Teddy Greenstein today rationalizes the apparently incorrect "scoop" that ESPN reporter Tim Kurkjian had about the Alphonso Soriano trade. He explains how Kurkjian ran with the report based on what one source told him. Greenstein's key line in his article is this one: "One of the challenges is figuring out which sources to trust." With all due respect to the young journalist Teddy, I think he's wrong. I think the most important challenge is to not report anything that hasn't been verified by two or more independent sources.

Therein lies the rub. When I matriculated in journalism school 30 years ago, and during my cub reporter days in the 70s, one of the cardinal rules of reporting was that you needed THREE sources to verify and validate the accuracy of any investigative story or "scoop". Editors demanded it. That gradually changed to two sources after the Woodward-Bernstein era. Then, with the rise of around-the-clock cable news in the 80s, the race to be first became more important than accuracy. Many media gradually removed their independent sourcing requirement. The most important requirement was to be first. Today, independent sourcing of stories is considered by many in the biz as an arcane axiom of another era. Many reporters race rumors onto the air or into print, rather than validating their accuracy with independent sources. As a result, we get a lot more inaccurate reporting than we used to get. Kurkjian is just another in a growing line of journalists doing incomplete work. That's progress? Keep it.

----------
ESPN reporter regrets Soriano 'scoop'
Published July 28, 2006

Extremely close?

Ozzie Guillen is extremely close to his sons. U.S. Cellular Field is extremely close to the footprint of the old Comiskey Park. Chicago is extremely close to its next heat wave.

But unfortunately for ESPN's Tim Kurkjian—and, perhaps, White Sox fans—"extremely close" no longer applies to the team's prospects for snagging Alfonso Soriano in a trade.

Kurkjian uttered those words Monday. Now he wishes he hadn't.

"I felt comfortable that the White Sox were serious players [for Soriano], even if just for a day," Kurkjian said Thursday. "But if I had to do it again, I would have worded it as serious interest, not extremely close."

Kurkjian's a terrific reporter, and he has been covering baseball for 25 years. But even he hates the countdown to the July 31 trading deadline.

"I don't sleep well this time of year," he said. "It's very, very uneasy."

One of the challenges is figuring out which sources to trust.

"There's so much misinformation out there," he said. "You get something from a general manager and then call another GM with that piece of information, and he says: 'Where did you get that? It's not even close.'"

When a source told him the Sox were on the verge of landing Soriano from Washington, Kurkjian filed a television report that ESPN.com picked up.

"I think what [the report] did was establish that the Sox were indeed seriously interested, which I don't think had been out there," Kurkjian said. "But clearly my source took it too far, and I did too."

Kurkjian, who no longer believes the deal will be completed, fears his source might have been using him in an effort to boost Soriano's value.

For example, say the Tigers and Sox are interested in Soriano. If the Tigers believe the Sox are close to landing him, they might improve their offer. That would benefit both the Nationals and the Sox.

"It's a really, really bad feeling to think that someone you're dealing with is telling you something just to force another team to do something," Kurkjian said. "But it happens every day."

Kurkjian quickly rebounded after the Soriano story. He broke the news that the Sox had acquired Kansas City reliever Mike MacDougal.

"At least I had that right," he said.

So you raise an interesting question C2C, with all of the journalists trying to one up one another, is it ok that they report news that can't be fully substantiated when it comes to signings, trades and other activities.

I live by the mantra "Sometimes, it's easier to say I'm sorry and ask for forgiveness than ask for permission" Do reporters get to live by the same idea? As long as they have one source, it seems plausible to me.

C2C, completely understood. On a whole, journalists should have as many facts as possible for serious life events. You raise an interesting point in regards to troops.

What are your thoughts on having reporters on the battle lines with the troops? I can think back to the first Iraqi conflict and the only real information that was available was from the Pentagon and some CNN reports. Yes, you wished for more to know how the troops were doing, but at the same time, you had enough to know if they were succeeding in their cause. This time around, i feel we are receiving too much information that any person watching TV could know where all of our troops are sitting, where they are planning to go and staffing levels.

I'm not trying to turn this in a political discussion about the war, but want to discuss the amount of coverage that is proper in war.

FOR SOME REASON THIS POSTED IN FRONT OF YOUR POST C2C!

Your mantra makes a lot of sense in many areas of life, Vince. I don't think it should be applied to something so important as journalism. Incorrect reports of sports signings and trades etc. are somewhat trivial in the grand scheme of things. However, the growing acceptance of this practice in newsrooms can have dangerous ramifications in other areas. There have been many incorrect news reports (based on one unsubstantiated opinion) that have put soldiers at war, and others in various situations, in unnecessary danger. When a journalist's inaccuracy puts people at risk or costs a human life, it's a price not worth paying.

I'm not an expert on war reporting, Vince, so I'll have to take a pass on that. Generally, more coverage is better than less...even in wartime. I do think it takes a special level of responsibility on the part of the reporter though...particularly when giving out information about the locations and strategies of troops.

I do see many examples of incomplete media reporting putting people at risk in other areas of society though. Here are a few examples related to auto safety. 1)A lot of teenagers are dying in car crashes. There are some proven solutions to the problem. Yet some reporters have written stories citing supposed "experts" touting unproven or unsound solutions ranging from the trivial to the counter-productive and dangerous. Had these reporters interviewed three or more "experts" from a broader spectrum of viewpoints, they would have gotten a broader view of the issue and solutions. Since they only interviewed one, parents and teens received an incomplete and somewhat dangerous view of the problem and solutions. Part of the ongoing problem with teen driving is that too few parents know exactly what they need to do to make their kids safer. And that's due in part to lousy reporting on the issue. (Though the Trib is now doing a good job on this issue). 2) During the debate over a hands-free cell phone ban in Chicago, few media reports covered the science of the issue...that hands-free phones have the same risk as hand-held and thus hands-free may actually increase the risk if people make more hands-free calls than they would without a headpiece. Too many media reports cited the opinions and intuition of politicians, rather than the science. As a result, many people wrongly believe hands-free is safer than hand-held. They are making more calls and exposing themselves more to the hazard. That's a dangerous assumption borne out of incomplete reporting.

What is the fascination with "breaking news stories" anyway?

If you uncover something that's being kept secret, that's one thing. But, "breaking" the story that the Sox got MacDougal? How is that "breaking" a story? Both teams probably announced it 5 minutes later.

Coast


then again, there once was a time when being a journalist may have meant something.


How in the hell did we get from Woodward et. al to Ron Magers doing some news story about a new movie from Disney or some other product placement bullshit.


what can ya do

sabu

Am I the only person who posts here who has not had some involvement in the media industry?

Oooops, almost forgot...Coast, in response to your getting out of school 30 years ago------old man!

No.

_________________
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." ~ H.L. Mencken

I'm with you gd - the closest I've gotten is turning on my car stereo...

_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. ~ Benjamin Franklin

I love coming to this site. It's the only place in the world where I'm called "old". And as I was driving home last week, I heard Mac talking about somebody barely over 50 (I forget whom) and he called the guy "on the back nine of life".

Damn. I suppose I'm statistically closer to a dirt nap than most of you guys. But the plumbing still works. I'm not peeing all over myself quite yet. I may be on the back nine, but I'm hopeful there are thousands more golf holes on the back nine than there were on the front nine.

I made numerous appearances on Elk Grove Cable Channel 6 baseball games of the week prior to age 14, but since I have been shunned by the media.

_________________

Sorry EG, I should have remembered my media past. I asked a question on the Ditka show, I was on Bozo Circus, I was in the backround in a picture in the Sun Times and I pinch ran in an early round game of the state baseball tournament that was televised.