Journalistic Appraisal of USsoccerUK.com

Except that's not the case in this situation.

 

I have heard otherwise.

 

The crux of our disagreement is that, when Bergin (or anyone) writes "a source in MLS says that.....", then I read that one source says something, and nothing more; I consider that to be 100% accurate (unless, of course, that source didn't say that). I am then free to speculate whether or not I think that what that one source says will come to pass, actually will. And, if it does not, whomever reported what that source said isn't wrong, unless that source did not say what was reported. It just boils down, I suppose, to letter-of-the-law vs. spirit-of-the-law.

I can certainly see how you would be annoyed that there are those who would take what that one source says and run with it, but that should in no way reflect on Bergin, since he didn't write anything that was anything but 100% correct.

And, the fact that Graeme Souness himself believed that the deal was done, and said so on the record, should have given what was reported previously all the credibility that anyone could ever want. As a result, and I hope that I'm saying this with all due respect, I believe that so gleefully piling on Bergin just because Blackburn Rovers were blindsided at the last moment, and McBride ended up at Fulham, was absolutely unfair. That's what set me off.

 

Well, when you consider that the source could very well have been as high as the manager of the club himself, and that, as I understand it, the deal between MLS and Blackburn Rovers was done, then yes, I do. The fact (as I understand it) that McBride's agent then undid that done deal when Fulham sweetened the pot after the fact should be given some weight here.

It certainly was NOT "completely and absolutely wrong."

 

The definition of a done deal is something that is complete, final, finished, DONE. Bergin wrote that McBride to Blackburn was a done deal and it wasn't. That also happened to come in the middle of a debate about his credibility. Now his defenders want to shift the blame to his sources? Whatever. He was wrong, plain and simple. And big whoop that Souness made comments. Have coaches never been wrong before? Didn't Coleman say he had Reyna locked up, didn't Coleman say he wouldn't sell Saha? Giving Bergin a pass because Souness said the deal was done is crap.

My question is this. What American reporters wrote that McBride to Blackburn was a done deal? Did anybody? Did anyone like Goff, Lewis, Jones, Wahl, etc. put their foot in their mouth and report McBride to Blackburn being done when it wasn't? If not, then why not? Don't those guys have comparable sources to Mr. Bergin? Might they not have heard some of the same things Bergin heard? If so then why didn't they write it when he did? Why, probably because nobody would say it's finished, papers signed, its complete. Probably because reporters like those don't jump on comments like, "It's pretty much done, it'll be done by the end of the week, it should get done or I hear it'll be done soon."

Lloyd Heilbrunn said it best.

 

Scott, you're making it look like Chris' stories are unfalsifiable. When he makes a claim that is ultimately disproven-- like McBride to Blackburn being a "done" deal-- there's always some hidden layer of information one further step below the surface that "proves" that Bergin wasn't wrong.

That's what's creepy about Bergin's "journalism." There's this miasma of unsourced information not available to "outsiders" that supposedly proves Bergin correct. I'm starting to see where Maxim is coming from when he regards the whole thing as cultish.

And it's even creepier that people who try to look at the situation objectively become the targets of personal, ad hominem attacks. Do you realize how messed up that looks?

 

A) At the root of all of this, it's my story in the beginning. I'm on the byline.

B) It's not unsourced (pardon the double negative). We had multiple sources go on the record about it saying everything was done; unfortunately, they didn't want to be named.

C) This thread is like a siren song to me at this point. Wish I could just grow thicker skin and ignore it, but I just can't...

 

I've been watching this thread for a while and would like to jump in with journalism question... I always thought that "on the record" and being a named source were one in the same. Or, is "didn't want to be named" but still "on the record" like when Colin Powell wants to talk about a sensitive issue but asks to be called only a "senior state department official"?

 

WOW. Can some of the journalism experts around here PLEASE discuss this? Andy Mead? Beau? Somebody, anybody.

 

Which brings me to the point that when I left this discussion on Friday morning, some of the "Bergin crowd" were congratulating themselves because the McBride to Blackburn deal was "official" and complete in this thread. I saw that info early Friday morning, then I drove to Charlotte for the SuperDraft where I asked Trey Fitz-Gerald, MLS PR director, whether it was a loan or sale, and he told me it wasn't done. Imagine my surprise. He didn't say his response was "off the record".

All I did was go to the public face of MLS and ask a question. It's possible that something may have happened while he was dealing with draft stuff, but I also talked to a few other folks with the league and, as far as they were concerned, there was no "done" deal.

 

I don't play in the "breaking stories" business. I run a features magazine and supply stock photos. So, while I do get "so-called inside info" from time to time, I don't have an outlet for it - nor the need to disseminate it.

I guess I did break or confirm (I forget which) the fact that the Fire were going from Nike to Puma last year, but who really cares? If anyone wants a story, the Fire are changing uniform fabrics this season. There's a scoop for you.

As to the question at hand. It does sound dodgy to say that an "unnamed source" could go "on the record". If the source were embargoed or escrowed - to be revealed at an appropriate time, then I'd buy that. If it is a permanantly off-the-record source then I have problem with them being "on the record."

Sort of like the Burn/Wizards draft day trade. The trade happened, but the two Wizard players and Burn player involved were not revealed immediately. They were, however, actually traded - and the information became available in due course.

It's all semantics, but it does matter.

Don't take my word for it, I'm just a self educated "journalist" with a large vocabulary and a rare form of dyslexia that makes me very sensitive to denotative meanings.

Someone who has formally studied the ethics of journalism would be able to give a better answer.

 

We've hinted that the problem may be in how its represented, and I made a passing comment about headlines. If the headline on this story said "McBride will join Blackburn," well then, you have to admit it was wrong.

Now to be honest, that happens sometimes to the pros and the alleged pros. But not that often, and you'd better believe they're ticked off about it when it does.

And you have to admit, Scott, that the label "100% accurate" no longer applies when the headline (and in some cases, the lead) say "Player X to join English powerhouse" rather than "English powerhouse claims Player X signing."

Where I work, we're fanatical about attribution. We don't even fully trust other papers, which I frankly think is sort of silly -- we say "Report: Roddick will move to No. 1 in new ATP rankings" and go on to specify what report that is in the story itself.

Overall, I think Haig said it best -- you can't just create levels of plausible deniability and call it accuracy.

Over to Aris -- yeah, it comes with the territory. I've had my sanity and even my sexuality questioned on these boards. I usually just want to know why; my wife is less charitable. But at least we're not contestants on American Idol.

 

I've read the link http://www.ussocceruk.com/news/?CatTypeId=2&ContentId=1265 and it seems to me that it makes it clear the deal hasn't been completed.

'has nearly completed the finalisation of McBride's entry into the Rovers squad.'

In the next paragraph the phrase 'more or less tied things up' also makes it pretty clear that it isn't definite yet. In fact I would say that the story is quite clearly indicating that it is being based on the statements made by Sounness.

Personally I'm not as annoyed by this as I am by papers such as 'The Daily Mail', often referred to as The Daily Hate-Mail whose reports usually start with the words 'There was outrage today when...'

 

And, now we're back to Beau's point... did you read the headline, too? It says: "McBride set for Chelsea debut."

The article is bylined as "Written By: Sky Sports" and appears to be based on this longer article at skysports which contains the same quotes but with much different headline: "SOUNESS INSISTENT ON MCBRIDE".

 

When you say headline do you mean the opening two paragraphs highlighted in black on medium brown/grey?

I'm not saying that this sites journalism is good. I'm simply making the point - which has already been made, I know - that in the great tradition of piss-poor British journalism this isn't that bad.

 

I was thinking just as much about the text that appears as a teaser for the piece on the news summary page

Based on the "set to make his debut" part I would have surmised that he had his work permit approved (which IIRC is specific to a team), that he's healthy and physically available to play, and that the coach is planning on playing him. If I read the entire article I'd have a much different understanding.

I'm not a regular visitor to USsoccerUK and have no strong opinions about the site in general. Yet, from looking at this one specific example, it appears to me USsoccerUK positioned this particular article very differently than another British journalism outlet, skysports.com (its stated source for the article!).

 

This is a classic illustration of the troubles with "Internet as news source."

It's safe to say that any site that calls itself a source of news could - hypothetically - fall on a continuum ranging from Fred the Retard's Blog to The Times (of London) when it comes to veracity and trustworthiness.

The issue is for readers/surfers/you and me to decide where each site falls on this spectrum and read accordingly.

If you believe that a certain site is peddling rumors and is using unattributed sources too often, ignore it. In posts referring to that site feel free to add "I'll believe it when I see it."

As for the on the record/off the record thing:
Back in the day, "on the record" meant a quote attributed to someone with a full name and -- if appropriate -- a title. It also meant that if an editor called you out on it, the source would confirm having said it, or you had it on an interview audiotape made with the consent of the source. If you had it in your interview notes, but the source denied it, it was then up to the editor (and maybe the publisher if we're talking about a big deal) to weigh your track record against the possibility of your paper publicly being labelled as crap.

"Off the record" (this is still back a ways) fell into two broad categories: The first, and most common, was "I'm going to tell you this, but you can only print it if you get someone else to confirm it on the record. I'm essentially pointing you in the right direction, but you're on your own after that. Good luck."
The second, which was almost NEVER used was the "unnamed source said XXXXXX" that we have grown more used to.
It is my contention that, particularly after Watergate and with the proliferation of instant news outlets, journalists have succumbed to a nasty combination of laziness and desperation to break the big story, or even the medium story, and they rely on the shades of attribution provided by the various off-the-record labels.

In turn, sources have learned that they can play the risk-free game of saying most anything "off the record," and if it gets printed/broadcast, and is wrong, they can scratch their heads and shrug along with everyone else.

This clearly has spilled over to niches like soccer websites.

All this is fine and good, but as consumers of all this news, we need to be judicious. If you choose to believe a site that does not attribute rumors, then knock yourself out. If you chose to rely only on attribution, I'll be waiting for you at the bar.

 

Ah... as you were. Didn't see that - I just followed the link provided.

In case anyone's interested details of Britain's fine tradition in journalistic integrity can be found in the magazine I mentioned before, Private Eye. Particularly it's 'Street of Shame' section - the street in question being Fleet Street, obviously.

Another example... http://www.express.co.uk/

The headline 'Government secretly admits, We can't cope with huge gypsy invasion - Panic plan as the shocking truth emerges' is most enlightening. It rather reminds me of this...

'The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage - the number of aliens entering the country through back door - a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.'

Daily Mail, 20 August 1938

Strangely, The Express appears not to have chosen to obtain any further analysis of the issue of immigration from the proprietors, (a Mr Richard 'Dirty' Desmond), other publications such as 'Asian Babes' or 'Readers Wives'. A curious oversight..

 

My problem all along has not been Aris' reporting. It's been Chris' pimping of said reporting. So I went back to the forums and looked at some of the posts.

Here's my beef number one. In the beginning, Chris portrays himself as working the phones to get this stroy first and get it right. Now, he's acting like it's off-limits because things are changing. No story posted that things may be fluid.

Then he posts the Crew's release about the announcement planned for Monday morning. Hell, I got that release. Either you're out chasing things ahead of everyone else or you're waiting for MLS and the teams to e-mail you releases.

What this tedious exercise is for is to show how ineffective giving a play-by-play of a story is. Plus, semi-clamming up and claiming it's someone else's story when the expected outcome changes doesn't do much for trust.

I think what they wrote in the beginning was what they had. But when that changed, they slowed down. I don't expect someone like Aris to devote his life to the site. He did his job. But Chris has devoted his life to the site. He should have managed the coverage better. He should stay off his boards. He should take the blame like he said he would.