Journalistic Integrity In Action!
I am no fan of the USA Today, unless it is as kindling or litter-box liner, but saw a copy in my office this morning. While having a coffee, I absentmindedly turned to page 2 of what they call their Sports section, and way down in the lower-left corner, I see this:
========================
Corrections & Clarifications
A column Monday by Drew Sharp of the Detroit Free Press included a quote about slavery attributed to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh denied the quote, and USA TODAY has not been able to verify its accuracy.
========================
Look! It's unverified voracity [sic] incarnate!
So much right there that speaks to the current state of print journalism -- i.e., major suckage. The USA TODAY [love the all caps!] sports editors evidently don't love themselves their fact-checking, but not even for a Drew Sharp article?... Really?...
So, is it just me, or is this further evidence that print is turning into TS Eliot's Wasteland?
I am curious what the original Drew Sharp article said, but don't want to ruin my mood. Anyone care to dig up that link to share [*shudder*]?
October 14th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
They're more concerned about what's for lunch down at the corner restaurant.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^
Was the coffee good?
October 14th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
USA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USAUSA USA USA USA
October 14th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^
Did my sarcasm meter malfunction or are you trying to say that anyone who doesn't fact check everything in a Drew Sharp article is committing journalism malpractice?
If not, do you really expect that every print media that reprints an article by a sports writer would fact check every statement?
Does Brian fact-check every link he posts?
Of course not. At least USA Today printed a correction (after I am sure the Rush folks complained).
October 14th, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
...or have your writer do it before submitting it for print.
It is exactly this kind of sloppy work that is eroding the standards of journalistic integrity. There is a huge difference between fact-checking links in an online forum vs. fact-checking an article printed in a national newspaper -- particularly when your job, as an editor, is to ensure that all the statements presented in an article are accurate or can be verified. Simply reprinting an article -- ANY article, no matter who it is written by -- without checking it for accuracy is lazy, slipshod journalism, especially when said article makes a potentially controversial or incendiary statement. That is the definition of journalistic malpractice.
I've been reading this blog for ~3 years now, and I'm pretty sure that Brian, et al., try to get verification or corroboration whenever possible in their posts re: facts or matters of potential controversy. Sure, it may not always be possible, but a self-proclaimed national newspaper sure oughta try.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:14 PM ^
that fact checking, balance and context is what makes them so superior to the village idiots who produce or contribute to blogs. They can not have it both ways.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^
Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Farrior agreed Sunday that nobody with Limbaugh’s litany of incendiary racial comments — Limbaugh once said on his nationally syndicated radio show that slavery “had its merits” — deserves the privilege of owning an NFL franchise.
BTW, Rush has said so many INSANE things, why would any doubt this. He was fired from ESPN for making racist comments.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
But the national discussion hasn’t been centered on things he has said, that’s the problem. The meme being floated around the past few days by lazy journalists and their incompetent editors was the “slavery had its merits” comment. Its origins are from mischievous editing of his Wiki page a few years ago. Some malcontent creates Limbaugh quotes out of thin air and the media perpetuate the myth.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:28 PM ^
He suggested that Donovan McNabb, were it not for media fawning because of his race, would be considered an average quarterback. Agree or disagree, the comment was about media fawning over race. Now let's be straight with ourselves here, Limbaugh is in the business of garnering the largest audience he can and keeping it for as long as he can. And at that, he has been an incredible success. And he has made gazillions. Enough for a guy starting with nothing to be able to buy an NFL team. But in order to to achieve his incredible commercial success he has alienated a whole lot of people. Including a lot of rich and powerful folk who will use this opportunity to extract retribution. I cry not for Rush. Live by the sword die by the sword. And I don't mean Sam Sword.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:14 PM ^
The comments that were corrected by USA Today weren't about McNabb and/or the media. Rush made a comment about McNabb a few years ago when he was on ESPN Sunday Countdown about how the media wanted a successful black quarterback - he was fired later that week. This is in fact true.
There's been a couple of different quotes that have been attributed to Rush that have been questioned - one about how slavery wasn't that bad (which is discussed elsewhere in this topic), and one how the NFL has become the Crips vs. the Bloods without weapons.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^
Jay Z owns part of the New Jersey Nets. His lyrics are quite offensive to almost any group of people you could imagine.
I didn't hear Drew Sharp criticize Jay Z when he made his purchase.
Consistency folks.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
What Jay Z says is "art" whether you agree with that or not, there is room for debate. Rush treats everything he says as fact.
Jay Z doesn't own an NFL team, he owns an NBA team. Also, the NBA players aren't complaining about Jay Z, while the NFL players are complaining about Rush. So there is some merit to the complaints, the players are the product after all.
Drew Sharpe was not complaining about Rush, he was talking about what some NFL players are thinking. There is a difference.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
Point well taken but specifically which lyrics and which groups?
This comparison is barely peripherally sound. At most Jay-Z might be guilty of lionizing ghetto stereotypes and he's laid off of that considerably. Interestingly so have his accolades.
Also, the social commentary of rappers does not garner the consideration that the commentary of Rush Limbaugh & Co. does. As in all artistic endeavors, rappers make heavy use poetic liscense and their lyrics are/should be subject to interrpretation by the audience. Limbaugh specifically requests to be taken "in context" based on the merit/sanity of his arguments and not interpretted (out of context).
October 14th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
If Rush said anything close to some of JayZ's lyrics involving female degradation everyone would be all up in arms about it.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:28 PM ^
Rush Limbaugh wants his opinion and comments to be more significant than Sean Carter's (Jay Z) or any other artist for that matter; doesn't he? American society has granted that wish. Now we're supposed to take that significance as a double standard?
The comparison of Jay Z to Rush Limbaugh is limp at best. One's an entertainer on the side stage, the other is front and center by his own design.
Still waiting on sepcific disparraging lyrics, not to defend them, just to see the context. There's actually a great line, by Jay Z, that gets to this point, "Do you fools listen to music or do you just skim through it?"
If a character in a song is a crack whore, or a bitch, or whatever, how are you supposed to convey that to your audience without saying something that might be disparraging to women? Yeah the language is abbrassive and in your face but there's more to it than that, despite what people might want to beleive.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:37 PM ^
I get what you're saying. My point is that either way, you're reflecting poorly on a league that you own a team in. I mean if anyone actually thinks Rush (as a minority owner) will act on his "racism" and let that negatively effect the Rams/NFL then thats one thing. I don't think people care what JayZ says in his songs b/c it has no impact on the Nets. I mean if JayZ was about to buy a WNBA it would be a better comparison. Thats all I'm saying.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
they all are entertainers trying to garner an audience for profit. Nothing more. Nothing less.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
The important thing here is that Drew Sharp did five seconds of google 'research' and ran with a internet smear of Limbaugh that wasn't true, and no editor took the 2 minutes needed to check on Sharp's main slam of his victim.
The issue is that mainstream sports 'reporters' get away with running untrue statements as if they were checked out and true. Limbaugh, RichRod, it does not matter. They grab something, don't care if it is true, and use it to smear their victim.
Contrast the old media sports with sites like this one. If MGoBlog was to run with an untrue statement it would be dog piled with comments within an hour or so. It would also go away.
Sharp's lie got a small correction hidden away, and now will live forever.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:36 PM ^
Sharp's "lie" was in fact, the truth. If you did 5 minutes of research, you would know that he is referring to comments made by James Farrior.
And as far as the comments in question, I personally heard Rush say something to that effect. I work in construction and Rush is on a lot because his "fans" can't go a single day without listening to him. I was working along side of a friend of mine (who happens to be black) and we both heard what he said and my friend was pretty outraged. I was surprised but not shocked because that is what Rush does. He is a shock jock in the same way Howard Stern is. The only real difference in Stern tries to shock people with sex and Rush tries to shock people with political commentary.
I'm sorry that I can't give you an exact time and date of the comments, though. I forgot my pencil and paper to make notes of what time an idiot radio guy says something stupid. It was quite a while ago, though. Over a year, for sure. I haven't been "fortunate" enough to listen to Limbaugh, since that job ended but it wouldn't surprise me if he said something similar, in more recent shows.