Rooting for Stories, not Teams

[The Emperor]

This is a direct quote from Peter King's piece in Sports Illustrated's Dallas Cowboys: 50 years of Football.

It's on page 10. The context comes from his time covering the Giants for Newsday. Here's the complete paragraph:

"When I began covering the Giants in 1985 for a New York paper, Newsday, my love-for-the-Giants-hate-the-Cowboys heritage disappeared in about two weeks. I began rooting for stories, not for a team. [My emphasis added.] Bill Parcells... couldn't understand that. He thought I was a subversive."

To me, that validates Hostile's last thread. To me, that's the ideology the DFW mediots adhere to: root for stories, not the Cowboys.

I know I run a little garbage radio show no one listens to, but even if I do get to the point where I could have mediots on my show, I don't want them. They don't have the same interests we, the fans, have. The only times those palookas are hurting is when their checkbooks are out of balance, not when our W-L column is out of balance.

Some can blame the internets for this. Others can blame the economic downturn and failed business models. Whatever the case, I know I get more accurate coverage and opinions on my Cowboys here at the Zone than any other place on the Net. The spin really does stop here.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

This is common in the media. They want to pump a narrative as much as they can, particularly the TV media. Even if it's completely and utterly false, they'll try to stick to that narrative until they can't anymore or a new narrative pops up.

Doesn't make a difference if it's sports, religiion, politics, entertainment, etc...they love their narratives.








YR

 

[tyke1doe]

This is a direct quote from Peter King's piece in Sports Illustrated's Dallas Cowboys: 50 years of Football.

It's on page 10. The context comes from his time covering the Giants for Newsday. Here's the complete paragraph:

"When I began covering the Giants in 1985 for a New York paper, Newsday, my love-for-the-Giants-hate-the-Cowboys heritage disappeared in about two weeks. I began rooting for stories, not for a team. [My emphasis added.] Bill Parcells... couldn't understand that. He thought I was a subversive."

To me, that validates Hostile's last thread. To me, that's the ideology the DFW mediots adhere to: root for stories, not the Cowboys.

I know I run a little garbage radio show no one listens to, but even if I do get to the point where I could have mediots on my show, I don't want them. They don't have the same interests we, the fans, have. The only times those palookas are hurting is when their checkbooks are out of balance, not when our W-L column is out of balance.

Some can blame the internets for this. Others can blame the economic downturn and failed business models. Whatever the case, I know I get more accurate coverage and opinions on my Cowboys here at the Zone than any other place on the Net. The spin really does stop here.

And that's a bad thing?

I thought you guys wanted the media not to be bias?

You're not supposed to be a homer and cover a team for a daily newspaper.

 

[The Emperor]

And that's a bad thing?

I thought you guys wanted the media not to be bias?

You're not supposed to be a homer and cover a team for a daily newspaper.

Do I have to detail it for you to see the inverse? They're still biased. The difference is they root for negative stories.

Whatever happened to journalists rooting for facts?

 

[tyke1doe]

Do I have to detail it for you to see the inverse? They're still biased. The difference is they root for negative stories.

Whatever happened to journalists rooting for facts?

What are you talking about?

Peter King says that he roots for stories not teams. Stories are both positive and negative.

Presenting both positive and negative stories is being objective.

Second, I don't think you understand the evolution of journalism and reporting.

One of the reasons why negative stories are presented is because it reflects an aspect of life. Not everything in life is positive.

Furthermore, in an era where only positive stories were reenforced, the public would get burned, media outlets presenting a rosy picture of a person, an organization, a league when that wasn't the case.

Negative stories are borne out of a skeptical public.

But I don't understand what that has to do with King saying he pursues the story and doesn't root for his favorite team.

 

[tyke1doe]

For the record, of course Bill Parcells is going to get mad. Parcells, like anyone who is in authority, wants control over every aspect of things pertaining to the Giants (he did as Giants coach). So Parcells likely considered King an ally - someone who would be his mouthpiece. King, however, understanding he is a journalist, knows he can't do his job well if he doesn't report both the good and bad associated with the Giants organization.

You can't be a homer and maintain objectivity. I've seen first hand how journalists become too close to the people/organization they cover and fail to do their jobs.

Remember, the whole Jesse Jackson "Hymie town" comment. It was made in front of a black reporter - a so-called "of the record" comments that are made frequently when you're talking to sources. Milton Coleman (whom I've met) felt it was important enough to reveal because Jackson was running for the POTUS and that information was vital to understanding the man who wanted to represent the country.

Coleman was castigated by certain segments of the black community for being a "traitor."

But Coleman was pursuing the "story" not the "team" - in this case being partial to a black man running for president because he (Coleman) is black and should understand the historical nature of Jackson's campaign.

If you're a Cowboys homer, you're not going to necessarily have the ability to fairly assess the organization. You're going to have to lose that to some degree if you want to accurately and objectively assess the Cowboys organization. That's what a newspaper our major, mainstream publication would expect.

I don't know if a lot of posters around here could do that, though.

 

[Risen Star]

For the record, of course Bill Parcells is going to get mad. Parcells, like anyone who is in authority, wants control over every aspect of things pertaining to the Giants (he did as Giants coach). So Parcells likely considered King an ally - someone who would be his mouthpiece. King, however, understanding he is a journalist, knows he can't do his job well if he doesn't report both the good and bad associated with the Giants organization.

You can't be a homer and maintain objectivity. I've seen first hand how journalists become too close to the people/organization they cover and fail to do their jobs.

Remember, the whole Jesse Jackson "Hymie town" comment. It was made in front of a black reporter - a so-called "of the record" comments that are made frequently when you're talking to sources. Milton Coleman (whom I've met) felt it was important enough to reveal because Jackson was running for the POTUS and that information was vital to understanding the man who wanted to represent the country.

Coleman was castigated by certain segments of the black community for being a "traitor."

But Coleman was pursuing the "story" not the "team" - in this case being partial to a black man running for president because he (Coleman) is black and should understand the historical nature of Jackson's campaign.

If you're a Cowboys homer, you're not going to necessarily have the ability to fairly assess the organization. You're going to have to lose that to some degree if you want to accurately and objectively assess the Cowboys organization. That's what a newspaper our major, mainstream publication would expect.

I don't know if a lot of posters around here could do that, though.

Outstanding post.

 

[The Emperor]

What are you talking about?

Peter King says that he roots for stories not teams. Stories are both positive and negative.

Presenting both positive and negative stories is being objective.

What about when you present an imbalance of negative stories because you know those sell more clicks? The fact the average schmuck Dallas fan out there thinks Romo is a "choker" despite the facts detailing his clutch performances is proof the DFW mediots aren't objective.

Second, I don't think you understand the evolution of journalism and reporting.

One of the reasons why negative stories are presented is because it reflects an aspect of life. Not everything in life is positive.

Yeah, an aspect. But the mediots try to use that aspect to represent the whole.

Furthermore, in an era where only positive stories were reenforced, the public would get burned, media outlets presenting a rosy picture of a person, an organization, a league when that wasn't the case.

Oh, like they do with the Cheatriots?

Negative stories are borne out of a skeptical public.

Or a reporter with a grudge or knows what sells. Nah, I'm being too cynical there.

But I don't understand what that has to do with King saying he pursues the story and doesn't root for his favorite team.

Look at it in relation to our DFW mediots and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[The Emperor]

For the record, of course Bill Parcells is going to get mad. Parcells, like anyone who is in authority, wants control over every aspect of things pertaining to the Giants (he did as Giants coach). So Parcells likely considered King an ally - someone who would be his mouthpiece. King, however, understanding he is a journalist, knows he can't do his job well if he doesn't report both the good and bad associated with the Giants organization.

You can't be a homer and maintain objectivity. I've seen first hand how journalists become too close to the people/organization they cover and fail to do their jobs.

Remember, the whole Jesse Jackson "Hymie town" comment. It was made in front of a black reporter - a so-called "of the record" comments that are made frequently when you're talking to sources. Milton Coleman (whom I've met) felt it was important enough to reveal because Jackson was running for the POTUS and that information was vital to understanding the man who wanted to represent the country.

Coleman was castigated by certain segments of the black community for being a "traitor."

But Coleman was pursuing the "story" not the "team" - in this case being partial to a black man running for president because he (Coleman) is black and should understand the historical nature of Jackson's campaign.

If you're a Cowboys homer, you're not going to necessarily have the ability to fairly assess the organization. You're going to have to lose that to some degree if you want to accurately and objectively assess the Cowboys organization. That's what a newspaper our major, mainstream publication would expect.

I don't know if a lot of posters around here could do that, though.

You can't be a hater and maintain objectivity either. And you can't be objective when you know negative stories, whether corroborated or not, sell advertising space. That's endemic of the DFW mediots. That's my point.

 

[The Emperor]

Let me just say I don't care how the national media covers the Cowboys. I really don't. It's been proven with other teams too that they're too outside to really know anything. It's the local media here with which I am jaundiced. Can we narrow the scope? Does that help?

 

[THUMPER]

The problem isn't that mediots are "rooting for stories" it is that they are looking for controversy rather than an actual sports story. They have become tabloid journalists and paparazzi looking for that quick hit to draw in viewers and they are not above making stuff up if it suits their purposes, using the old "unnamed source" or "a source close to the team" which could be a janitor voicing his opinion.

True journalism is a thing of the past. Doing research, verifying facts, and reporting the game are no longer what sells. It's all about entertainment and making the mediot the center of the story.

You can thank ESPN, Chris Berman, and Sportscenter for most of this. Quick hits, highlights, and attempting to draw the attention to the face on the screen rather than to the game, is what it's all about now. ESPN isn't about reporting sports news it is about entertainment and tabloid journalism.

 

[The Emperor]

The problem isn't that mediots are "rooting for stories" it is that they are looking for controversy rather than an actual sports story. They have become tabloid journalists and paparazzi looking for that quick hit to draw in viewers and they are not above making stuff up if it suits their purposes, using the old "unnamed source" or "a source close to the team" which could be a janitor voicing his opinion.

True journalism is a thing of the past. Doing research, verifying facts, and reporting the game are no longer what sells. It's all about entertainment and making the mediot the center of the story.

You can thank ESPN, Chris Berman, and Sportscenter for most of this. Quick hits, highlights, and attempting to draw the attention to the face on the screen rather than to the game, is what it's all about now. ESPN isn't about reporting sports news it is about entertainment and tabloid journalism.

Outstanding post.

 

[gimmesix]

Let me just say I don't care how the national media covers the Cowboys. I really don't. It's been proven with other teams too that they're too outside to really know anything. It's the local media here with which I am jaundiced. Can we narrow the scope? Does that help?

I think what you and tyke1doe are talking about are separate things, partly borne out of you using King's point to make a different point.

King is right. As a journalist, you should not let bias (rooting for a team) affect the story. You look for the story, whether that's for or against the team, and write it. Coaches/fans do not like that because they always want you to write positive things about their teams.

The argument you are making is the local media is always rooting for certain stories — the negative or controversial ones — instead of looking for the real story.

Although I don't think that's always true, I do think there is an overall tendency for them to follow along like sheep with what the national media, particularly ESPN's talking heads, are reporting these days. If they say Romo is a choker, for instance, than the local media, for the most part, is going to jump all over moments when Romo fails and not dig deeper to present stats/facts we've seen here, etc.

To me, it comes down to lazy reporting and a mass media attitude (writers go with the flow wherever that leads them). Fortunately, some break off on occasion, but it does not happen enough.

 

[tyke1doe]

What about when you present an imbalance of negative stories because you know those sell more clicks? The fact the average schmuck Dallas fan out there thinks Romo is a "choker" despite the facts detailing his clutch performances is proof the DFW mediots aren't objective.

First, how do you know reporters are presenting negative stories to sell more clicks? Is this your assumption or is this fact? And if it's fact, please show me a statement by some reporter that is doing so for profit.

Second, some things are a matter of perspective. It is a fact that Romo has choked in big games. It is also fact that he has won games for the Cowboys in the closing minutes. What fans like you don't seem to understand is that the Cowboys are measured by a different standard. If you're the quarterback of the Detroit Lions or the Cleveland Browns, no one is really calling you a "choker" because your team isn't known for winning big games. The Cowboys are. So you have to understand situations from the broader context.

The same reason the Cowboys are America's Team is the same reason their players are going to be criticized more heavily than other teams' players. But, here again, the Dallas media covers the Cowboys because they're in Dallas. I'm sure fans of other teams have the same criticism about the media in their towns with respect to their teams.

Yeah, an aspect. But the mediots try to use that aspect to represent the whole.

I disagree. You will see positive stories about players as well as negative stories. I think Cowboys fans are more aware of the negative stories.
Besides that, the Cowboys haven't been to the Super Bowl since the 90s. Why do you expect the majority of the coverage to be positive when the Cowboys haven't given the media anything positive on the field? Remember, this franchise is used to winning Super Bowls not moral victories.

Oh, like they do with the Cheatriots?

Or a reporter with a grudge or knows what sells. Nah, I'm being too cynical there.

Reporters laugh at suggestions that they write negative stories to sell more newspapers. That's a perception that comes from the movies, but is really not based in reality. We don't get a penny more for a story being on front page.

Second, how do you know a reporter has a grudge? Again, what are your facts?

Look at it in relation to our DFW mediots and you'll see what I'm talking about.

This doesn't really tell me anything. What DFW reporter has made a statement they write negative stories because they sell more newspapers?

 

[tyke1doe]

You can't be a hater and maintain objectivity either. And you can't be objective when you know negative stories, whether corroborated or not, sell advertising space. That's endemic of the DFW mediots. That's my point.

You seem big into facts. So do you mind sharing with me some facts to back up your claim? Did a DMN reporter or FWST reporter say they do negative stories to sell advertising space? If you can produce some evidence to substantiate your claim, I'll concede your argument. So far, it appears you're working off your assumptions.

Second, stories don't sell advertising space? Advertising in newspapers have nothing to do with story selection and vice versa. It is driven by general circulation but not individual stories.

 

[tyke1doe]

The problem isn't that mediots are "rooting for stories" it is that they are looking for controversy rather than an actual sports story. They have become tabloid journalists and paparazzi looking for that quick hit to draw in viewers and they are not above making stuff up if it suits their purposes, using the old "unnamed source" or "a source close to the team" which could be a janitor voicing his opinion.

Have you worked in journalism? Do you work in journalism?
I have. I do.
You don't get far making up sources. Newspapers - burned by the Janet Cooke and Jason Blair incidents - have their own internal policies as it relates to unnamed sources.
A journalist will not go very far fabricating sources because they'll eventually be discovered.
And you'd be surprised how freely players talk to reporters if they trust them not to reveal their names. I deal with sources on a daily basis (not sports related but more politicallly related) who tell me things off the record they would never want to be quoted on the record for. People are generally talkative and like to talk about others, unfortunately. Players are no exception. Besides, they use the press too.

True journalism is a thing of the past. Doing research, verifying facts, and reporting the game are no longer what sells. It's all about entertainment and making the mediot the center of the story.

I will agree with you that there's been a fundamental shift to more entertainment news, more celebrity reporting. I don't necessarily care for many of the stories. but those stories are being fueled by a demanding public. It's the way of the world, unfortunately. Everyone gets upset about it, but everyone reads it.

You can thank ESPN, Chris Berman, and Sportscenter for most of this. Quick hits, highlights, and attempting to draw the attention to the face on the screen rather than to the game, is what it's all about now. ESPN isn't about reporting sports news it is about entertainment and tabloid journalism.

Actually, I would say that ESPN was forced into it because the public demands it. ESPN didn't used to be involved in such stories. But as the interest for more off-field stories grew, so did the need to seek out those stories. I think ESPN does a good job balancing such stories, which is why they do player features on many of their shows. And many of those stories are positive stories.

As for the negative stories, it goes back to an old journalism adage - Dog bites man = not news; man bites dog = news.

When people do positive things, unless they're extremely, out-of-the-ordinary positive, they're likely not going to make stories because we assume people are supposed to do positive things. When players with privilege act outside of what we expect, that makes news.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. So you're not going to see on the news segment of Sports Center positive stories about Cowboys feeding the poor, unless that's on the Sunday Morning Countdown program. You are going to see an arrest or something negative because that's not supposed to happen, and it's a part of the accountability process.

 

[Idgit]

Sorry, but just because people want to eat at McDonalds, it doesn't mean that salty carbohydrate-laden fat is legitimate food. If people have an appetite for crap, it's still crap.

And what's changed is not that journalists are looking for stories and not rooting for teams: that's as it always has been, or as it should be. What's changed is what's considered a story. The percentage of content has shifted so heavily towards editorial content, that the extra work required to source or investigate an actual story starts to get prohibitive. It's a lot easier to do a segment on whether or not Romo's likely to choke than it is to investigate what changes he made after the DET game that cut his turnover rates so dramatically. One requires a couple digs and leading questions aimed at getting a reaction, the other requires actually talking to sources and/or actually investigating what has changed. If your audience doesn't distinguish, it's a lot easier to do the editorial bit.

And that's the big reason why an audience should distinguish. You're feeding us crap. We know it, we're not supposed to like it. We're not going to give you a pass for it just because it's easy.

 

[Zaxor]

my idea of good and bad

Good: This was a matchup of the best in the NFC East between the Cowboys and the Giants and the game proved to be just that as both teams layed it all out on the field and it was close ,oh so close...

Bad: The Cowboys lost what is the matter with their (fill in the blank)

we see, hear and read mostly bad. imho

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

but even if I do get to the point where I could have mediots on my show, I don't want them. They don't have the same interests we, the fans, have. The only times those palookas are hurting is when their checkbooks are out of balance, not when our W-L column is out of balance.

I really agree with this paragraph.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Sorry, but just because people want to eat at McDonalds, it doesn't mean that salty carbohydrate-laden fat is legitimate food. If people have an appetite for crap, it's still crap.

Mindless media consumption.

And that's the big reason why an audience should distinguish. You're feeding us crap. We know it, we're not supposed to like it. We're not going to give you a pass for it just because it's easy.

Most audiences, generally speaking, and not for everyone of course, are too lazy to investigate the story on their own. That's why I call it mindless consumption. It's in all sorts of media as the intended reaction of the audience, whether it be sports, politics or which restaurant you think is great.