Journalistic Appraisal of USsoccerUK.com

Of course, that's true. If Chris headlined the McBride story "McBride is a Rover," then yes, he jumped the gun a bit, and that headline is not accurate. But, when you're in the Breaking News business, unlike most newspapers, you have to make a decision on when to run something, and it certainly looked to everyone involved (aside from Fulham Football Club and McBride's agent [too bad Bergin didn't use this agent for his "only" source, as was alleged a few posts back]) like his signing for them was just a formality. And, the only part of the whole reportage of the story that can be called into question is the headline. Everything else is 100% correct.

Well, that isn't a fair characterization, IMO. Reporting that a source says something isn't just to cover your ass, it's to report what a source says. The whole "plausible deniability" thing clearly implies that there's something to deny. If a report states that it's just what one source says, there is nothing to have to back away from.

You've posted repeatedly, Beau, that USsoccerUK.com is what it is: a site that reports such things. To take anything else away from reporting what a source says isn't the fault of the reporter.

To tell you the truth, one of the reasons why I'm so perplexed by the level of animosity over all this is that, when I first read the McBride-to-Blackburn story, the first two words that popped into my head were "Bobby Convey." I have learned not to believe that a player has been transferred until I see a jersey and a smile (I stole that line from Josh Hakala, my fellow Soccer Fanatic). So, I guess when I read about "a source said this" or "Higher-ups are now saying," I just said, fine, that's where we're at in a process that isn't over yet. And, I didn't read anything written that led me to believe anything different. When Fulham started sniffing around, I wasn't surprised, and just waited for the fan to get soiled, which it did.

Now, what's so hard about that? Have we become so lazy as consumers of news that we can't tell the difference between "a source says this will happen" and "this is imminent, carve it in stone"? I suspect that, for quite a few of the Bergin bashers who have posted in this thread, that is exactly the case.

Dammit, Maxim beat me to the "dating yourself" line....

 

Did you notice how the league learned its lesson from that?

No Boca or McBride story until all pieces were in place.

 

Most newspapers are in the Breaking News business, too -- check out their Web sites.

If anything, we're overcautious. (Ask me about the Earnhardt death story one of these days.) When a Web site jumps the gun, it often makes embarrassing news of its own. Granted, it's more likely to make embarrassing news if it's a revelation on Bill Clinton than revelation on Brian McBride, but the standards permeate throughout the site.

See, I'm perplexed by the animosity the other direction. If you have the patience to go back to page 3 or so in this thread (I don't, at this point), you'll see Maxim presenting several examples of sloppy reporting, and IIRC, they weren't all related to McBride. It didn't take long for the smear campaign to come out, likely topped by Bill simply dismissing the Bergin bashers as "liberals."

If it simply is what it is, why was there so much hostility earlier in this thread when Maxim pointed out such sloppiness?

I think the animosity from Maxim and company is best shown in Monster's accounting of Bergin's message board posts. That leads me to believe that, while you and I may know to take these stories for what they are, Bergin doesn't.

I suppose my biggest problem is his whole "exclusively learned" posture. Yeah, you made a phone call and found that an international transfer -- which you rightly say has to be seen to be believed, though in McBride's case I'm not worried about the work permit -- is one small step closer to completion.

The last point I'd make about plausible deniability is this: A story can be "100% accurate" if read the way you're reading and still be misleading. In a lot of cases, it's about context -- what's there and what isn't.

To give an example that actually resembles a lot of stories I've seen from England: The USOC has chastised USA Track and Field for failing to release documents relating to a doping case before the 2000 Olympics. English journalists then tend to add that four U.S. athletes have tested positive for the new steroid THG.

100% accurate? Well, if you look at each fact separately, yes -- USOC is publicly ripping USATF, and four U.S. athletes have tested positive for THG. But the impression given here is that the THG scandal is on USATF's head as well. Actually, that's not true. USATF is no longer directly responsible for drug testing, and it has not been seriously challenged in the THG mess.

It's easy to get the impression from Bergin's stories that the transfer process is farther along than it is. If you take each sentence and read it literally, they all might be accurate. And yet the overall impression could be wrong, especially to readers who aren't as savvy as you and I are about international transfers.

What I think happens more often than that is missing context. If Bergin's source says one thing, but other sources are saying something else or other factors could derail a transfer, does he add those details to the story?

 

A birdie on sabbatical mentioned how everybody in the U.S. (ESPN, CNNSI, etc) had Sean Payton signed and sealed by Big Al in Oakland, only to crash and burn.

To quote said birdie, "some journalists"...

 

Covered it several pages ago.

 

True, but those people are covering the change of direction. Chris only posted a Sky story about the Fulham change. For a story he was proud of breaking, he passed the buck pretty quickly.

If other press reports are good enough as a source for stories on the Cleveland stadium deal, than they should be good enough to be a source on this, especially since he discussed it in the forum. Even if he dismissed it out of hand, it was out there. Did he call Fulham? I just don't like that he handed that part off to someone else instead of combining it with the work you had done.

Your story on 1/13 was accurate as the reports were at that time. I don't question that. But if he had the time to discuss the Fulham interest on the boards on 1/15 and 1/16, why didn't he have the time to update the story or write a new one.

That's my problem. If he wants to be the premier news site or whatever their "About Us" page says, then follow up on the story. Once things went belly-up, he went with Sky. If he hadn't stood up for the story on the board, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

It's a consistency of editing and managing issue, not an initial reporting issue.

 

This is the quintessential "I got nothin' but can't admit it" post.

"I have heard otherwise"? Could you be any more of a pu&&y about it?

 

UUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!

I mistakenly read your post about nine pages ago that said "this should put an end to this" and I believed it. I guess I should have questioned your assertion as it was completely unsourced

Imagine my surprise to come back and find THIS.

Ok, your first sentence -- Bergin IS NOT A NEWSPAPER!

I respect your opinion that there is a danger that the great unwashed masses cannot discern between the NY Times and USsoccerUK, but I disagree.

As to Monster's summary from the message board -- I thought the flow of posts was very interesting. Kind of gives us who have NO inside scoop an idea that there is a fluid situation, and allows us a RUMOR outlet that is grounded in a little more than typical BS speculation.

Looking back at all the posts, the players were all there with the seeming confirmations, the back door offers etc. I enjoyed it, and I didn't accept any conclusions until I see that cheesy press conference where the player holds up a shirt (although I believe Reyna had one of those with a Fulham shirt, and Mo Johnston had his triumphant return to Celtic press conference a day before he committed the ultimate sin with Rangers).

Andy Bennet has it right. Maybe its because I lived in the UK for awhile, but I get that there is a major difference in journalism and standards over there, and Bergin's site is far from being over the top given the context. In some ways, this is the type of thing that promotes the "ugly American" stereotype. Something in another culture is not up to our standards and our expectations, and so we get up on our pulpit and lecture those poor people how great life would be if they only saw the light and lived like us.

I do think it is instructive that virtually all of the criticism comes from this side of the Atlantic despite the fact that he has significant numbers of readers in both places.

Finally, as to "animosity" directed at Maxim, (excluding Bill Archer's "L" word) I haven't seen it other than the one thing Scott already apologized for.

If anything, we get these terms like "Bergin Ball Washers" and "Bergin Types" and "cult" thrown at us when in fact, most of us who have been on here have more or less said that we enjoy the site as entertainment, and you guys are being way to critical looking at his site as if it is something that it is not.

 

Wah Wah Wah.

I am just taking the Bergin approach- what's wrong with that?

Actually I know a few industry sources that I trust have told me, player agents are his main source of information- I mean its obvious that he mostly uses agent info in his stories.

And if you really want to know who told me, email or pm me as I am not going to post it here.

 

Did you see the direct quote from Scott that preceded it? Here it is: "But, when you're in the Breaking News business, unlike most newspapers, you have to make a decision on when to run something."

Again -- context. I wasn't saying Bergin is a newspaper. I used the word "newspaper" in response to a point Scott raised about newspapers.

We've actually spent the last several pages trying to clarify what is IS. I'm hoping Aris' comment on ESPN and SI doesn't raise a whole new thread devoted to the relativist notion -- "hey, sometimes the story takes an awkward turn on the big news organizations, so what's the difference between them and Chris?"

Eventually, we'll reach a point where we'll resemble the old joke about the prison in which the prisoners have told the same jokes over and over so often that they no longer bother to tell them. One guy just yells "No. 3," and everyone laughs. Here, we'll just say "Page 20" so we don't have to rehash the same points.

 

Brian -
Slow night? heh heh - But seriously, the only thing that really stood out was the quote "You never name your sources." That's complete and utter bull. It's called attribution. Today's interview is tomorrow's "source".

Scott -
About the level of animosity, you say you're perplexed. I guess you came in late, but we've touched on it in this thread. There is some baggage left over from the early days of BigSoccer when Bergin was a regular poster. Not quite the same level of hate/reaction that Oliver Tse/da cfo (have I just invoked Godwin's Law?) instills in people, but still pretty strong.

Many of us oldtimers were on the receiving end of some pretty petty, vitriolic flames from Chris for questioning him or pointing out his mistakes. Some of the problems were cultural expectations of news reporting, but the main problem was Chris and the utter lack of professionality in the way he handled himself here. When you're dealing in rumours, don't act like you've just come down from the mount with two tablets, and don't get into very personal attacks with the folks who question you.

I have learned to forgive many things, but I have much more trouble forgetting. Once burned, twice shy. I am more than willing to work with Chris. I have friends who write for him. When his stories were being replicated on the old www.90soccer.com, they were making me money as most of the photos that the 90 Minutes website bought were mine.

The "baggage" I carry is mine, and I admit it. But that doesn't mean that I'm completely wrong.

USSoccerUK.com may not be a newspaper, but journalism standards are the same regardless of media. If someone claims to be a journalist or news site, then they are just that, and they open themselves up to just this kind of critique.

Chris M - I find tons of links to USSoccerUK stories in various "news of the day" threads on BigSoccer, and many specific threads started based on links to such stories. The thread starters and link posters don't discriminate the USSoccerUK links from the "reputable" news links. I would suggest that the great unwashed masses can't tell the difference between USSoccerUK and the New York Times, and if they could, they'd probably trust USSoccerUK more since they claim to have "insider" information.

And your statement about "enjoying" the site is a red herring. Most of the folks in this discussion enjoy USSoccerUK, and few of us want it to go away. I certainly don't.

 

Unintentional humor is the best.

This is what happens when you go against your instincts -- that little voice inside saying "don't do it, don't jump back into this."

So, while I have lots of comments about the main stream media getting things wrong and using unnamed sources, I am instead going to raise the white flag, and return to my regularly scheduled life.

Ok, I lied. One parting shot. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you are annoyed that his site gets referenced on here -- live with it. I consider lots of stuff on here as clutter that I wish I didn't waste my time on (resisting urge to say . . . ).

The site that he has established has created another soccer on-line community that actually brings in significant numbers of people from two different countries talking 90% about the US Soccer scene. It's good exposure for our game over there, and its fairly educational to read the opinions of people from another country to understand the differences and similarities between us.

Adios.

 

I wonder if my grad school stylebook has been revised yet:

FOOTNOTE STYLE:

1- Maxim-1, BigSoccer.com, "Journalistic Appraisal of USsoccerUK.com," (20:5, 1-20-2004)

 

Yeah, that's exactly what Man U's U.S. fans said about me when I questioned their tour itinerary last year.

Oh no, wait -- they were calling me a "----ing wan---"

(Actually, I enjoyed the feedback I got from Man U's UK fans -- they had a sense of humor about it. So perhaps you're onto something with different countries and their different approaches! Now if you can explain to me why UK call-in shows are so much more civilized and educated than their U.S. counterparts ...)

 

22 pages, when do we get to start celebrating page turns?

 

Well Andy, that does answer why there is such a depth of damn-near-irrational anti-Bergin feeling around here. I don't remember any of that, but it probably took place before I took to my lifeboat off of the USS Soccer America Graffiti.

And, I sort of like that "No. 3" idea Beau had, and we should adapt it to BigSoccer. I have the feeling that "I like cheese" and "60-90 days" will be fighting it out for #1.

 

Probably for 2 reasons.

1) Radio in the UK is less of a local medium & more a national medium. Therefore they have to attract a broad but shallow audience of ,say, all football fans as opposed to a deep audience of Man U fans only. Therefore they can't be too aggressive about things in case they remove part of their audience.

2) Radio in the UK is regulated & has a sort of equal time directive & also can be reported for too rude comments.

With reference to your comments about the UK newspapers in general you must remember that there are over 10 national newspapers in the UK all looking to attract readers. They all have their own slant & style & attract readers based on this.
e.g. the Guardian is unashamedly left wing ; the Telegraph in unashamedly conservative & the Sun is unashamedly a comic with rumours ,invective & semi-naked women.(OK , I don't like the Sun).



This competition, combined with the fact that journalism in the UK is more a commercial craft as opposed to a profession, means that UK newspapers do not concern themsleves so much with an idea of being fair(as opposed to accurate) or keeping news & opinion separate as US media does. It has also led to a very vibrant, popular & innovative newspaper culture where there are always innovations. As an example both the Times & Independent are currently experimenting with producing the newspaper in both a broadsheet & tabloid format in the hope that commuters will be more likely to read the tabloid format.

I have to admit however, that I would far rather read a UK quality newspaper than a US one. The US ones seem boring & anaemic, though scupulously reported. On the other hand I would rather read a US magazine as they seem to be able to carry longer, more intelligent articles than their UK counterparts.

 

For Beau's benefit - about page 27 on another thread (can't remember which), before the last BigSoccer year zero... Is that number 37 or 38?

For everyone else...

The Times - read by the people who run the country
The Financial Times - read by the people who own the country
The Daily Mail - read by the wives of the people who run the country
The Guardian - read by the people who think they ought to run the country
The Daily Worker (RIP) - Read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country... that jokes so very eighties, isn't it!
The Daily Express - read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run
The Daily Telegraph - Read by the people who still think it is
The Sun - Their readers don't care who runs the bleeding country... as long as she's got big tits.

I don't get a daily paper but I do read the Observer which is effectively the Sunday version of the Guardian, (Grauniad?), because it covers issues in more depth, (supposedly). Hey, I was in the Fabian Society during most of the 70's - it's the law.

 

Was that from Yes Prime Minister?

 

No. It was told to me by an old journalist back in the seventies. Yes Prime Minister started in the '80's or '90's didn't it?

 

I'm coming out of semi-retirement from this thread in order to respond, in part, to Andy's comments regarding events from the distant past.

A lot of your animus seems to stem from that period when you were moderating the Business board. You ran a very tight ship over there, (in fact it was probably the best run forum on the boards) and Oliver was a lightning rod for the sort of lunatic ranting and raving that ruins one's sang froid.

Indeed, I've always felt that Oliver was sent off not so much because of anything he did specifically but because it was easier to get rid of him than it was to get rid of the 50 guys who spent all their time attacking him. (And a good number of those were busy rehashing old grievances from SAG and NAS)

(And subsequent events have proven, BTW, that he was about 98% correct about WUSA)

But it was different with Chris and I think it's unfair to lump them together. Oliver enjoyed going at it toe-to-toe. Indeed, that often seemed to be why he came here. And it didn't help that he made very little effort to hide his contempt for women's soccer, MLS and, well, just about everything else.

Chris always seemed genuinely shocked at the level of vitriol people around here can dispense at the drop of a hat. So rather than "I say, I do believe you might be mistaken about that one" he got "you disgusting pile of maggot droppings, get your head out of my pants and go kill yourself".

Rather tame by BS standards, but a good deal more uncivil than what he was expecting. He reacted by trying to defend himself, which as any seasoned BS veteran knows, is blood in the water.

I think he's since learned to deal with people who, for no apparent reason whatever, take any opportunity to tear him, or anybody else, down as a person. Indeed, the facts become secondary or even immaterial.

The bottom line here is that most of the problem is not anything he does or says, but rather the actions and words of a small group of guys who glom on to whatever item Chris posts, sex up the title to draw more hits and start a thread with an item which, upon careful examination, was entirely accurate.

And just once, instead of jumping Bergin over it, I'd like to see some of you go to the thread and point out that the poster has taken a "Sources are saying" item and reworded it in order to get attention.

It's not Bergin's fault that too many guys on BS are either functionally illiterate or intentionally misleading. And it's grossly unfair to blame him for the result.