As a kid, I used to read the New York Daily News, and New York Post. I enjoyed the opportunity to learn about my local sports teams from the media members who covered them, and I trusted the information they provided. When a columnist wrote an opinion piece it was clear that it was subjective, and I was able to form my own thoughts based on what I had read.
When I turned on the television, sports anchors like Warner Wolf, Len Berman, Scott Clark, Russ Salzberg, and Sal Marciano, made local sports fun, and informational. Although they each had their own style, and preferences, they relied on the facts to help tell each night’s stories.
Granted, back then things were a lot simpler. There was no internet, social media, a flood of sports radio stations, and the world wasn’t as cynical, and reactionary as it’s become today. We relied on the newspaper, watched the nightly sportscasts, and we trusted the people who reported the news to us.
Maybe I was naive, and things were worse than I knew, but in the 1980’s the broadcasters, and reporters that I supported, didn’t make themselves the story. Instead that honor was reserved for the individuals involved in the games. The focus was placed on what transpired between the lines, rather than what occurred outside of them. Sure there were players who weren’t warm and fuzzy, but the relationship between the media and athletes was cordial. More importantly, the public’s trust in the media was higher.
The inspiration I drew from those sportscasters, and writers, along with the local personalities I listened to on WFAN, led me to pursue a career in broadcasting in 1996. I loved sports, and the passion people felt for them, and the thought of telling a story, and talking about it with an audience, seemed like the greatest job on the planet.
Who wouldn’t want to attend sporting events, form relationships with athletes, coaches, and executives, and report the information back to listeners? I looked forward to attending games, talking to people, and sharing what I learned. I never considered twisting the words of the people I covered, or letting my personal feelings get in the way of the truth. I considered it a responsibility to be factual, and I didn’t feel it was right to manufacture drama.
During my early years, I saw the media change right before my very eyes. I stood at a locker next to Bobby Bonilla when he was with the New York Mets, and famously told a reporter “make your move”. I watched Bill Parcells berate broadcasters who tried to lecture him how he should’ve coached against the Seahawks when he was running the New York Jets. I even witnessed Michael Strahan lose his cool when media members attempted to bait him into saying things to create bigger headlines for upcoming rivalry games.
As these moments unfolded, I sat there wondering why these media members sought to provoke and create additional issues. It wasn’t their job to draw Bonilla, Parcells or Strahan into a fight. They were supposed to be there to ask questions, and report the facts.
The great Walter Kronkite once said “our job is only to hold up the mirror – to tell and show the public what has happened”. But as I discovered, sometimes the truth just isn’t sexy enough.
Without drama, what will the front page of next day’s newspaper say? Will people want to watch a sportscast without some form of controversy? Are people going to call a sports radio station if something doesn’t stir their emotions?
This is the formula that helped make ‘First Take’ successful. It’s why the public gets overloaded with Barry Bonds, Brett Favre, Tim Tebow, and Johnny Manziel stories. We bitch and complain about negativity and controversy, yet stop to watch the car crash. It’s why we flocked to a Mike Tyson fight, but failed to give our full respect to Evander Holyfield who kept doing things the right, and honest way.
While those days in the 90’s were certainly different than what I had experienced in the 80’s, I can’t help but feel like many parts of the media business today are even worse. That’s not to suggest that errors and agendas didn’t occur in the past, but today’s influx of media outlets and the audience’s quest to control situations have led to many more mistakes, irresponsible reports, and agendas aimed to satisfy personal beliefs.
To gain access in the past, you had to work for an established media company, and possess the qualifications necessary to be placed in an important setting. Now press passes are given out like candy on halloween to children. Everyone fancies themselves as a talk show host, and due to the advancement of technology, they are. The launch of a podcast, YouTube page, or website makes you a part of the media machine.
Some of these things are excellent. I love that interest in broadcasting and writing has grown. Audiences deserve to have content options. But somewhere along the line, we became more enamored with being first than being right. Generating web traffic, and social media response, now matters more than presenting stories fairly. Relationships with athletes, coaches, and team executives are quickly fractured because there are media members who won’t hesitate to embarrass someone if it helps them gain favor with their bosses. For each person who treats someone fairly, there are others who don’t. As a result, trust is difficult to gain.
Because agendas have gotten in the way of the information, it’s led athletes to break news on their own social media platforms, websites, or places such as “The Player’s Tribune“. This allows the athlete to tell their side of the story in a safer environment, and while that may annoy various members of the media, it’s partly our own fault.
Last week I read a piece on “The Undefeated” titled “36 Hours in Beast Mode“. Lonnae O’Neal was the reporter. She spent time in Oakland, with Marshawn Lynch and members of his inner circle. Lynch, who’s notorious for saying very little, wasn’t eager to be cooperative because he’d been burned by the media before. If he couldn’t trust O’Neal to present his story fairly, and honestly, why speak at all?
Lynch’s cousin, Quarterback Josh Johnson told O’Neal, “The problem with the media is that you’ve got someone telling your story who doesn’t know you, or where you’re from, or what you’ve been through. On top of that, the story is already written. They just want a couple of quotes to confirm what they want to put out there. It’s a created perception. And the media doesn’t have to live with that perception, we have to live with that perception. It affects our family and friends, the community, and our ability to make money going forward. You flew in here to exploit this story, and now you’re going to go back, where editors can twist our words and faces, and turn them into something unrecognizable. And he’s (Marshawn) not having it”.
As I read those quotes, I couldn’t help but find myself agreeing with him. The reason so much mistrust is in place is because few care about the individual they’re reporting on, only the information they can provide. If a quote can be squeezed out of Lynch to say something negative about Russell Wilson, Pete Carroll, the Seahawks, or Roger Goodell, it’s media gold.
That’s exactly what Al Jazeera and Shaun King of the New York Daily News did to assassinate the character of Peyton Manning. Was the future Hall of Fame Quarterback completely innocent of what he was accused of? Who knows. But why was the story coming up in the first place? It was more than twenty years old.
Secondly, why wasn’t Manning’s side of the story told? Where was the research into the backgrounds of the individuals claiming he had done something wrong? It wasn’t hard to uncover. BSN Media discovered it.
When someone is successful in sports, and relatively clean throughout the majority of their career, many media people are cynical. They’ve been burned before by famous athletes, so they see it as a personal challenge to dig up dirt to knock an individual down. The second they have one small ounce of information, they present it irresponsibly, and with malice and bias.
When these stories come out, public opinion usually sways in favor of the report. That’s terrifying, because it goes against what our society tells us – that we’re innocent until proven guilty. Those words were true when I was growing up, but now people find themselves guilty until proven innocent.
It’s even worse for a professional athlete. If they get accused of something, and don’t sue, the speculation increases immediately. I can recall being in St. Louis when the Mitchell Report came out, and media outlets rushed to judgment on Albert Pujols. Customers at his restaurant were harassed, and the good name he had built as a solid member of the community was stained immediately.
What did Pujols gain when it was discovered that his name wasn’t on the report? An apology? Nope. His big win was banning one local television station from attending his news conference. Doesn’t exactly seem like a fair trade does it?
How about the Duke lacrosse case. Remember that? If you don’t, watch the “30 For 30” on it on ESPN. It’s brilliant.
The public formed quick opinions on the case due to the way the story was presented by the media. The families involved endured public humiliation, and emotional pain, Duke’s head coach was fired, and the three accused men had their reputations permanently damaged.
We later learned that no evidence existed to find any of the men guilty, and a corrupt district attorney seeking re-election, money, and fame, attempted to use the case as a springboard for his professional career. Had numerous members of the media stuck to reporting the facts rather than attempting to be the judge, jury, and executioner, they wouldn’t have been left to eat a healthy heaping of crow.
I’m trying to come to grips with why members of our industry adopt this practice. Why is it that the information is not enough, and we feel a responsibility to tamper with evidence? What happened to allowing the public to form an opinion based on what we know? Are we so thin-skinned that we can’t stomach the thought that the public won’t agree with our point of view?
Here’s another example. The Washington Post conducted a poll to find out how offended Native Americans were by the Washington Redskins team name. In the poll, nine out of ten said they weren’t bothered. The results were similar to a previous study done in 2004.
Why was this a story in the first place? Were Native Americans beating down the doors of the press demanding justice? The team name had been acceptable for the past eighty years, so what changed that made it a larger mainstream issue?
The answer – the media and government. It didn’t matter that the franchise had built its entire image, history, and business around the name for eight decades, or that the majority of Native Americans weren’t offended. Media people and politicians took exception, so they decided to try and flex their muscles and influence the result, rather than report the facts.
Except, it never was their fight in the first place. It wasn’t their job to tell Native Americans how to think or feel or Dan Snyder how to run his business. Other NFL teams, television announcers, analysts, and reporters even started referring to the Redskins as “Washington” on team schedules, and national broadcasts. Did the viewing public request that? Did the team apply for a name change? The answer is no.
We don’t have to agree with it, and we can express our views that we believe things should be done differently, but we don’t make the rules, set the laws, and decide how others consuming our work should feel. It’s our job to present the information, offer both sides, explain where we stand, and let the public figure out how they feel about the issue.
Just last week, the New York Times did a hit piece on Donald Trump because they don’t think he should be our next President. They crafted a story and used quotes from a woman he previously dated (Rowanne Brewer Lane) to present an image of Trump behaving poorly towards women.
Except, Rowanne Brewer Lane quickly took to the television airwaves of MSNBC, and Fox News, and proceeded to destroy the Times for attempting a smear campaign. She mentioned how well Trump had treated her, and how the Times took her words and edited and twisted them to present the narrative that they wanted.
If a Times columnist writes an opinion piece taking Trump to task, that’s acceptable. A columnist is paid to present their opinions. They are essentially the written version of a talk show host. The reader consumes the material that they present, knowing that it’s one person’s point of view. But when news stories are reported, the public expects them to be factual, not altered to support the newspaper editor’s personal preference.
One week prior, a former Facebook employee pointed out how the social media company uses editorial judgment to decide what news you receive in your trending topics. While that may not seem like a huge deal, when the majority of the information provided represents only one side of a story to billions of people, that’s not presenting an even playing field.
If Mark Zuckerberg and his company choose to vote, and live their lives under democratic guidelines, that’s ok. They have that right as Americans. But to attempt to influence thought, belief, and opinion of the public by showcasing only one side of the news, rather than allow them to form their own judgments after seeing both, is wrong.
To Zuckerberg’s credit, he responded quickly, and met with conservatives, and acknowledged that Facebook has to do better. This isn’t about politics, and whether or not republicans or democrats are better, it’s about being fair, balanced, factual, and letting the public decide for themselves.
Media outlets operate like they’re in the middle of a war zone, and social media platforms have become the new battleground. The minute something happens, people rush to Facebook, and Twitter to express their views. What’s frightening is to see how many individuals, and companies overreact due to negative feedback.
Not every situation is defensible. I recognize that there are times where you have to cut bait or punish someone for poor judgment. However, not every situation warrants that. It takes courage to stand by someone during difficult times. But, if you believe they’ve done nothing wrong, be prepared to have their back, even when others might not.
The general public, and professional athletes, coaches, and executives, have become less trusting of the media because of agenda driven reporting. When information is withheld, words are twisted, and judgments are rushed, it’s hard to put faith in reporters.
That’s not what our business is supposed to be about. When you cover a team, athlete, executive, or event, the story can be told by keeping your eyes and ears open, and gathering facts. Your job is to share what you’ve uncovered, and let the audience decide what to think about it.
It may not always be fancy, or create an avalanche of social media activity, but you can’t put a price on sleeping with a clear conscience. Some would rather take a shortcut and advance their career at the expense of those they cover. I believe you can enjoy the same success by earning their trust and respect. In doing so, you may even improve the image and reputation of an industry that few have confidence in.
Jason Barrett is the President and Founder of Barrett Media since the company was created in September 2015. Prior to its arrival, JB served as a sports radio programmer, launching brands such as 95.7 The Game in San Francisco, and 101 ESPN in St. Louis. He also spent time programming SportsTalk 950 in Philadelphia, 590 The Fan KFNS in St. Louis, and ESPN 1340/1390 in Poughkeepsie, NY. Jason also worked on-air and behind the scenes in local radio at 101.5 WPDH, WTBQ 1110AM, and WPYX 106.5. He also spent two years on the national stage, producing radio shows for ESPN Radio in Bristol, CT. Among them included the Dan Patrick Show, and GameNight.
You can find JB on Twitter @SportsRadioPD. He’s also reachable by email at Jason@BarrettMedia.com.
