Journalistic Appraisal of USsoccerUK.com

USsoccerUK.com and Chris Bergin seem to be the Teflon Dons of the Bigsoccer community, while I understand that many posters on here have a personal relationship with Chris and his writers, I simply don't understand how people mindlessly eat up his stories which are frequently inaccurate, speculative, unattributed or gleaned from other unmentioned sources. Recently I was challenged to point out where just exactly I felt that Bergin's reporting came up short. In this post that is exactly what I attempt to do so.

Firstly, let me say that I do respect anyone who chooses to spend their time, money and effort writing about American soccer. For that he should be commended. Secondly, I do appreciate reading his site for the purposes of seeing what might be floating around the rumor mill.

However, due to the nature in which persons on this board react to his news stories I believe it is time for me to point out some of his journalistic shortcomings. Granted, much of my distaste for his style may stem from differing standards between American and British journalism, but none the less his audience is presumably mostly American.

In conclusion, I do not fault Bergin and Co. personally for doing what he does. I have never met him, never spoken with him, never corresponded with him. I assume him to be a very well meaning and dedicated person. However, people will often claim that he makes a broad distinction between what he writes as rumor on his message board and what he posts as fact on his news website. I disagree.

Thus, a journalistic appraisal of USsoccerUk.com

1/13/2004 3:13:00

Bergin, using unnamed MLS sources, one of which is assumed to be a rather useful poster on the Yanks Abroad board who frequently is correct about leaks, simply using his post as a source. As of this date and time, no other news organization has this information, and the Associated Press is quoting named sources that the most recent deal is not for a transfer but for a loan. Either way it is certainly not yet 'complete.'

Another frequent misnomer by Bergin and Co. is predicting that there will be "major announcements" to come on a certain day or time, only to have them never happen. Certainly in the business of Hot Stove talk rumors and speculation abound, but Bergin reports them as fact.

1/13/2004 5:41:00 AM

(my emphasis added)

Classic Bergin: Take a story from quotes from a different report and spin it into what he wants it to say. Granted at least he attributed the quotes which are fine, however, the careful use of presumptive and speculative language abounds. Smith's answer was vague? According to whom? The reader doesn't know what question the NBC reporter asked. His second comment 'showed there is a pending deal?' Where does it do that? Smith says nothing of the sort but according to Bergin, he does.

1/13/2004 3:40:00 AM

(again my emphasis added)

Again, classic Bergin. As of his press time, no confirmation had been made from anyone that Moore's resignation had anything to do with C.A. At that point it had been purely speculative, later the San Jose Mercury News quoted a San Jose official on record, and then later Moore alluding himself that C.A. had something to do with it. Basically, while Bergin's statements weren't inaccurate they were at that time purely speculative and unattributed. Note again Bergin uses much of the same techniques in the article posted before. Moore 'shockingly' resigns, shockingly, according to whom? 'Without any warning?' According to whom? 'Some' may put conspiracy theorist take to the forefront? What some, who some? Again it may not be inaccurate but it's purely speculative and unattributed.

12/3/2003 6:18:00 AM

When asked to prove that Chris Bergin and USsoccerUK.com have a lack of creditability this is the example which I point to most often. TO my knowledge no one was ever quoted on record, including Grimandi as ever confirming this to be fact. I do know that Grimandi on his website made a vague reference to playing abroad during a time of war, but here we have Bergin saying it is 'widely believed' that he left in opposition to the war. Widely believed by whom? According to whom? If he claimed he was being heckled, where is the direct quote, if it exists I could never find it.

 

Feel free to agree or disagree. Obviously this isn't exactly the most well crafted thesis but it gets my point across. To some people these types of things bother them not, they bug me. Those are my oppinions, anyone else is welcome to their own. I should point out though too that in the past people seem to jump ugly with you any time you criticise Bergin and his site. If he wants to put himself out there like a professional, I believe he should be held to the standards of a professional.

 

I'd mentioned in a YA thread that there's an innacuracy in a Bergin story at least once a week. the stories that I pulled up are only ones on his current front page. I could go back and pull examples like that probably from just about every story. The Girbandi thing is just something that had always just stood out in my mind as being absolutely blatent.

 

Ding. I am, or rather was a journalism student. I give him credit for breakign what he does. In fact this was all in response to a post where I was congratulating him on breaking the Boca and McBride transfer stories, only to find out that wasn't the case. I'd like to see though where he's on record as calling himself a rumor monger. I certainly don't get that impression that he owns up to that status, or at least his following doesn't. The basic problem I see is, for every time he breaks a story there are five where he has stories with speculation, embelishment, and innacuracy so I may read it on his site first, but won't believe it till I see it elsewhere.

 

Why should I? I know he's very accesiable but it's not a personal thing between me and him. I wouldn't email Peter Gammons or Jeff Bradley asking how they view themselves in the journalisic community. It's a bit of a moot point because no matter how he views himself I already have a pretty firm oppinion on how I view his site. My little manifesto there was mostly in response to how others view his site.

 

Heh no, but the article makes an interesting point. While the stuff that I'm poinging out isn't geek minutia like the Golf Instructure was this about sums it up.

In response:

The point being that when a journalist embellishes, and granted he is a columist, it is pandering to the reader. Present the facts, hopefully write it in an entertaining and throughtfull way, but if the facts aren't exciting enough don't embellish. Let your reader make a decision about how meaningfull they are, it's not a reporter's job to do so. And while embelleshment isn't the same as being inaccurate, the biggest thing a journalist has is his crediability. Little thigns like sensationalism and embellseshment call into question ones crediability, and once that happens then it's pretty much trying to put the tooth paste back into the tube.

 

I just wrote 1,100 words defending my position and you want more? Fine. But again why am I being lambasted for pointing out some very valid things for this guy? Would you be jumping ugly with me if this was Marc Connelly or Jeff Bradley? I'll get back to work then.

 

I will go back and dig up more. But note that, I never said he makes things up, or at least I don't believe that I did. I believe that he uses unnamed sources far too often which is dubious and inherently lacks credability. However, he rarely in my oppionion frames the information he gets from those sources as anything but speculation and rumor. He doesn't even have say, 'this is just a rumor but...' However, his sources are always so far off the record it's ridiculous. The fact that he even cited 'sources within MLS' was amazing, it's usually not even that clear. It's interesting that you bring up Peter Gammons though, because at least locally Peter has been taking a lot of hits because a lot of his sources have started to dry up and he was wrong more often than not about that whole A-Rod mess.

 

12/2/2003 4:46:00 AM

Overstatement, editorialising, editorialising/sensationalising. In that order corresponding to the my emphasis points.

In a bit of actual phrasing, essentially counterdicts overstatement he made in the first graph. I will give Bergin this though, in that article he refferenced where he got his quotes from. When he does steal all his material from once source then spice it up to meet his needs he will reference the original source in the first quote.

12/1/2003 8:22:00 PM

For you Bergin apologists, or Bergin Ball Washers (has a nice ring to it,) this is also classic Bergin. He got this one right, dead on the money. But he cites 'multiple sources.' Really? What kind of sources? Couldn't I be a source? Where are these unnamed sources from? He cites multiple ones which would tend to lend credability but we don't have any idea who they are. As I've pointed out before IMO - and I can corrilate with his original source articles if you like but that will take more time - IMO he simply copies what other people write and puts it in his own form. 3rdDegree can tell you that they broke this story about 3 hours before Bergin did. In the most recent McBride story the assumption was that Bergin took a soruce from a well placed Bigsoccer poster. Without giving any indication of who his multiple sources are, how am I to assume he's not just gleaning all of his information from 3rd Degree.com?

12/1/2003 4:30:00 PM

This had been reported in other places and without looking back I can't say whether his site had this before or after it was reported in the Post by Geoff. But again, sources from where? Shock counter bid? Sounds awfully dramatic to me, why don't you let me determind how shocking it is.

12/1/2003 6:08:00 AM

I mean... I just don't even know where to begin? "Too good" Who said that? Presumably one of his agents? But he doesn't say? Who's saying he's too good for MLS? That'd stir up quite a pot wouldn't it. "Biggest spin doctor campaigns ever to be involved..." According to what? According to whom? In refference to what? There's not a single quote in there from any one of Mathis' supposide agents. Blatent sensationalism, I don't assume that Bergin is just making this up but I think here he comes pretty close.

11/27/2003 8:10:00 AM

Nowhere in the story does it say what exactly he was mulling over. Or if he mulled anything over. I'm not sure if Bergin means that the decision was inherently difficult, he must because Hammilton doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Who's many? Many bigsoccer posters? Was expected? By who?

Here's the only quote from Hamilton or anyone else in the article:

11/26/2003 1:24:00 PM

This was actually very well written. I'd also like to point out that I up until now have not noted the individual authors of each article, and many time's i may have sweepingly refered to the article as Bergin's work when it may have not been the case. However, assuming that it's his cite and he'd most likely have full editorial control there is still oanis placed on him. But anyways, as opposed to the previous artivle - citing the against the popular landscape - at least it's citing what was just the oppinion, not some nameless 'people.' You can't say the same for 'widely expected.' I think that's a bit of an exageration, just because a bunch of people on a message board think it's going to happen doesn't mean it's 'widely expected.' Then at the end he does cite the actual word 'rumors!' Kudos...

Okay. That's about as far as I'm going back for tonight. But to say that I'm just pointing out isolated incidents I think is just flat out ridiculous. His style of embelleshment, sensationalism, and using frequently inacurate unnamed sources is a patern. Take it or leave it.

 

1. He said the deal was done. 2. He got the 'major announcement wrong' 3. Going to press a little early, jumping the gun when you don't have all the facts is poor reporting and as is inacurate as inacurate. 4. 2+2= 5. Is a pretty good way to sum up how I too view his site. I wait to see from someone else if the information really ads up. Taking liberties in headlines and assesments is sloppy, pandering, and lacks credability, if you think their warranted then fine.

 

Well kudos for him for owning up to that and tryign to hold himself to a high standard, He does name the number of sources he has, but only alludes to where one is. However, why not put a correction/apology on his news site? Wouldn't that be more crediable. He also cites 3 stories wrong in 18 months. I wonder which ones those were. I don't know if his numbers are right or wrong I'm just curious. If at very least it appears that my criticism is completely baseless as some would have you believe if he's responding in that way...

I mentioned Gammons in an earlier post and speculation was that Gammons was getting a lot of stuff wrong because his sources were just using him to put either test balloons or misinformation into the public domain. Good sources are a journalist's best friend, however, a journalist who a source knows won't reveal his name can be very valuable for people 'in the know' for a variety of reasons.