Book Review: "A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez" by Selena Roberts

Sports Illustrated writer Selena Roberts' report on Alex Rodriguez's steroid use from 2001-2003 and Rodriguez's subsequent confession created a media firestorm this past February. If you scroll down long enough, you'll find my reactions to the whole saga, particularly ESPN's exclusive interview with the Yankees slugger.

The latest product of that firestorm is in the form of a (blatantly) unauthorized biography of Rodriguez as written by Roberts herself entitled A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez. The release date was moved up to last Monday, May 12, after portions of the book were leaked to the media.

The book itself has created even more controversy based on allegations made by anonymous sources that Rodriguez was using steroids as early as high school and has used them since joining the Yankees in 2004. I decided to see what all the ruckus was about.

My first observation regarding the book is that it was very hastily written and published. A handful of grammatical errors, as well as missing words in some cases, should be something unbecoming of a senior writer like Roberts.

There were also many amateurish similes and metaphors peppering the pages: "flicking his wrist like a lion tamer", "Pitches looked as big and slow as soap bubbles", "like a cat pawing at yarn", etc. Closer to Mad Libs, if you ask me.

Roberts' research and interviews were quite extensive, and she devotes five whole pages to listing all of her sources (except those who who requested anonymity, of course). Because the research was so thorough and varied, I expected some in-text citations to clarify it all, but none appeared. The credibility of her research is not necessarily diminished, but I would have preferred seeing which quote came from which interview, particularly when Rodriguez himself was quoted.

With regards to the 19 anonymous interviewees, I understand the desire to make some concessions to get juicy information, but 19 times? Really? What do these sources have to lose by making themselves known? Is the clubhouse really that sacred that publicly violating it would bring more shame than what Rodriguez and others did to the game? Would other reporters have granted anonymity so many times to make such a damning argument?

My final verdict: A quick read which was quickly written to quickly smear someone who (by Roberts' language throughout the book) probably deserved it.

Paging Steven Stills...

After grappling for two weeks on whether to write about the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer showdown and its ramifications, I decided to pull a Jarom 1:2 on the issue: "For what could I write more than my fathers have written?"

Since I'm more of a sports journalist guy anyway, I found an appealing story nonetheless.

The Washington Post recently hired Chico Harlan to serve as their beat reporter for the Washington Nationals, the still-fresh Major League Baseball team.

Trouble is, he'd rather be writing about something else.

In an interview with Washingtonian magazine, Harlan expressed that he did not see the Nationals beat as his life's calling:

“I don’t like sports—I am embarrassed that I cover them,” Harlan said. “I can’t wait to stop. It is a means to an end and a paycheck.”

Understandably, Nationals fans (though in small supply) expressed their outrage over the fact that the Post would alienate baseball readers with a writer who admittedly hates the game.

But...

Could his refusal to get into the details of the sport itself actually provide more objective coverage? The Post's other baseball writer, Tom Boswell, is notorious for his love/hate relationship with the fledgling Nationals, who have yet to finish over .500 since their move to Washington.

Harlan thinks he can.

“My approach might drive hard-core fans crazy because I might not get inside for that nitty-gritty play-by-play,” he said. “The passion I can drum up is wanting to capture what is unique about each game. I am interested in the characters more than anything.”

Obviously, every reporter will at some point have a beat or do a story outside of their hopes and dreams, but does it hurt one's credibility by making it public?

For me, all journalists ought to follow the mantra of Steven Stills:

"And if you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with."

Maybe I can snag that Nationals job in a couple years...I'd take it!

Rush Limbaugh: De Man, De Myth, De Facto

As the Republican party searches high and low for a definitive leader, the polarizing force that is Rush Limbaugh appears to have taken it upon himself to lead conservatives through the wilderness. The highlight of this ascension has been his keynote address at CPAC, the annual official conservative convention. The 90-minute speech included scathing remarks toward President Obama and misquoting the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, this de facto coronation of Limbaugh has rubbed some high-ranking conservatives the wrong way. The most notable of these has been recently elected RNC chairman Michael Steele:

"No he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party," Steele said.

The RNC chief went on to call Limbaugh a mere "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

Limbaugh fired back:

"So I am an entertainer and I have 20 million listeners because of my great song and dance routine," Limbaugh said. "Michael Steele, you are head of the Republican National Committee. You are not head of the Republican party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the Republican National Committee...and when you call them asking for money, they hang up on you."

"I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be," he said. "I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit."

Steele has since apologized to Limbaugh thusly:

"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh...I was maybe a little bit inarticulate... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking..."

Other prominent Republicans who have denounced then apologized to Rush have prompted the creation of a site straight out of Mad Libs: imsorryrush.com.

Limbaugh, as expected, has taken everything in stride, but is not necessarily doing anything to convince people he doesn't want to be a figurehead for the conservative cause.

Case in point, this challenge from his show today:

"I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues."

Oy...

While there will be many dissenters to the claim that Limbaugh is a journalist, let's just say he is for the sake of this argument. Sure, he may have a journalistic right to voice his opinion of dissent towards the presidency, but is he out of line to challenge Obama to such a duel? What are his motives? Does he want to cement himself as THE conservative voice for America and serve his party, or does he want boffo ratings? Would proper motives make this supposed debate more journalistically sound?

Above all: Is it a practicing journalist's proper place to find himself at such an elevated place within the political system?

Maybe Rush has been watching a little too much Frost/Nixon...

Jim Calhoun vs. Ken Krayeske...WHO YA GOT?

The #2 ranked University of Connecticut men's basketball team defeated #10 Marquette last night to give head coach Jim Calhoun his 800th career win, one of only seven men's college basketball coaches to achieve such a feat.

It was at his press conference after his 799th win over South Florida Saturday, however, that earns him a spot on the blog.

Among those in the press conference that night was blogger Ken Krayeske, a UConn law student. His blog, The 40-Year Plan, focuses mainly on issue affecting his beloved Connecticut, particularly how to dig out of a $2 billion budget deficit.

As you can see in the above video, Krayeske prodded Calhoun about his $1.6 million salary, making him the highest-paid Connecticut state employee (UConn is a public school), and whether that is the best thing for the state.

Calhoun, with a reputation for press conference tirades, apparently could not believe that such a question was being asked in this setting and ripped into Krayeske, refusing to give a serious answer.

Not surprisingly, reaction came swiftly.

Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell was not pleased with Calhoun's tirade:

"I think if coach Calhoun had the opportunity right now, he would welcome a do-over and not have that embarrassing display," Rell told reporters, adding that Calhoun's tone was what upset her most.

The Hartford Courant posted an editorial saying that the question was an appropriate one, even if the setting was not ideal.

Jason Whitlock of FOXSports.com said Calhoun's tirade was "stupid" and "brainless".

Krayeske himself said he was "thrilled" that his blasting by Calhoun got the amount of press it did.

"It wasn’t me who created this. He happened to respond in that way," Krayeske said. "We have to question the amount of importance placed on athletics," he said. "I always wanted to have this discussion on a national level, and here we are."

Despite this groundswell of support for Krayeske, there were many who took Calhoun's side, as well.

Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post and ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption", in addition to calling Krayeske a "weasel" defended Calhoun.

"Calhoun has won two NCAA championships and come close to winning two others. What, some bozo comes into a press conference and gets to challenge everybody's salary? If I was Calhoun, I'd have served up this clown on a platter. He's earned everything he's gotten and will get in the future."

CBSSports.com writer Gregg Doyel, who ironically wrote a scathing 2005 article about Calhoun and some supposedly shady recruiting methods, said he had no reason to defend the coach this time, but did anyway.

In addition to refusing to put Krayeske's name in print and calling him a "grandstanding attention hound", Doyel wrote this:

"For his troubles, the attention hound got blown up, which is exactly what he deserved. He's the one, not Calhoun, who walked down the wrong dark alley and picked a fight. Shame on the guy who started the fight -- not the guy who finished it...There was only one thug in that exchange. And Calhoun knocked the thug on his [expletive]."

Here are my observations on the incident:

*Calhoun invited Krayeske to speak to him in private about the situation at the 0:37 mark. After having read Doyel's description of his private meeting with Calhoun over the 2005 article, I believe him. Many people say this in vain, but I think Calhoun would have responded more favorably to that question in a private setting.

*Notice the reaction of the other journalists in the room when Krayeske tells Calhoun "If these guys covered this stuff, I wouldn't have to do it." Such disdain for their alleged comrade. I think it seems like just another salvo in the Bloggers vs. "Real" Journalists tussle. The rift seems to be growing wider and wider, but is the blog takeover inevitable?

My final verdict: Krayeske may have a point, but he needs to pick his battles (and the battlefield) a bit more carefully.

Political Cartoons: Is There Anyone They CAN'T Offend?

Well, I was getting ready to blog (again) on the Alex Rodriguez saga, particularly the response from ESPN's ombudsman on the exclusive interview with Peter Gammons. If that's still you're deal, feel free to click the link.

Anyway, as that post was developing, I caught a glimpse of the above cartoon from Wednesday's New York Post: a tragic combination of two of the major US news stories of the past week.

Among those in the journalistic realm, it doesn't take a trained monkey (pun semi-intended) to figure out that this particular cartoon is going to offend people. A lot of people.

Even those who aren't journalists have seen several political cartoons that have depicted African-Americans as monkey-like. Surely they had hope that with an African-American president now in office, this sort of thing would disappear.

'Fraid not.

Of course, the outrage has been pouring in. In what is a shock to no one, the Reverend Al Sharpton was quick to express his disgust:

"The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this in the cartoon...

"Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

Now, one would think in the realm of professional journalism, the Post would acknowledge Rev. Sharpton's opinion as well as apologize for the nature of the cartoon.

One would think...

Listen to the statement by the Post's editor-in-chief, Col Allan:

"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Shnikes!

From some reports, the mood in the newsroom is not quite as supportive of cartoonist Sean Delonas. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reported this:

"On Wednesday, an employee of the paper told the Huffington Post that the phone lines had been inundated with complaints over what was interpreted as a racially charged jab at Obama. 'As they f--king should be,' said the source."

Given the oft-criticized conservative slant of the Post, it shouldn't be a surprise that if a cartoon of this nature were to appear, it would happen there. But with the startlingly unapologetic response from Allan, it would seem that Rupert Murdoch now finds himself in a deep pile of didgeri-doo.

Unless, that is, the paper prints something akin to this.

A-Roid and Journalistic Ethics: Where to Begin?

As an aspiring sports journalist, I had an entirely different level of fascination with the revelation that Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees tested positive for steroids in 2003, when he was with the Texas Rangers.

Selena Roberts and David Epstein of Sports Illustrated first broke the story Saturday on the SI website, which he confirmed on ESPN Monday. What a scoop! Journalism at its' finest: digging, scratching and clawing to find the truth! Not even the news pixie herself, Katie Couric, could get A-Rod to admit it!

To what extent, however, did Roberts dig, scratch and claw? According to A-Rod, a bit too much.

"What makes me upset is Sports Illustrated pays this lady Selena Roberts to stalk me," Rodriguez told Peter Gammons in an exclusive interview with ESPN (More on this later). "This lady has been thrown out of my apartment in New York City. This lady has, five days ago she was thrown out of the University of Miami police for trespassing. And four days ago she tried to break into my house while my girls are up there sleeping, and got cited by the Miami Beach Police. I have the paper here.

"And this lady's coming out with all these allegations, all these lies, because she's writing an article for Sports Illustrated. And she's coming out with a book in May." (Actually, Alex, the publication date just got moved up to April 14...hmmm) "And really respectable journalists are following this lady off the cliff, and following her lead. And that to me is unfortunate."

So, is Selena Roberts a crazy A-Rod stalker? Why don't we ask her via the Major League Baseball (MLB) Network, The New York Observer and SI.com, shall we?

From the MLB Network interview, as reported by Newsday (NY):

"'I've never set foot in the lobby of Alex's New York apartment. I've never set foot on his property. It's pure fabrication,' said Roberts, who did say she drove by Rodriguez's house after receiving permission from Miami Beach police to drive on public property near A-Rod's house. The Miami Beach police have a "miscellaneous incident" report of that conversation, but Roberts was not cited for anything.

"Roberts also asked for and received permission from security at the University of Miami to enter the school's workout facilities and talk to Rodriguez on Thursday.

"'I think it's a diversion, a shoot-the-messenger type of thing,' Roberts said."

Roberts told the Observer the following with regards to the above quote:

“It’s not at all close to what happened. I wrote it off: It’s a diversionary tactic to throw blame on the messenger. He’s probably upset with me and maybe he wants to divert the attention to the credibility of the article, which is not in dispute.”

Roberts told SI.com this:

"In a meticulous process, we verified and re-verified our information, because this is a human being here, so you absolutely do not want to be wrong. We made a decision to confront Alex with the evidence we had regarding his positive test, and give him a chance to explain. He chose not to."

So, what about Roberts' methods and motives? Are they a product of the modern era of journalism, or is she kickin' it old school?

Now back to the exclusive interview on ESPN. (I swear that was said about 20 times during the hour of Sportscenter on Monday during which it aired.)

Why the lovable Peter Gammons? ESPN has loads of excellent baseball writers, including Tim Kurkjian and Buster Olney, who covered the Yankees for The New York Times for pity's sake?

SI writer Jeff Pearlman offered his opinion on his blog:

"The reason Gammons scored the interview with [John] Rocker (ten years ago) a decade back is the same reason he scored one with A-Rod today: He’s the Larry King of sports television. Softball questions, limited inquisitiveness, an easy time for all involved."

Specifically responding to how Gammons did not react to A-Rod's rant on Roberts, Pearlman said this:

"I’m not sure if Gammons was jealous of Selena for scoring a huge story, but he had to—absolutely had to—follow up Rodriguez’s presumably ludicrous accusations with a question or two or three or 10. 'Alex, are you saying Selena Roberts literally broke into your building? Alex, can I see the paper you’re referring to? Alex, you rip Selena Roberts’ reporting? But wasn’t she, ahem, correct?'"

Gammons gave his answer in an e-mail to the sports blog Deadspin:

"I think in retrospect, I should have interrupted the A-Rod rant. My first question asked if Selena's story were true, he essentially admitted it was, and I believed she was therefore vindicated. I usually don't get into grudges, and felt he was promoting her book, which will be her response. I was trying to get Alex in his own words, but Jeff's criticism has merit that I accept."

Does this mean Gammons is going to start getting tough on his interviewees? It probably won't matter, since he will probably never cover as big a story as this in his remaining years.

Nevertheless, A-Rod has confessed and apologized. Does this make him a sympathetic figure? Will the media respect him a bit more?

Not the New York Post.

This photo of A-Rod preparing for the exclusive ESPN interview at his home was published in the Tuesday edition of the Post and its website. However, A-Rid saw it as an invasion of privacy and had it removed from the site.

I can understand his beef with Roberts, but with the photog? Really?

The intrigue is just beginning on this story, both in the world of sports and journalism. I see it as a primer for what I need to be thoughtful about as I pursue a story like this in my sports journalism career. On the other hand, no matter how thoughtful I am, will it even matter in the mind of the player or team? Won't they just see me as an annoying reporter?

Is that fair?

The Curious Case of Rod Blagojevich or It's, It's a Blago Blitz!

After being knocked out by bronchitis last week, I'm back on my feet and ready to blog, baby!

I have a roommate from Naperville, Illinois. He is one of those people that is fun to rile up because of the way he reacts to things. Let's just say I have been given a lot of ammunition thanks to the alleged actions of the now ex-governor of his home state, Rod Blagojevich. Thankfully, he agrees with me, particularly thinking that this Daily Show clip towards the beginning of the scandal was absolute hilarity.

With such "low-hanging fruit" ready to convict Blago, most would think he'd just roll over and take it, much like former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

Then came the "Blago Blitz", where Blago, still in office at that point, appeared on just about any show that would give him time: The View, Good Morning America, the Today show, etc. The blitz may have seemed like a good idea at first, but then when he compared himself to Ghandi, MLK, and Nelson Mandela, among other inane things, he seemed to lose all credibility.

Unintentionally funny comments made by Blago in these interviews include, but are not limited to:

"The fix is in." (Today and GMA)

"It is true that among the many potential candidates for the Senate seat, we discussed Oprah." (The View)

Even after his impeachment and removal from office, the long strange trip has continued. Yesterday, Blago appeared on the Today show (again), Larry King Live, Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, and the Late Show with David Letterman. Included in these interviews were some precious one-liners from the man himself:

"I rejected an offer by leading senators to keep my job for two years and essentially be a ghost payroller governor." (Today show)

"And at the appropriate time, the truth will come out. And as it's written in Bible, the truth will set me free." (OTR)

"So the hypocrisy of these politicians is -- is incredible. And I think part of the reason to kind of add quickly is I don't think they want anybody looking into their stuff." (King)

Letterman by far was the most entertaining interview, with such exchanges as these:

Letterman: "Why exactly are you here, honest to God?"

Blago: "I've been wanting to be on your show in the worst way for the longest time."

Letterman: "Well, you're on in the worst way, believe me."

Letterman, not surprisingly, had the chutzpah to go toe-to-toe with the former governor, particularly with Blago's claim that his office was being "hijacked".

"You were not deprived of due process," Letterman said. "I don't believe you have been deprived of due process."

"The more you talked and the more you repeated your innocence, the more I thought, 'oh this guy's guilty,'" Letterman continued.

Could there perhaps be another motive? Some say yes, that a book deal or talk-show gig may be in the works. But who would hire him?

"A great many employers will not hire someone who has a felony charge pending against them," said Chicago defense attorney John Beal.

Well, it worked for the aforementioned Spitzer, who now writes for Slate magazine, even though the job, by his own admission, "sucks".

Going back to the time-honored questions that defined our class, I ask:

*Is the Blago Blitz journalism, or a ratings-monger feeding off an amazingly sensationalistic story?

*If Blago were to get a talk-show gig, does that make him a journalist? Is our opinion on that skewed by his removal from office? Does it for Spitzer?

What You Didn't See on Inauguration Day (Unless You Watched Fox News)

Ah, Inauguration Day!

I scampered back home from my Spanish 322 class in time to watch the swearing-in and Obama's speech live. I watched CNN's coverage, which was surprisingly simplistic. It was amazing to recall what it was like to watch cable news before the incessant crawl at the bottom of the screen or mounds of graphics. I also enjoyed their live look-ins on crowds in places like Memphis, Los Angeles, among others.

But what of the now ex-President Bush? Shouldn't he get at least a little bit of coverage on the day his term ends? The last many of us saw of him was the image of Air Force One flying off to Texas.

Fox News, however, took it the extra mile.

Out of all the cable news networks, only Fox News presented live coverage of Bush's homecoming speech from Midland, TX. Some networks were on semi-regular programming, some reporting on the inaugural parade.

"Sometimes what I did wasn't popular," Bush told supporters. "But that's OK. I always did what I thought was right."

Doesn't this just invite even more criticism of Fox News and provide evidence of right-wing bias?

Or was this the essence of "fair and balanced" reporting on an otherwise Obama-fied day? Does Obama or any candidate deserve such a monopolization of coverage without considering the outgoing president?

MSNBC: Your Inauguration Juggernaut?

We currently stand less than a week from Inauguration Day, and the excitement is palpable, repeat, palpable.

I remember watching the last two inaugurations on TV, flipping around the different news channels to see each one's unique coverage of this historic event.

It seems that if MSNBC has its way, however, a lot fewer people will be flipping around from channel to channel this January 20, thanks to two very intriguing agreements.

The first is between MSNBC and Screenvision, which will put the network's coverage (free of charge) in 27 theaters across the country. For us in Utah, the closest options would be Denver, Phoenix, or LA. No love for the SLC.

The second agreement is between MSNBC and Starbucks. The coffee chain agreed to broadcast MSNBC's inauguration coverage in 650 stores nationwide.

Why such a big push by the Peacock News Network? To keep up the momentum that made it cable's fastest-growing channel of 2008.

"We have to get our product out there and expose it to more people," said MSNBC president Phil Griffin.

In our class, we talked so much about questioning the motives of the major news networks. Were they providing news for the sake of informing the public, or to boost ratings and advertising revenue? At first glance, it appears that MSNBC is doing just that.

Looking at it another way, however, one must remember the historicity of this particular event. This will be an inauguration unlike any other in our history. Not only is it for an African-American, but it is for a change that many people have wanted for some time. As such, should MSNBC be lauded for its attempts to make this event as accessible as possible?

One more factoid before I sign off:

Even after repeated charges of left-wing bias throughout the campaign, there will be an interesting wrinkle in MSNBC's coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are slated to anchor the goings-on from Washington. Hmmmmmmmmm......

Jon Stewart's Explanation of Rupert Murdoch

Over the Christmas break, I wandered into a Barnes and Noble and found an intriguing book. I almost bought it, but then I remembered I'm a poor college student with little money to spare (for now).

It's called The Man who Owns The News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch, and is written by Michael Wolff, a writer for Vanity Fair. The book delves into Murdoch's media empire, as well as his personal life.

As we discussed in our class, Murdoch's vast media empire includes The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the venerable Fox News. Pretty powerful guy, right?

Not if you ask Jon Stewart.

Wolff appeared on The Daily Show last night as he and Stewart discussed the book and the source of Murdoch's power.

Wolff claims that Murdoch is "is the most powerful man for the longest period in our era".

Stewart, who famously and frequently takes jabs at Fox News, says that Murdoch is not inherently powerful himself, but is merely a tool of powerful people.

"The leaders in power can always find a Rupert," Stewart said.

So, what do you think? Are Rupert Murdochs born or made? Could any of us in our class become a media mogul by sheer work and determination, or do we have to be chosen by the powers that be? Would we even want to yield that kind of power or be subject to that kind of scrutiny?

I reckon I'll have to read the book to find out for myself. In any case, it looks like another interesting ideological debate between Jon Stewart and Fox News. Let's get it on!

Did Kathy Griffin Say What I Think She Just Said?

Happy 2009 to everyone! I spent my last night of 2008 in my apartment with my girlfriend and one of my roommates and his girlfriend. We flipped channels around until settling for CNN's live coverage of the ball dropping in Times Square. Your hosts: Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin.

The unintentional comedy was through the roof, but that's not necessarily a good thing for supposedly serious journalism.

We cringed throughout the broadcast as Griffin's grinding voice seemed to be on autopilot, while poor Anderson Cooper tried in vain to keep the show from coming off the rails with his fake, patronizing laugh.

After the ball dropped, CNN stayed live for another hour to watch celebrations from the Central Time Zone, particularly from New Orleans, where correspondent Sean Callebs seemed to hate the "belligerent" revelers, some of which flipped off the camera.

The performance of hip-hop artist Lil' Wayne, which had been plugged at the beginning of the show, was full of backup exotic-looking dancers in neon outfits, thus leaving it mostly audio-only on the broadcast.

Then, hip-hop artist Coolio was interviewed in Las Vegas, proclaiming he would go down as one of the top 10 performers in the history of hip-hop.

It was also during this hour that those exiting Times Square made their dislike for Griffin a bit more vocal. CNN went to break, but not before Griffin let out this verbal blast to her hecklers. (WARNING: Griffin's remark will probably offend) For those who don't want to click the link (I don't blame you), she made a vulgar remark about what she deemed an appropriate line of work for those who ridiculed her. The exchange was conveniently left out of the replay a few hours later.

Besides the fact that CNN is due for a hefty fine, and that Kathy Griffin probably won't be back next year, why are the cable news channels allowing themselves to broadcast New Year's Eve as if they were Carson Daly or Dick Clark?

We flipped over to Fox News, who had their overnight crew partying just as hard as those in the crowd. MSNBC just played the feed for NBC's celebration hosted by Carson Daly, probably the best move among the big cable news networks.

How can this be considered journalism? Even if CNN doesn't intend for it to be journalism, why do they send a legitimate journalist to anchor their coverage?

The final verdict: Unprofessional, but unintentionally funny.

The Coach and The Sportswriter

The semester is over, but da blog rolls on! Frankly, this story to me was too big NOT to blog on.

Anybody who follows sports knows that the NFL's Detroit Lions are on the verge of history. Bad history. They lost Sunday to the New Orleans Saints 42-7 to fall to 0-15 with one game to play in the season. No NFL team has finished a season winless since it was expanded to 16 games in 1978. To add insult to injury, a pesky flu bug has passed through the team. (Sick of losing?)

After Sunday's game, Lions head coach Rod Marinelli held his post-game press conference. Columnist Rob Parker of The Detroit News was there. Parker has asked Marinelli throughout the season about his defensive coordinator, Joe Barry, who is also Marinelli's son-in-law.

This question, however, was markedly different.

Parker asked, "On a light note, do you wish your daughter would have married a better defensive coordinator?"

Marinelli ignored the question in the moment, but the sense of a personal attack has been a talking point throughout the sports media. I was listening to the Dan Patrick radio show when Adam Schefter of the NFL Network made an appearance and blasted Parker for becoming the story rather than reporting it.

Parker published an apology in his column Monday, saying that his relationship with Marinelli is "different". He also added the following:

"What might have seemed like a personal attack wasn't...Who knows, Marinelli, a straight shooter who never goes off script, might actually have given us a funny quote. He didn't. My attempt failed. And because of that, my attempt at humor may have seemed slighted, cruel, and even insensitive. For that, I apologize."

Parker also appeared on ESPN's "First Take", a morning show which he frequently contributes to, to explain his position. (Click the video)

Marinelli finally broke his silence Monday, saying Parker crossed the line "big time", saying that going after his daughter was out of bounds.

"I just think anytime you attack my daughter, I got a problem with that -- in a room of stink, and as a man, and it was premeditated," Marinelli said. "I think there's something wrong with that, yeah."

When asked if he had read Parker's apology, Marinelli responded: "I didn't read it, I was just told a little bit about it, and I don't accept anything."

Marinelli also told the media that any attempt to stir him up, as he believes Parker intended to do, is futile: "I can shoulder anything you bring -- easy. I can shoulder anything you bring."

In our class, among others, we talked frequently about the relationships between journalists and those they cover. Did Parker assume too much about his relationship with Marinelli? Is Parker's question be out of line, no matter how close he and Marinelli would be?

Da Final: Blog Edition

1. The Question of Objectivity
News judgment is a complex and mysterious process of triage that is left to journalists to perform
“The Big Picture, page 69

I had a particularly interesting experience with this idea firsthand while writing the benchmark article a couple of weeks ago. Without going into too much detail, I had a hands-on lesson acquainting myself with the need to be fair and balanced on the benchmark’s subject matter.

One side of the issue was, to me, laughably ludicrous. So, at first, I found it difficult to phrase the descriptions of that side without showing bias. I took a step back and realized that Professor Worsham and whoever else wrote out the explanation for the Benchmark probably felt the same way I did. However, they did all they could to present the information in such a way as to help us write about it objectively. I do not believe they would have assigned us this particular topic for the benchmark if they did not think we could be objective about it.

With this perspective in mind, I put my personal differences with the opinion aside, and wrote what I believe to be an objective article. I suppose I’ll know by the score I receive on it and whether or not I get into the program. Regardless, I feel a lot more confident in myself and my objectivity after the assignment.

That’s the way I hope it will be out in the real journalistic world. I hope that whoever assigns me my stories will know who I am and know what I am capable of. Since I am seeking to enter the sports journalism world, I know that objectivity will be key. So many national sports analysts are accused of “homerism” or rooting for the teams they either played on or are from. I want to try and avoid that perception on air, but that doesn’t mean I can’t root for my Cubbies.

2. The Question of Excellence
Ideals of excellence exist to raise standards of human achievement, or at least to keep us from slipping toward chaos or depravity.
“The Big Picture”, page 129

A lot of people, as “The Big Picture” points out, connect excellence to the sheer number of people who visit a web site, subscribe to a magazine, or pay to see a movie. For example, the #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was the remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. It received almost universally bad reviews, particularly when compared to the original. Yet because it sold $31 million worth of tickets over three days it becomes, as movies.yahoo.com reported, “an environmental as well as a political statement" according to Chris Aronson, Fox's senior vice president of domestic distribution. Huh?!? Since when did Keanu Reeves make any kind of statement beyond “I know kung fu” or “I am an F-B-I agent”?

I thought the most profound aspect of defining excellence in journalism comes from what “The Big Picture” described as “The Three Graces of Journalism”: Truth, Context, and Independence. All three are interconnected and inherently dependent upon each other. In any case, vigilance allows each of these to be amplified in order to use journalism as a means to its principal end: to inform the public of what is going on around them and allow them to decide what they will do about it. Excellence in journalism, I feel, must do both, even though most modern journalists only focus on the former nowadays.

In observing the website for KUTV Channel 2 in Salt Lake City throughout the semester, there was nothing to necessarily distinguish it as significantly “excellent”. There was the news of the day. There were polls seeking viewer input. There were blogs from the sports anchors and meteorologists (although none from the regular news anchors…hmm). But the thing more prominent than these to me was the ads. Ads were everywhere: big ads, small ads, ads as big as your head. Obviously, the businesses advertising on the page see it as excellent, otherwise they wouldn’t advertise there. Again, that excellence seems to be driven more by the number of visitors to KUTV’s site than the regular everyday news content of the site. Does that mean excellence is defined in our day by the number of ads a publication or newscast has? If so, heaven help us.

3. The Question of Truth
The most obvious precondition of good journalism – or even of mediocre journalism, for that matter – is truth.
“The Big Picture”, page 45

There’s an old-timey hymn in the LDS hymnbook which I really like, but we hardly ever sing. It’s Hymn 272, which is called, “Oh Say, What Is Truth?” I quote the second verse:

Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire;
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire.

Since it’s in an LDS hymnbook, it’s safe to assume the “truth” referred to should have a capital “T”. Absolute truth is a concept we Mormons feel like we have a pretty good grasp on.

The quest for “journalistic” truth, although different, should inspire the same level of urgency. But we ask ourselves, “Oh say, what is journalistic truth?” In “The Big Picture”, truth is described as having two faces: getting it right and getting it all. Without it, there is no such thing as news; we merely engage in gossip, rumors, etc. Trouble is, we find ourselves in a news world appearing to be more concerned with viewership than depth of truth.

Another bout between truth and modern journalism is the willingness of the modern news viewer to act upon the “truth” they are given. If one merely allows news to come to them and nothing is done with that news, there may be an increase in knowledge, but not necessarily intelligence. Intelligence is defined in chapter five of “The Big Picture” as “our relative ability to assimilate, store, process, and apply knowledge” (85). Since the spectrum of “news” has been broadened (or lowered, if you’re a Koppelite), the modern news viewer’s knowledge likely follows the same pattern. The trouble comes with regards to the depth of this truth, and how it inspires change. When was the last time you or I were truly motivated to act by a news story we saw? What about for the regular John or Jane Doe?

4. The Question of the Future
The reality is that the abundance of news and ubiquity of choice do not necessarily translate into a better news environment for consumers.
“A New Model for News”, page 37

Old media is dying. There’s no getting around that. As we covered explicitly in class, the internet is the considerably less-than-silent killer. As the rising generation gets more tech-savvy, their news-gathering potential is limitless. However, though the generation itself is rising, some aspects of it are not. Rather than intimately connecting with an artist through a whole album, we pick only the song or songs we want from iTunes or Pandora. Instead of reading a whole newspaper or magazine, we head to Huffington Post, NYTimes.com, etc.

In the process, the depth and breadth of journalism is drying up, leaving behind it a shallow reservoir of headlines and recycled updates. I found the study in the AP’s “A New Model for News” eye-opening as I considered my own news viewing habits, particularly since I began this class. For whatever reason (perhaps you, Dr. Cressman) I started getting the Daily Herald delivered to my apartment at the beginning of the semester. At first, I was pretty excited getting the newspaper because I loved getting the paper at home growing up. However, I surprised myself when I hardly picked it up. When they started to pile up, we threw them out. When I wanted my news, I got on my handy laptop or (after Election Day) on my BlackBerry. The newspaper I once ran out to get every day was now just a nuisance.

What does this mean for my future? I still feel secure. Web sites still need people to write their content, after all. In fact, having done a lot of web writing this semester between my 239 blog and my e-magazine for my 101 class, I’ve come to enjoy it. I could comfortably write for a web site after experiencing what I have this semester. A quote from “Journalism 2.0” (page 8) really helps fortify these optimistic feelings:

This is a book about people, not technology. Sure, there’s a lot of technology in
the pages to follow, but if you boil it all down to its core, its essence, you’ll find
people trying to extend a noble and grounded craft into a new and unpredictable
landscape. And it’s the people who matter, not the latest software or Web site. If
the people in this equation learn how make technology work for them, the rest is
just details.

Amen, paragraph from a book I downloaded as a PDF. Amen.

5. The Question of Conduct
Ideology is a complicated blend of personality, experience, and principle.
“The Big Picture”, page 124

*I will always remember that I represent myself, my family, Brigham Young University, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

*I will respect and admire the history of journalism, and seek to capture the vision of those who pioneered its virtues.

*As a sports journalist, I will recognize that truth is just as much what happens off the field, court, or rink as what happens on it. The quest for both is essential.

*I will seek to be loyal to my readers, my employer, and my sources.

*I will remove myself, whenever possible, from covering a story in which I could not escape blatant subjectivity or which would compromise my moral standards.

* I will be flexible and receptive to the changing innovations and advances in technology with respect to how it impacts journalism as a whole and my job as a journalist.

*I will seek to live up to a quote by the late journalist and author David Halberstam: “Being a professional means doing your job on the days you don’t feel like doing it.”

Mugshots: The Next Big Thing In Journalism?

An article on CNN.com caught my attention this morning which discussed the journalistic value of mugshots.

Wait, mugshots? You mean, the usually awful pictures they take of you when you are arrested?

Yep, the very same.

The CNN article notes that the use of mugshots in journalism is spreading, particularly in areas with high crime rates. For example, on the home pages of such newspapers as Newsday (New York City) and the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, there are links to mugshots of those recently arrested in the area.

The Palm Beach Post deputy managing editor, Tim Burke says the feature attracts several thousand clicks a day.

"It's just another way to get readers online," Burke said. "There's low risk and a high level of consumer saleability."

The article also explores a $1 Clearwater (Fla.) publication called "Local MugSHOTS", one of many weekly magazines filled with, well, local mugshots. It has a circulation of 250,000 in nine states.

Its publisher, Max Cannon, sees it as a public service, particularly in low/middle income communities.

"The publication seems to sell best where the crime takes place," Cannon said.

But couldn't one (myself) make the argument that this is just another form of sensationalistic journalism?

John Watson, associate professor of journalism at American University in Washington, DC was also interviewed for the article, and made a similar argument.

"Here's a bad guy. Is that a public service? Maybe if you look at it with a very jaundiced eye," Watson said. "If you were really doing a public service, you'd point out specifics."

CNN notes that "some publications, such as Local MugSHOTS, offer only names and charges, The Palm Beach Post adds the date and time of the arrest. Newsday provides a few paragraphs of details regarding the incident."

Imperfect though it may be, Watson sees the value in mugshot journalism.

"We like being frightened without being in actual peril," Watson said. "These are pictures of monsters who actually exist, and we can look at them from the safety of wherever we are, and they disappear when we close the book."

That may be true, but is just another example of giving the public something they want rather than something they need, as Ted Koppel would argue? Is this new journalistic fad because of the simplified tastes of the reader or the need of publications to entertain in order to attract readership? Is it both?

Statsaholic.com Shows Newspapers Playing Catch-Up Online

In my Comms 101 class last night, our professor, Robert Walz, introduced me to a website that I find fascinating. It's called Statsaholic.com, and it allows you to enter domain names and compare the web traffic between sites. For instance, you could discover whether Google or Yahoo! gets visited more from month to month (It's pretty close).

So, with respect to our class, I first started by comparing different newspapers' websites:

USA Today beats the NY Times in unique visitors per month regularly, but the Times is narrowing the margin, especially in November. Both got about 15 million unique visits (UV) each during November.

In a more local context, The Salt Lake Tribune surpassed the Deseret Morning News this past summer, and hasn't fallen back behind yet. They each get around a 1/2 million UV per month.

Moving to TV news, CNN.com takes FoxNews.com and msnbc.com behind the proverbial woodshed. Not even close.

Since we have talked in class about the future of journalism and its online nature, I thought it important to compare the TV news sites to newspapers sites and news on sites like Yahoo! and Google.

Not even close.

In this comparison between the #1 site in three categories of journalism (Online= news.yahoo.com, TV= cnn.com, Newspaper= usatoday.com), Yahoo! News and CNN are doubling up USA Today in regards to unique visitors. You'll also notice that CNN once had a sizable lead on Yahoo!, but Yahoo! has closed the gap, even taking a small lead in the late summer.

Speaking locally, the top TV site in SLC, ksl.com, also doubles up on sltrib.com.

So, what does this mean with regards to our class?

That if the internet really is the future of newspapers, then they really need to beef up their online content. What do newspapers need to do with their web sites to close the gap?

Citizen Journalism and the Mumbai Attacks: "We're All Journalists Now"

Many around the world are referring to the tragedy in Mumbai as "India's 9/11". The blood, horror, and carnage spread by the terrorists does frighten us now, just as it did seven years ago.

In a sense, modern technology made this act of terrorism even more frightening. Because of Twitter, Flickr and other services, people around the world were thrust into first-hand accounts of what was going on, while the big media outlets tried feverishly to keep pace.

Imagine what it would have been like if Twitter and Facebook had been around on the REAL 9/11. People in the towers or on the planes would have been able to let us all know what was really going on.

The question is: Is this necessarily a good thing for journalism?

Robert Creamer, a political organizer and strategist, is a contributor for The Huffington Post. He blogged about two colleagues of his who texted them from Mumbai. As he pondered the significance of this event and its coverage, he identified two key points:

"First, experiencing terrorism -- attacks on innocent civilians -- from the stand point of the victims themselves really drives home in no uncertain terms that it is completely morally repugnant.

"Second, our experience Thursday demonstrated once again how dramatically technology has forced us all into the same neighborhood."

But is this a neighborhood in which we really want to be? Does it do us any good to see raw pictures of dead and bloodied bodies in the streets? Will reading about cold-blooded murder from those who see it firsthand draw people to the news, or push them away?

Even more pressing of a question: Will it inspire future attacks?

Mira Veda, an Indian recording artist, posted her comments on The Huffington Post as well, saying that more coverage of the Mumbai terror will lead to more attacks.

"The ruthless terrorist attacks aimed at high profile luxury establishments in Mumbai were specifically orchestrated towards Britons and Americans to get premium media coverage."

"The tactical and strategic gain for the perpetrators creates an ominous future of fear for us but seems to produce favorable results for them. Every news channel, print media and virtual medium is bombarded with the same message: Fear. Mission successful."

That fear seems to expand with the fact that the terrorists were using modern technology to their advantage. The Courier-Mail out of Queensland, Australia is reporting that the terrorists used BlackBerrys in order to track the news feeds and international reaction of the goings-on.

It is rumored that Indian authorities even asked those on Twitter to stop reporting on the anti-terror operations, so as not to aid the terrorists.

Amy Gahran, a writer on Poynter.org, is exploring the rumor on her blog. In the meantime, she wrote a column on Poynter regarding "Responsible Tweeting". She seeks to educate Twitter users in the finer points of journalism. Essentially she is saying that this request, true or not, is a milestone for citizen journalism.

Again, I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. What I see on the nightly news or the cable networks is at least edited and somewhat censored (or at least warned about) so I can avoid the graphic nature if I choose to. Being thrust into the scene via Twitter and such puts me in an uncomfortable spot as a news viewer.

Perhaps the most poignant piece on this issue comes from Forbes magazine. They called the Mumbai attacks "Twitter's Moment", thrusting it into the mainstream of journalism. Referring to the rumored self-censorship, Forbes declares:

"If it's true, it's a breakthrough. It's the sort of challenge journalists covering combat have long grappled with: What information should you share? Who decides what you can write? To what end?"

These are questions we have grappled with in our class, and likely still will. To paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper, just as we think we have the answers, citizen journalism changes the questions.

The Forbes article (and thus, this blog post) comes to a conclusion we have also come to in our class, and that I have admitted personally from the beginning.

"We're all journalists now. Let's just hope none of us wind up being combat reporters, as so many in Mumbai did this week."

Reunited, And It Feels So Good

The Santa Rosa (CA) Press Democrat featured an article Thursday about a happy reunion of epic journalistic proportions.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are epic journalistic figures for their reporting of the Watergate scandal that brought down President Nixon. A high-up source nicknamed "Deep Throat" supplied information to the reporters as they progressed in the investigation.

"Deep Throat" went public with his story in 2005. He is Mark Felt, now a sprightly 95 years old. Under Nixon, he had been the No. 2 man in the FBI, and looked to succeed J. Edgar Hoover.

Last week, Woodward and Bernstein went to Felt's home in Santa Rosa, California to thank him for his service. Interestingly enough, it was Bernstein's first time actually meeting Felt. Woodward had always met with the shadowy figure.

"It was a private visit-- a closing of the circle," Bernstein said. "We are both very glad we did it. It was evident he was glad."

This story reminded me of the glory days of investigative reporting. In many respects, it is a shell of its former self as more and more of it becomes trivial drivel.

Is it because of 24-hour news and the constant need to feed the beast, as we watched in class today? Is it fear? Are today's reporters too soft?

Blogger, Texas Ranger?

We know Chuck Norris for many things: action star, Total Gym and Mike Huckabee pitchman, inspiration for a lever on Conan's show, as well as countless jokes.

But is he a journalist?

On the right-wing website townhall.com, Norris is a regular contributor, having written about a column a week for the site throughout 2008. The article that caught my attention was this one about Proposition 8.

Here's some samples of what Norris has to say:

"The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage. "

"On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony."

"Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken."

Townhall.com does not have a corner on the market for celebrity journalists. Semi-regular columnists for The Huffington Post include Harry Shearer and Jamie Lee Curtis.

So, are they journalists because they do somewhat regular writing for news-like web sites?

Is our decision to call them journalists or not skewed because we have seen them in movies or TV shows?

ESPN: Kickin' It Old School

So, remember my blog post about ESPN not reporting the alleged Brett Favre info-sharing story? If not, continue to scroll down. The last thing I wrote in that article was my anticipation of what ESPN's ombudsman, LeAnne Schreiber, would have to say about the whole thing.


Well, Schreiber has spoken.


In her latest column published this week, Schreiber praised ESPN for excersing "old-school journalistic ethics" with regards to the Favre story.

Still, though, the perception that the network was favoring or protecting Favre is hard to overcome. Schreiber asked ESPN's news director Vince Doria his reasoning for delaying the Favre coverage.

"When a story involves criminal allegations or issues that impugn character, and when there is no track record of similar behavior by the individual targeted by the story, we don't report it without further confirmation on our part," Doria said. "We felt this story called Favre's character into question, and we couldn't confirm it."

So, Schreiber's final verdict is summed up thus:

"ESPN had a genuine old school moment. If ESPN had them more often, it would have a better chance of winning the perception game."

So, do you agree? Does true journalism include holding off on reporting character-damaging allegations towards those with seemingly good character? What about the John Edwards story as a precedent?

Who or What Is Martin Thomas Eisenstadt?

By now, most of us have heard the story first reported by Fox News about how Sarah Palin allegedly did not know that Africa was a continent, in addition to her not knowing all the countries in North America. Who would have leaked such seemingly damaging information?

Martin Eisenstadt, that's who.

In his blog post today, Eisenstadt, who served as a foreign policy advisor/Jewish liaison to the McCain campaign and as head of the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy, proudly took responsibility for the leak. MSNBC and a blog called The New Republic reported the leak.

He said he did so did so because, "I don’t want [Fox News] to have to worry about protecting their sources (and going through the wringer a la Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) on something like this."

Well, that sounds all well and good, except for one thing:

It appears that Martin Eisenstadt does not exist.

Bloggers William K. Wolfrum from Shakesville and Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones did some digging and concluded back in JUNE AND JULY, respectively, that the whole Eisenstadt thing is a hoax.

Wolfrum unequivocally stated, "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy."

The confusion seems to come from the fact that a Michael Eisenstadt works for the Washington Institute, and is a noted foreign policy expert. He has said publicly he is not M. Thomas Eisenstadt.

MSNBC's David Shuster has admitted it may have been made up, and The New Republic has retracted its post.

This collaboration of information originally comes from The Huffington Post.

In our class, we talk about the importance of not only getting stuff first, but getting it right. How long would it have taken MSNBC and The New Republic to do a bit of research and realize the whole thing was a sham?

Is the nature of modern journalism at fault? Was the need to get the story right sacrificed to get it reported first? Are journalists more susceptible now to these sorts of things than they have been before?