How do we hold reporters responsible for their shitty reporting?

Submitted by Jaqen H'ghar on
Not trying to count our chickens before they hatch, but all these people in the media (Rapoport, Kawakami, Schefter, Cowherd, etc) should have to eat major crow if/when this happens. It seems like nowadays they can just spew anything to the public and erase it a couple days later with "my sources said he was LEANING to the NFL not 100%." How do we hold them publicly accountable? More pieces like Ace's main page story come to mind
 
At the least we can indicate to others who's "sources" (in this case it seems opinions) are and are not reliable. It would have been great to know this ahead of time because then we could have just dismissed Schefter and Rapoport's garbage from the start.

Bluesnu

December 23rd, 2014 at 2:37 PM ^

It's pretty easy.  Don't click.

 

At the end of the day, reporters are measured by how many views they get.  Websites like ESPN, SI, CBSSports, etc., are no different than Facebook.  They earn revenue based on advertisements which are priced off of views and clicks. 

Don't pander to them by clicking on their articles, now or in the future.  They don't care if they are right or wrong.  They only care if they get you to read their article, because that determines their value to their employer.  Moreover, the more people who click and read these dumb articles only encourage this type of behavior. 

Especially when someone posts the article in MgoBlog, just read that person's synopsis or the comments to get a good grasp on the article instead of going to the article directly. 

charblue.

December 23rd, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^

If you don't like a TV show or you find it incredible, meaning not realistic or relevant to you, you don't watch. If you don't like Cowherd, you don't pay attention to what he says.

If you don't like a writer, you don't read him or her. I mean, really, what do you do? You tune out. If you want to challenge their work that's different than seeking an answer to such an elementary question.

What you are really asking, is how do we show our displeasure with those whose reporting disappoints us. But you have to be on pretty firm ground to question somebody's motives for reporting certain information. The game reporters play isn't unlike what many others do in their respective businesses to get by and satisfy public need, customer demand or quality contrrol. And if you contend otherwise, I will tell you that the compromises business makes to satisfy those who impact their bottom line, goes way beyond what a journalist is willing to do to get a story.

You only think you can tell when someone is bullshitting you, when someone else makes that case unless you've been around and know what bullshit looks like when it's spewed. Cowherd is a regular bullshitter without equal.

gvsujulius

December 23rd, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^

Unfortunately because these guys are considered "experts" the majority of people will believe what they have to say. I was having a conversation with someone the other day telling how MGogblog has been 3-4 days ahead of all the "expert" reporting and they said no... ESPN and SI would know quicker than some blog. 



I am sure every fanbase deals with this when they are as invested as the Michigan fan base is with this coaching search. 

GotBlueOnMyMind

December 23rd, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^

I would be amenable to this ff they had said something along the lines of: "I have a feeling that it will turn out like this..." or "the parties involved are keeping a tight lid on it, but my guess would be...". Instead they stated that they had a "source(s)" who told what Harbaugh had done and that Michigan knew it had no shot, despite plenty of evidence existing that Michigan did think it had a shot. They claimed they were in the know, and should lose credibility for overstating their knowledge. 

mikoyan

December 23rd, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^

I honestly don't get it.  It seems like most NFL teams have a coaching carousel and your average coach lasts 3 years at the most.  Granted there are a couple of exceptions (Pittsburgh comes to mind) but for the most part, the coach is the easiest thing to get rid of when you are trying to show "improvement".

mikoyan

December 23rd, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^

I honestly don't get it.  It seems like most NFL teams have a coaching carousel and your average coach lasts 3 years at the most.  Granted there are a couple of exceptions (Pittsburgh comes to mind) but for the most part, the coach is the easiest thing to get rid of when you are trying to show "improvement".

Tater

December 23rd, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^

MGoAct nalied it.  Even when they are wrong, they are so good at making excuses for it that people believe they were never wrong.  They can say, for example, "Our sources are right 99% of the time, but they were wrong on this one."  

When you combine the short attention span and memory of the publiic with a Master's Degree in Rationalization, it adds up to no consequences for those who are dead wrong.  They just move on to the next story and trust us to forget all about their mistakes.

FreddieMercuryHayes

December 23rd, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^

The only way is to not consume what they're writing.  Like don't read their articles or anything from who they work for.  But that's how we got here.  Most work for giant organizations like ESPN, SI, NFL Network and people still want to read stuff from those places.  Thus there is no accountability because other better writiers cover up for the crappy ones.  And hurting the bottom line for those types of organizations is the only way to actually make a difference.

Auerbach

December 23rd, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^

Most of these asshats are pretty sensitive to criticism and will respond if you criticize them on Twitter. I've gotten plenty of defensive responses from Michael Rosenberg for tweeting that his readers should check out the terrible Amazon reviews of a certain book he wrote about a certain 10-year war. You can draw them out when you criticize them publicly. 

With that said, I'm still reluctant to buy into "It's Happening." I hope like hell that it is but when you clear away the internet speculation there's too many things that weigh in favor of him not coming here. Prove me wrong Jim!

Auerbach

December 23rd, 2014 at 2:24 PM ^

Not relevant. Michigan was a  pretty clean program too, but that didn't matter to Rosenberg. He could have called up Bill Martin like a good, loyal alumni and said "Hey Bill, I think our new coach isn't accounting for practice time properly. You should look into that." Instead, he decided to use the info to throw Michigan under the bus and advance his own career. 

bjk

December 23rd, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^

that this us still the top-rated five-star comment:

I was given this book as a gift for my constipated dog Messner. He circled it twice before settling down and relieving himself for the first time in days. We plan on picking up a case of these.

I hope we never see a replay of Rosenberg's privileged one-on-one interview with Hoke from last August. MR should be banished from Schembechler Hall.

JClay

December 23rd, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^

I don't care about holding people acocuntable because... good lord, it's sports "journalism."

But I do think you're going to see, if Harbaugh comes, all of these guys (especially Cowherd) simply reframe their argument. It won't be "Harbaugh won't go to Michigan," it'll be "this is a dumb decision on Harbaugh's part," which is an utterly subjective opinion that they cannot be PROVEN false on. It's Cowherd 101: say something is going to happen and when it doesn't, simply change your argument from a will-they-or-won't-they to "this is why someone is dumb to do the thing I said they wouldn't."

If I had a $1 for everytime one of these guys would do this following a hypothetical Harbaugh hiring... well, I'd have a few hundred dollars.

Magnum P.I.

December 23rd, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^

I think significant media outlets like Brian and MGoBlog calling them out actually does make a difference.



I think someone could start a popular website for sports fan that keeps stats on how accurate sports reporters are, or at least keeps tabs on guys who are completely making shit up. Could call it "The Shit List." Kind of like an Angie's List or Yelp for sports reporters.

Ray

December 23rd, 2014 at 2:02 PM ^

For a few of them (still giving one or two benefit of the doubt). But in some cases (Kawakami) the ignorance has clearly been willful.

That doesn't answer the OP's question of what to do--because there isn't much to do, except be (even more) skeptical of the national media.

HarbaughToMichigan

December 23rd, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^

This is their job.  They are paid tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do it.  They suck at it.  They won't admit when they are wrong.  And they are snide and condescending to Michigan fans.  

We just need to make a database of all the asshatery each has throw out over the past few weeks.  That way we can easily search for, retrieve, and tweet back the nonsense they spewed during this search any other time they lie and say some "source" told them something.  Modern "journalism" is a joke.  95% of it (sport or otherwise) is quesswork and basing guesses off of Twitter from random trolls.

Or, at worst, they are plagiarizers like Adam Shefter who simply steals others' information and tweets it out like they discovered it through their own "sources".  Case in point: http://awfulannouncing.com/2012-articles/jay-glazer-learns-he-may-in-fa…

Truly a disgusting and disreputable industry whose propogators deserve to be called out and shamed for their incompetence.