Blog Maverick’s Mark Cuban has some not-so-great things to say about the media’s coverage of last week’s fracas at a Detroit Pistons - Indiana Pacers NBA game. While he is right that many in the sports media are doing nothing other than coming up with statistically unproven theories on why the fans and the players got into a fight, what is wrong with society today, etc., he needs to clarify his problem, rather than lumping all the coverage together. Of anyone, he should know that most of what a viewer sees on television related to sports shows is commentary - not “news” reporting.
The one thing Cuban does point out which seems to be a problem with the media as a whole these days is the blurring of lines between reporting and commentary.
Since when are reporters supposed to start with conclusions posed as questions , rather than uncover facts and report on them. Are reporters the “new columnists” ?
Good question. The answer is that most sports reporting these days has become commentary on the action, rather than straight up recounting of the facts surrounding the game. Sure, there are the beat reporters who cover a team all year, but some recount the games and write up the articles that go with the box score - there are many more columnists who offer their perspective. The problem is that most people are shown the statements made by the commentarists rather than the “news” of the story. For instance, after the aforementioned incident in Detroit, ESPN’s coverage went to their NBA desk, which had John Saunders, Tim Legler, Stephen A. Smith, and I believe Greg Anthony, though I could be wrong about Anthony’s participation. Saunders was calling fans “punks” and Legler and Smith were offering their thoughts on what went on and why - that’s not supposed to be “newsy,” it’s supposed to be commentary. Since the reporters coming up with the hard news get the two minutes to document the fact that “fan X has Y criminal record,” and the commentary then begins for the next ten, the perception people have is obviously that the reporting is horrible, or lacking, at the very least.
But stepping back to the reporters themselves….Cuban seems to feel that the reporters are posing their questions in a way that isn’t designed to obtain facts, but a way to create a “tease” factor. It’d be one thing to say “we hear that so-and-so is injured, can you comment,” but another to say “do you think the lack of morals in this country is what is contributing to problems at NBA arenas?” You’re putting an answer to the question first, and making a judgement call on a lack of morality in America - it’s not necessarily factual speculation. So should we be asking ourselves if this was always the case, and now we are happening to hear such things because Cuban is outspoken and lets the public in on his thoughts? Or, do we speculate that sports journalism has turned a corner of late?
1 response so far ↓
1 David // Nov 26, 2004 at 9:45 pm
Perhaps this is just expectations. I didn’t expect much “reporting” here. You see the incident, then you see the replay. Then you see it on the news. Then you see it on the news again. And again.
Other than doing play by play on the brawl, what more is there?
Artest wanted time off, now he has it. That’s all I expected to hear, and I did hear it - a few times.
It’s not that he’s wrong, because he’s not - but it’s just that it’s not necessary in instances such as this one, especially by day two. TV people don’t need to report on much because they can show it to you. Newspaper people can briefly describe the situation before commentating because they can assume you’ve probably seen it, either on tv or on the internet.