Crowdsourcing outrage

By Media Farm

del.ico.us | digg it! | reddit!

print | email | 0 Comments

The Herald rarely publishes corrections for anything. So when the front and back pages of last Wednesday's paper declares, "SORRY, PATS: We own up to error on walkthrough story" and "Our Mistake," you know you may be dealing with the single greatest journalistic fuckup in the history of the craft. At least, that's how the literate chunk of Boston's athletically-inclined masses greeted the revelation that a story the Herald published the day before the Super Bowl, claiming that the Patriots had videotaped a pre-Super Bowl practice six years ago, was total bullshit.

"The Boston Herald neither possessed nor viewed a tape ... nor did we speak to anyone who had," the paper revealed. "We should not have published the allegation in the absence of firmer verification."

How the Christ does something like that happen? The article's author, John Tomase, explained in a lengthy mea culpa the following Friday: "One [source] that I trust said he had been told the walkthrough was taped. A second said he had been told the same thing, but neither had seen a tape." Still, Tomase knew there was a camera on-site, so he "made a devastating leap of logic." And now everybody hates him.

As the astonishing public blowback to these revelations has proven, whatever bloviating Media Farm can do about the necessity of journalists protecting sources they trust versus journalists' professional obligation to vet their sources will do no good, since, in the story's wake, the practice of journalism itself has been confirmed to be utterly useless. The streets are talking, and they say that the profession is dead. Therefore, we're going to crowdsource the rest of this article before journalism gets hurt any more.

So, Dan Kennedy, please tell us what to think: "So Tomase talked with two sources who said they were 'told' about the incident. Well, who told them? Wouldn't they have been the keys to the story? He says he was under some competitive pressure from the New York Times, but shouldn't he have kept trying to get an eyewitness account—especially when his sources were suggesting that they had heard such an account?"

OK, but could you be a bit less professional? Sure, Seth Mnookin, you'll do fine: "I'll argue, as many reporters likely would, that it's a reporter's job to get excited about a story and it's an editor's job to rein him in when needed ... He had what he thought was a big story, and he thought he had made the limitations of his story clear in the piece itself. The allegations contained therein logically followed from what was already known. And nobody he interviewed would say, flat out, that the piece was wrong."

Ah. Wisdom from the crowds. David Scott, you have some sort of blog and pretend to know what you're talking about; surely you have some conventional wisdom to spread around. "I sill [sic] can't envision a way for him to be effective on the Patriots' beat, but he made it clear in Friday's, uh, whatever that 1,500-word missive was, that he would be sticking with the Pats' beat."

Not vitriolic enough. Not nearly so. Bullshit BostonHerald.com readers, show us what you've got: "responsible journalism? Give it a try sometimes!" "Look on the bright side of this John ... Ron Borges will never copy your stuff to pass off as his own. The only real problem you have is Barnicle might start asking you to lunch so that he can get ideas." "I will, and this is definite, will never purchase a single copy of the Boston Herald again. Your paper sucks anyway!" "Go away you scumbag." "Haha ... thats horrible. How do u report something based on a rumor? Nothing more then a Tabloid." "Worst newspaper ever."

More nonsensical, less grammatical. Times readers, go! (And also, sic!) "Judith Miller had it easy. Lock this schmuck up until he divulges his sources." "This writer committed one of the cardinal sins of his profession. It's right up there with plagirism. If he and his editor are not held accountable for there actions by the publicaton then the Herald is a bigger joke than Arlen Spector." "The demise of integrity in reporting has been an outcome of the last eight years of the Bush Administration."

Ooh. That's beautifully dumb. Now if we only had some scat in here. Barstool Sports, bring us home: "what a filthy beast. I picture his room is smeared with feces and he just sits at his crappy desk all day day-dreaming of ways to become the next Bob Woodward."

Beautiful. Stunningly so. The future of not making journalism is in fine hands indeed.