of course, not sad. It’s rewarding.

Seeing Zeke Pike in the first group depresses me. I’m worried that he will be disposed of before he has a chance to make that comeback.

I know a bunch of fans are ticked off because it means that Zeke might not be throwing touchdown passes against Alabama, so they feel cheated. Again, I feel sad.

As I so often say on so many issues (realignment most recently), this is college football and these are college students. So many fans ignore that as they focus on the Saturday game to the exclusion of the Monday-Friday classes — and the age of its participants, still kids in many ways.

Maybe the college football mania, which reaches down into recruiting. has us treating college freshmen like NFL veterans, whether or not they are ready for it. And in Pike’s case, he is obviously not ready for it.

What’s particularly puzzling is Pike’s offense. He did not get arrested for a DUI, or an assault, or a robbery. It was public intoxication. Basically, he said the wrong thing to a policeman. They usually don’t arrest college kids for public intoxication; otherwise, the bars would be empty. It’s not a felony or a misdemeanor; it’s a citation, like a traffic offense.

But with the tone of the coverage, and its breadth, you would think that he was a much bigger star guilty of something much more serious.

It looks like Auburn will move on from Zeke Pike. And I hope Zeke moves on too. But even more, I hope that sports writers move on from this. Yeah they might find more on Zeke, but do they really need to?

In teaching ethics, I tell my students to always consider people an end in themselves, not a means to an end. That way, they are less likely to act unethically in their treatment of sources and subjects.

I would commend that same attitude to sportswriters. Writing about Zeke Pike is the means to the end of getting more readers with some pretty crazy copy. But consider Zeke as an end in himself, and you might treat him differently.

It’s a matter of remembering that our sources and subjects are human beings. And that we are as well.

The Plainsman Reports a Tragedy

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:42:08 -0400

If it had not been for Twitter, I might just have gone on to church last Sunday.

As I prepared to leave at 6:30 a.m. for an early service, I checked al.com, where there was news of a shooting in Auburn with unidentified fatalities. But it was not until I checked my Twitter feed and saw re-tweets of expressed grief for two former Auburn football players that I realized.

This was a big story.

So I texted Robert Lee, summer Plainsman editor, who was out of town for the weekend. I also called Austin Phillips, who is serving as summer Plainsman adviser while I am on a research leave. He was in Birmingham.

So began seven hours of guiding The Plainsman staff through the reporting of a high-profile story, laden with ethical challenges, shifting information, and students learning by doing. Forgive the delay for a day of reflection. Here is how it happened:

We agreed that Robert would call the staff and get as many to the office as possible. I posted the call to action on the department Facebook page and the student e-mail list, which I had access to. Then I headed to the office. Well, I stopped and got a couple of donuts and coffee — as any journalist would.

From Robert, I learned that Andrew Yawn, community editor, had spent the night at the crime scene and was preparing an article. He had also tweeted some updates. Andrew had finished working a long shift at Five Guys and was heading to visit a friend when another Plainsman staffer, Zeke Turrentine, told him about the shooting.

Andrew posted the article right as I was getting to the office. The first thing I learned is that I have access to the Student Center through my University ID. I learned this after trying every key I had in the door locks without success. Robert suggested the successful swipe method. Melody Kitchens, managing editor (who would direct The Plainsman staff on-site in Robert’s absence), arrived soon after I did. Task #1 would be updating the Web site article.

This involved Ethical Question #1. Andrew had identified the two former Auburn football players killed in the shooting (Ed Christian and Ladarious Phillips), even though the police had not. The important thing to note here is that Andrew made the best decision he could as the journalist on-site. It was his decision to make, and he made it.

After we discussed it, Melody decided Andrew had made the right decision, and I agreed, though with a knot in my stomach. Even though we did not have independent confirmation, the flood of player tweets, without a refuting response from anyone official or unofficial, 8-1/2 hours after the incident, indicated that the information was reliable, as it turned out to be.

The story included some details that did not have police verification, so those were deleted. But the names were left in, and some news sources quoted The Plainsman article as a form of verification. Again, this was the students’ call. It could have come back to bite them (as in the premature reporting of Joe Paterno’s death), but the information was correct. So any disagreement was a matter of style, not substance.

Andrew headed to bed after his article, and other students began to arrive at The Plainsman office. Ben Croomes, summer opinion editor, showed up with his sister, Rebecca Croomes, who is not on The Plainsman staff this summer but came anyway to help take photos. TJ Harlin, campus editor, also arrived, along with Nathan Simone, social media editor. John Holtrop, sports editor, called from his early-morning job at a local golf course (Maybe college students work harder than we think) and promised to join them when he got off work at 10 a.m., having worked since sunrise. Graphic design editor Rachel Suhs and summer photo editor Danielle Lowe also pitched in.

As they planned their strategy, I ran to McDonald’s for coffee for everyone. I know my job as an adviser.

After I came back, they executed the plan. Ben and Rebecca worked together. TJ went by the golf course to get John. The four of them and Danielle headed to University Heights, the apartment complex where the shooting took place, to see what they could find out. Nathan stayed back and monitored social media, while Rebecca and later Anna Claire Conrad, summer copy editor, scanned Web sites for information.

Important Lesson: At the risk of sounding condescending or patronizing — It turned out that sending the students in pairs to the scene was a good idea, especially throwing them into a fast-changing hard news situation like this. I think it gave them a little extra confidence and support.

Meanwhile, back at The Plainsman, we had to confront a curious rumor. Somehow, CNN was reporting that our Twitter account had been suspended and related it to the fact that the newspaper Twitter feed had identified the victims. We checked our own Twitter feeds and that was not the case at all. We were all getting updates.

It was traced back to an individual (whom I wish I could name, but I did not take it down), who tried to search for “@TheAuburnPlainsman” on Twitter and found the account suspended. He/she drew the wrong conclusion. The account was suspended a few months ago and replaced by “@TheAUPlainsman.” The previous account was set up by our Web provider to post articles, but no one at the provider had the codes, so we could not control the information on the feed to the extent we needed to. So Twitter deleted the account for us. I cannot find that detail in any other links from CNN related to the article, so I assume it was corrected.

The Plainsman’s only response was to tweet that the CNN article was not correct. In retrospect, I am proud that the students did not obsess over the misreporting, but instead moved on to do their work. Some news organizations can be a little paranoid about being reported on, but our students were not.

As students phoned in other bits of information, Melody updated the article, and the views increased. I wish I could say it was close to the most viewed article, but it remains eclipsed, by a multiple of 3, by an article published a couple of years ago about how Greeks dress. That went viral. I will leave you to make the value judgments there. The other good news is that the new Twitter account went from 600 followers to more than 1,800.

Meanwhile, Robert Lee and Austin Phillips — both frustrated over the distance from a big story — were constantly phoning and texting, offering information sources and asking questions. It is tough to be so close emotionally to, but so far geographically from, a big story.

As we worked, the students were surprised to learn that other media wanted to interview them. Melody fielded a taped interview request from CBS, and John Holtrop was interviewed live by CNN. I gave both a couple of quick tips (take your time on taped interviews, answer only the question asked), but I did not hear the results of either interview, though I did hear secondhand that John’s interview went well. They have my admiration. I stress enough over what I write; I don’t know that I could handle a live interview under such pressured conditions.

Meanwhile, we, like many people, were frustrated by the lack of official information. An 11 a.m. press conference at University Heights became an “after 11 a.m.” press conference became a noon press conference became a noon press conference at the Auburn Police Department became a 1 p.m. press conference at the Auburn Police Department. Someone heard the presser was pushed back to 2 p.m., but we figured that was an outlet reporting it on Eastern time.

At the same time, I acknowledge that the Auburn PD has their job to do, as does the news media. It is not necessary for each party to appreciate or endorse how the other party does it. Nor is it incumbent on each party to expect the other party to do their job for them. The Auburn PD handled it the way they felt best. The Auburn Plainsman and other news media outlets handled it the way they felt best. Agree to disagree with professional respect. End of story. Move on.

Through the morning, The Plainsman kept trying to get original information to include in our articles. Much of our reliable information was aggregated from other sources, though the Plainsman got its share of fresh stuff. They tried crowdsourcing through our social media, Facebook messages to friends and friends of friends who identified themselves as witnesses (but did not want to be identified in an article), and Reddit. The efforts deserved better results, but this happens when the media descend on such a story.

Finally, it was announced shortly before noon that the police were leaving the scene at University Heights and going to the police department for the 1 p.m. press conference. The students headed over — which, we realized later, was a tactical error. Once the police left the scene, residents were finally allowed to leave University Heights. As a result, our students missed out on interviewing a lot of witnesses. Other reporters, who stayed a few extra minutes, got some great stuff. Filed under “I wish I’d thought of that.”

Chief Dawson’s press conference has been seen and broadcast enough, and he did a good job at providing needed information. Our students live-tweeted it and filmed it on an iPhone (with predictable quality, but at least we had original digital video on the Web site.) Once the press conference ended, at about 1:25 p.m., I took my leave and they followed through. Jennifer Adams, journalism program director, sent over pizza for the staff who didn’t head home for a break.

As for the rest of the week, who knows. They still have a newspaper to put out on Thursday, but between now and then different new stories will break related to the case. No doubt the newspaper will include a tribute to their fellow students who died so young.

It’s strange when something like this happens. The shooting death of three young men affects us because we live here, and we interact with the news in so many different ways. But then we pull back and we realize that it is also news nationally — getting more coverage than the latest out of Syria, the Southwest wildfires and the presidential campaign.

And there, alongside veteran journalists with fatter paychecks and more experience, The Auburn Plainsman staff showed themselves to be equal to the task. We all learned a few things from the experience; but they showed that they already know quite a bit.

The Fake Pimp and Darren Rovell

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:30:31 -0400

Darren Rovell of CNBC can tell you: If you’re going to do something really dumb, like use an escort service owner as a source based strictly on e-mail interviews, you’d better hope that Deadspin.com does not find out.

The sports business reporter might have done the deed a whole six months ago, as part of an article on effects of the NBA lockout, but Deadspin found out and exposed Rovell’s derp earlier this week.

Unfortunately, I can’t provide a link to Rovell’s article. Well, I can, but CNBC has removed the offending passage, so the impact is lost — much like the small business revenue Rovell wrote about.

The summary, for those of you who are as lazy about reading as Rovell is about reporting, is that he got scammed by an 18-year-old who convinced Rovell that he was, in fact, an escort service operator — one who lost 30 percent of his business during the NBA lockout.

The teenager, identified in the article only as “Tim” (we assume that Deadspin has, in fact, confirmed his identity), gave his name as Henry James with the creative e-mail name “hankinthebank1.”

But rather than take steps to confirm that he wasn’t being scammed, Rovell went along with the ruse and ended up using “Henry” in his story. And used it to hype the article on his Twitter account.

This violates one of the basic rules of using anonymous sources. The reporter is supposed to confirm the identity to a superior as a protection against claims that the reporter made up the source. Woodward and Bernstein had Ben Bradlee, their executive editor. Rovell had, um, a gmail address. His superiors also let him down. They should have insisted that one of them know the real identity of “Henry” before the article would be published. That would have saved everyone a lot of embarrassment.

What is amazing is that this story came out in November, and it wasn’t until almost six months later that Tim called Deadspin to alert them. What is funny is his reason for alerting Deadspin. Apparently Tim’s friend felt that Rovell was “such a douche on Twitter all the time” that he convinced Tim to embarrass him. Which he did.

So what are the lessons here? The first one might be lost on Rovell. Check and confirm your sources! Rovell said in his apology that he would “do fewer stories on the real life impact of big events which I do think the public enjoys.” As Dashiell Bennett of the Atlantic’s Open Wire pointed out, Rovell in essence promised to doless reporting, rather than more reporting on these important stories. Disappointing.

Second, obviously, don’t be a, um, douche (to use Tim’s friend’s word, which I do not endorse). I do not follow Darren Rovell on Twitter, and I do not intend to reward him by giving him one more follower for something like this, so I cannot attest to his level of d. But the level certainly completed the “what goes around comes around” cycle. So basically, if you’re nice to people and less of a d, you’re less likely to have people do mean things to you.

And finally, come on. Deadspin thrives on well-reported stories like this. ESPN did not learn this in the Sarah Phillips debacle. And Darren Rovell repeated the same mistake here. Due diligence takes time, but the time is worth it. If you give them the ammo, they will turn around and blow you up with it.

On the Set of '42'

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:04:14 -0400

I had a chance to visit the set of 42— the biopic on Jackie Robinson that filmed recently at Birmingham’s Rickwood Field. I had already planned to roto-geek out over the film for two reasons: 1) It’s about sports history; and 2) It is directed by Brian Helgeland, who wrote “L.A. Confidential,” one of the best 1940s movies ever.

But when Ernie Malik, unit publicist, replied to an email with an invitation to observe, that turned up the geek heat. Armed only with that sheet (and a MapQuest printout), I headed to the field.

One observation: In terms of access and relaxation, the location set was to a college football practice as absolute zero is to the melting point of platinum. Parking: no problem. (Of course, they were so desperate for extras, it was not surprising.) I was directed to walk around Rickwood Field — amidst the cameras, crews, cast, etc. — and look for Ernie. I just can’t imagine being told to walk around the practice field and look for the SID.

Malik was gracious. Jon Solomon of the Birmingham News was also observing, and Malik introduced us around to cast and crew. If you’ve looked at the IMDB page for the film, I’ll tell you up-front that Harrison Ford and Christopher Meloni were not there. Neither was John C. McGinley (Dr. Cox from Scrubs), who plays broadcaster Red Barber, the prominent sports media figure in the film.

Perhaps the biggest name we saw that night was T.R. Knight, late of Grey’s Anatomy and the sordid drama instigated by a fellow cast member’s homophobic comments. Knight will play Harold Parrott, traveling secretary for the Brooklyn Dodgers, who worked closely with Robinson during that first season.

We watched several scenes being filmed, but I am not allowed to tell you the specifics. But I can tell you that this will be an awesome pic. You can guess that, of course, knowing that Helgeland’s name is attached to it.

In particular, I was impressed by a scene in which Chadwick Boseman, who plays Robinson, showed his baseball prowess. He is good. The director will not have to edit around a marquee name’s suspect skills.

Plus, the production designer, Richard Hoover, really sweats the details. The uniforms are the same fabric, mainly wool, that they used back then. They turned to Rawlings for baseballs, even though Rawlings doesn’t supply MLB anymore. And if I had half a brain, I would have snapped a photo of the hauler loaded with 1947-era cars.

(One hyperlink tangent: While looking up Hoover on IMDB, I saw that he is working with Aaron Sorkin on a new series called “The Newsroom.” Score!)

Ernie was gracious to introduce me around as someone who is working on a book about former commissioner Ford Frick, who was National League president at the time. That had a nicer ring to it than “annoying professor from Auburn.”

I was disappointed to learn that Frick is a speck in the film. Nothing about his supposed facing down of a strike by the St. Louis Cardinals. In fact, the strike story was probably fabricated by Frick’s friends in the NYC press, to give him an active role in the integration of baseball.

It’s a great subplot, pitting Frick against baseball commissioner Happy Chandler, the former Kentucky governor who used to annoy the owners by singing “My Old Kentucky Home” in a tenor that had the same effect as a needle through the brain.

I told Ernie about the story, then awaited the offer to join 42 as a contributing screenwriter and technical advisor, but it never came. At least, not yet. Not a problem. I will be blogging the heck out of this — a quality sports history film by a top-notch director. We can’t have enough of those.