Ink-stained mirror

Here are the results of a sports media survey in which I recently participated, and which you may find interesting:

* The ethics of most sports media people:

 *43% say ethics are weaker than 5 years ago, 48%-about the same, 9% stronger (ME: Weaker, because the makeup of those under the umbrella of "sports media people" has changed significantly)

 
* Are too many anonymous sources used in sports reporting?

    *69% agree, 32% disagree (ME: Uh, yeah)

 
* Rate the coverage of the Tiger Woods story:

    *54% mediocre, 30% - very solid, 16% - poor (ME: somewhere between poor and very solid, I must have put down poor)

Comments: “To this day, no one really knows what happened and the media let him and his people dictate the interviews.”“Too much smut, too many unsubstantiated rumors, too much reliance on sources with agendas.”


* What is the overall impact of the Internet on sports coverage?

      *53% - mixed, 36% - positive, 11% - negative (ME: mixed)

Comments: “More information, more misinformation.”“Too much emphasis on speed rather than accuracy.” “Increased immediacy and reach. Decreased sense of responsibility.”

 
* Is Twitter considered an important tool for sports reporting?

       *59% - important, 41% - not important (ME: Not important, but I'm a dinosaur whose ways will no doubt be changing soon)

Comments: “It can be used to help drive traffic to your media outlet.”  “For some reason, said sports figures are also more candid on Twitter than elsewhere.” “Social networking is a key part of today’s sports media and, like it or not, this is how many people get their notification of news.”

 
* Is Facebook an important tool for sports reporting?

         *57% - no, 43% - yes (ME: No, and I won't change my mind on that. Love the "cat's breakfast" comment below)

Comments against:  “I don’t think sites such as Twitter/Facebook were meant to be used as reporting tools. Entertainment, yes. Gossip, yes. Facts? Who knows?” “‘Yes’, only if by sports reporting you mean reporting on what the writer’s cat had for breakfast, how the writer feels about it, and how deeply  the writer’s friends sympathize.”

Comments for:  “Contacts can be found and stories broke just by keeping up with college athletes who use the site religiously.” “Creates a wider audience and allows you to know more about your readers.”

 

* Are networks or web sites owned by leagues or teams credible sources of information?

*53% - yes, 47% - no (ME: No, and I'm appalled that 53 percent said yes. I mean, they're fine for some things, but not for everything. Obviously. I thought.)

 Comments: “They will give you some very good stuff, but anything involving controversy of a player or team will not be reported.” “…there’s no impartiality or accountability involved, hence no credibility.” “There is a certain amount of independence, but in the end the team owns the information.”

 
* What is your biggest ethical concern related to sports media?

 1.-- pressure to be first with breaking stories (especially on the Internet) leads to inaccurate reports- “The rush to get the story on air or in print before it’s confirmed.” “Value of credible journalism vs. the # of page views.”

 2. -- reporting by bloggers without journalistic credentials- ”Too many guys blogging from their bathroom without really knowing what’s going on or having access to people who do.”

 3. -- coverage of tabloid/gossip stories on the sports beat-“The tabloid culture that is starting to take over the sports world.” “I think we’ve become way, way, way too TMZ…”

Another concern: conflicts of interest

-- involving reporters with multiple jobs, including business relationships with players, owners or coaches they’re covering

-- involving media companies that have relationships with leagues and players that may compromise the delivery of impartial coverage 

(ME: I agree with all of it, don't recall how I ranked them, but 1, 2 and 3 all are valid concerns. TMZ, indeed).

These results are based on a Montclair State University Internet survey of 111 sports media professionals during June -July 2010 collected through SurveyMonkey.com  

    So there you have it, and this reminds me that I was going to unload about 10,000 words on you about media coverage in light of the Izzo-Cavs story, and never did. One of these days. There's much to be said. In the meantime, there must be a way to parlay this into a top-10 list ... press boxes in the Big Ten ... press box food ... least-ethical journalists ... worst-smelling journalists ... OK, how about Ten Sportswriters I Like To Read And You Should Too (close friends in the business excluded):

    1. Gary Smith, Sports Illustrated. Unmatched story telling, in my mind.

    2. Frank DeFord, Sports Illustrated. Almost unmatched story telling.

    3. Jason Whitlock, FoxSports.com. In one word: Fearless.

    4. Bob Ryan, Boston Globe. The best basketball writer in America.

    5. Jackie MacMullan, ESPN. Also for the hoops junkies, and for the good writing junkies.

    6. David Jones, Harrisburg Patriot-News. As I've said before, the Frank Zappa of Big Ten media.

    7. Gregg Doyel, CBS Sports. Sometimes way off base, sometimes right on point, always compelling.

    8. Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! A columnist who takes reporting seriously.

    9. Tracee Hamilton, The Washington Post. Rising star, better than much bigger names at same outpost.

    10. Pat Forde, ESPN. See No. 8. A columnist who continues to report.