Why do Journalists Lie?
 

I was reading Eric Allen's piece on ESPN.com and here is part of what he wrote about Terrell Owens:




However, that's a bald faced lie. Owens has said on numerous occasions in numerous interviews that he does not love playing football. He has said that he plays football because he has talent and can make money doing it, not because he loves it.

Why would Eric just out and out lie about Owens' motives when there is an established truth? Why would ESPN publish such an obvious lie?


*Sigh*


-Anxiety

Well...Owens loves money and he gets money for playing football...ergo....he loves playing football. :D

Eric Allen is not a journalist by trade.

Because it's ESPN and they love circle jerking each other.

Hell, I just looked it up, and Terrell Owens says ON ESPN on 12/12/2004 in an interview that he doesn't even like football.

-Anxiety

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Paging a real editor...

Because lying is the coolest!

Just because a guy makes a fleeting comment, doesn't mean that he means that all the time. Imagine if they attributed every comment you ever made and used that later as an indictment of how you "love" or "hate" something?

If he is a journalist by employment, then he should be subject to the same rules of honesty and research as everyone else. And I hold him to the same standard. Plus, his editor certainly should be.

-Anxiety

I know but I have a hard time getting worked up over the opinions of Eric Allen, Chris Carter, Shannon Sharpe and the like. The majority of the time the insights of these guys is just awful.

I remember seeing Mike Vrabel on a couple of these shows. Guy made no sense at all.

Eric Allen is the Armstrong Williams of the sports world? Drew Rosenhaus is so ethical though, theres no way he would pay someone to say good things about T.O :rolleyes:

ESPN.com is not exactly an example of real journalism.

95% of their "writers" are either pathetic fanboys or idiot ex-jocks.

That sounds more like a cliche/opinion than a 100% hard fact. That's just an uninformed guy giving a bad justification for taking a certain position on the topic du jour.

Because there is a very seductive meme which says that a good athlete whom one likes (due to performance, winning personality, perceived work ethic etc.) must be doing it for love of the game, and a good athlete whom one does not like (due to surliness towards the media, contract disputes, lingering injuries etc.) must love money more than the game. This meme is sufficiently strong to overwhelm, at times, even the athletes own words, and is certainly strong enough for a columnist or commentator who hasn't done his research to automatically make assumptions.

I would go with Eric Allen not knowing about Owens' comment. The part about Owens playing hard when he is on the field is, I think, pretty accurate. Even with his bad attitude, I can't remember him ever loafing as a 49er, and he never loafed whenever I saw Eagles games, either. I suspect that Parcells cares a lot more about whether Owens plays hard than whether he loves the game, so I think the essence of the point Allen is making is fairly accurate, even if it's not true in its entirety.

But I think Allen is wrong, and Parcells is going to tire of Owens' off-field crap very, very quickly. Plus, if Donovan McNabb wasn't a good enough QB for Owens, what are the chances Drew Bledsoe will be?

Why do cats go 'meow'? Why do dogs go 'woof'? Why does Jenna Jameson go 'Oh yeah baby'?

Writing a column on a web site does not make you a journalist.

From dictionary.com:





Since Allen also writes for ESPN the Magazine, that makes him a journalist and Insider, and I have to pay to read some of his stuff, then he is a journalist.


-Anxiety

Better question:

Why do birds suddenly appear
Everytime, you are near?

I'd say this is picking at nits.

Then again I do believe TO is the best receiver in the game. Perhaps this guy is trying to say that Parcells could get along with him cause he really performs on the field, and for that reason Parcells will be more willing to tolerate the other nonsense that he will bring to the table. Perhaps Parcells is able to compartmentalize the on and off field TO personas.

First, your definition doesn't say anything about having to pay. You have to pay for Penthouse Forum -- that doesn't make any writer in there a journalist.

Second, your definition include people who keep a diary. If you want to change your title to "Why do people lie in their journals or diaries?" then I'll let it slide.
Precisely. Anxiety, there are many different kinds of "journalism" writing. Eric Allen is not a "reporter" -- he is at best a columnist, at worst a commentator. There is a difference in how you approach those types of writing, but I don't expect you to understand it. If it makes you feel better believing everyone with a blog, a journal or an FOFC dynasty is a journalist, more power to you.
Why do people make gross exaggerations? First, you're not asking why journalists lie, you're asking why doe Eric Allen lie. If I posted a story about a guy who happened to be a FOFC user molesting a squirrel, why would I ask the question, "Why do FOFC users molest squirrels?"
First, how do you know it's a lie? I don't doubt that you have seen Terrell Owens talk about how he doesn't like playing football. I haven't seen that, so how do you know Allen isn't simply "mistaken" rather than lying? How would you like it if the next time you make a mistake on FOFC I started a thread saying "Why does Anxiety lie?"

But let's take a closer look at what Allen actually said, shall we?
I highlighted the key part. Allen appears to be saying that despite Owens behavior and comments to the contrary, he loves to play football and win games. It looks like Allen is acknowledging that Owens has made silly comments in the past, but he does not believe they are true.

Here's what brings the whole thing together. Columnists/commentators like Eric Allen are used and are popular because they bring a different perspective to the story. Eric Allen likely knows Terrell Owens -- he's had conversations with him. He's a former player. Allen has a different interaction and dynamic with Owens that a typical reporter. What Allen appears to be saying is that based on what he knows about Owens, he thinks the comments about him not caring about playing is crap and that Owens is really a competitor.

You've never talked to Terrell Owens, so how do you have special insight into his mind that Eric Allen can't have, despite knowing the guy?

I'm sorry you're the victim of my rant, Anxiety. I wouldn't have flipped out as much if I wasn't tired of journalism frequently getting the backhand around here. I'm not saying there isn't bad journalism out there, but broad generalizations that bad mouth the entire profession when all you're doing is talking about Eric freakin' Allen ticks me off as a trained journalist.

In that case, I would concede that your definition of "journalist" is sufficiently broad to support your premise.

Anxiety wrote this thread on the internet. I have to pay to use the internet. Anxiety is a journalist because he writes stuff that I have to pay to read.

Remember, Eric Allen writes for ESPN the Magazine. That makes him a journalist. And its not MY definition, i's Dictionary.com's definition.

I am a journalist. I've worked in newsrooms, I get paid to write for the largest magazine in my hobby (Scrye), one of the newest magazines in my hobby (Becketts) and I get paid to write for one of the largest websites in my hobby. There were two people at fault on this particular piece. Eric Allen, who as a paid journalist, should do better no matter his background, and his editor. Editors who allow stuff like this to slip by are just at fault, if not more so. If I submitted a piece that I hadn't researched and was wrong, my editor would reject it in seconds.

Journalists do lie, there no way to refute that. My use of the plural is to point out at least TWO people who erred here, not just Eric Allen. I could obviously site chapter and verse of lies done for politics, companies, and more. My question is why allow a major one like this on your website, which is supposely refutable?

-Anxiety

Others have said it already, but the simple fact is that he's a columnist. An editorial writer.

He's not reporting on hard news, he's giving his opinion of it. There are editorials in newspapers everyday that don't tell 100% of the truth. The bar is set lower and most things are fair game. I could say in an op-ed that I think the local politician is a hack whose goal is to raise my taxes. If the politician had actually voted down taxes five times? It doesn't matter. I'm stating an opinion and I don't need a ton of facts to back me up.

There isn't one definition of a journalist in this day and age anyway. You have investigative journalists, beat reporters, columnists and even reporters who have a role to incite anger. You can't really paint all of them with the same brush as they are responsible and tasked to do different things.

Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays.

I don't know why, but it cracks me up seeing this line in just about every thread on here today.

There are front page articles that don't tell 100% of the truth.

In fairness, telling 100% of the truth would result in a very, very long article. I don't think many people would read it.

Very, very long? Not neccessary. Not many people would read it? That I must agree with.