Trying to figure out where a "Deadspin" fits into the media spectrum is a hard thing. Indeed, it seems to have made a turn from the Will Leitch days (and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing; I'll just call it a thing). One of the things that I'd note is that there were some gentlemen's rules when it came to the old media. The problem is that not everyone in that world is following the rules. I think Daulerio tried to follow the "rules," only to discover he'd been lied to (which is not part of the rules), at which point he said "screw the rules."
For ESPN to act as if they've been betrayed because they were not asked for comment is pure, distilled bullshit. Daulerio asked you for a comment previously and you out-and-out lied. Is he supposed to go back and ask to be lied to again just because? I have zero sympathy for ESPN the corporation in this. You can't have it both ways. This, in fact, is the flaw of journalism in its current state: There is what I'd call a "false obligation of balance" that says if one person says X, you have to find someone to say the opposite of X. I believe that the two names Daurelio outed were not randomly picked from a long list: he's implied that he had repeated reports about both of them. If you want to argue "journalistic credibility," I'd say there's enough smoke there to call fire, especially after both the Andrews and Philips incidents. When someone denies something is happening, and it happens to be true both times, I wouldn't wait for the third to call it a pattern. I would put Deadspin in the same category as National Enquirer (note: I am not equating the two). They bring things to light that may not have received it. You may laugh at it. You may find it amusing. You may think they're being unfair. You may be outraged. But at some point, you have to start acknowledging that there's something *there.* Sticking your head in the sand simply makes you look out of touch and sad. FWIW: I can only recall one time in which Deadspin published something (from a news perspective) that turned out to be out-and-out wrong (though I'm sure there are others): They had a report of some names on the list that tested positive in the "supposed to be anonymous" round of drug testing in 2004, one of the names being Albert Pujols, who had never been associated with the list previously. They had another source definitively deny his name, and had to seriously backtrack. On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:46 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: > (SNIP) >> PGage: I don't think there is unanimity in the idea that Daulerio and >> Deadspin crossed a line here, even within the two old media articles. >> The late George Carlin once said in an interview (and it might have >> been in "The Aristocrats") that his job is to get people to cross >> lines they didn't think were crossable. Instead, there seems to be a >> lot of conversation that this raised: (SNIP) > > Thanks for all of his Joe, very interesting. > > I am old, and I like old media, and old standards. I am not impressed > by Daulerio at all. Or, to be more clear, I am not impressed if he is > trying to make any claim to journalistic credibility, You don't get to > slap a bunch of sleazy rumors against the public wall and then claim > some kind of journalistic validity of a few of them turn out to be > right. Once he shows that this is how he does business, then we are > justified in not believing anything that he has to say. Now, perhaps > Daulerio makes no pretense to journalistic credibility. In that case > he is just a guy who publishes rumors, some of which may be at least a > little bit true. If he can make money doing that I don't have any > particular need to bash him for it - I just don't want him making > money portraying himself as having credibility when he does not have > the patience, or the competence, or the ethics to fact check his > claims and firm up his sources (I know, he can't be bound by old media > rules that he actually have a source for his claims). > > I am not too goo to check out Deadspin - it certainly can be fun and I > have my own issues with the Mothership. But as a credible source of > information? It is off the list. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
