Mitch Albom

[lcjjdnh]

Well, the Free-Press finally published their report on Albom and all I can say is that I'm stunned:

http://www.freep.com/news/metro/review16e_20050516.htm

The worst part about all this is he refuses to admit that he is wrong, saying
he's a columnist, so he doesn't have to play by reporting rules.

This is absolutly absurd and if it wasn't "Mitch Albom" any writer who did something like this would be fired in a heartbeat.

The other amazing thing is that he does not feel sorry at all for what he did. He was angry when writing the first apology and put only 10 minutes into it. Now he refuses to accept responsibility for doing what he's done wrong, it really just digust me.

I can't believe that Albom isn't embarrassed enough to resign and that the Free-Press cares so much about selling papers that it won't fire him. It really shows how far media has fallen.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Well, the Free-Press finally published their report on Albom and all I can say is that I'm stunned:

http://www.freep.com/news/metro/review16e_20050516.htm

The worst part about all this is he refuses to admit that he is wrong, saying
he's a columnist, so he doesn't have to play by reporting rules.

This is absolutly absurd and if it wasn't "Mitch Albom" any writer who did something like this would be fired in a heartbeat.

The other amazing thing is that he does not feel sorry at all for what he did. He was angry when writing the first apology and put only 10 minutes into it. Now he refuses to accept responsibility for doing what he's done wrong, it really just digust me.

I can't believe that Albom isn't embarrassed enough to resign and that the Free-Press cares so much about selling papers that it won't fire him. It really shows how far media has fallen.

I've been following this from the beginning and read it this morning (as I always read the Freep and the DetNews first thing), but I don't think he's taking "no responsibility". He just thinks this whole thing is an overblown witch-hunt, and I agree.

I think you're wrong that any other writer would have been fired over this. I think they would have been warned or disciplined, but not fired. The only reason this thing is even news, is because it's Mitch Albom, and he has a lot of catty, bitchy fellow writers. Maybe if they had as much talent or drive as him, worried about themselves more, and bitched less, they'd be successful too.

I'm not even a huge Albom fan, but the way this has been so over-sensationalized is nauseating. Self-loathing people love to pounce on those more successful than themselves and I find it pathetic.

[Young Drachma]

Seems like a witchhunt to me. All of those quotes from his "colleagues" sound bitter as hell to me. I mean, I've been in a newsroom and see how these folks operate. And it's generally like that. But to have a story run where you bash a guy you work with, seems pretty f-ed up to me.

Albom doesn't need to job, he's just not gonna quit because he figures he'd look bad in the end.

[timmynausea]

I can't believe I just read something that long about Mitch Albom. I mean, I didn't read the whole thing, but still...

[JonInMiddleGA]

I disagree that "any other reporter" would be fired, hell, I'm not sure how much a lot of them would even be disciplined.

The quote from Leonard Pitts says a lot about how this works for columnists: "It's sort of mushy ground," he said. "It's not so much a matter of always giving credit to the other source so much as it is making sure that I'm not misleading readers that I dug this out."

Maybe I'm just odd, but a columnist largely equates to a "commentator" to me -- not someone reporting anything but someone making observations about things reported by others. And in that role, I don't really see much need for attribution, it's not particularly relevant because I didn't have any belief the columnist was the origin of the information unless they specifically claimed to be.

I have a mild problem with some of the instances where there was an exclusive that wasn't credited with at least a passing reference but beyond that ... I'm just not seeing a problem here.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe I'm just odd, but a columnist largely equates to a "commentator" to me -- not someone reporting anything but someone making observations about things reported by others. And in that role, I don't really see much need for attribution, it's not particularly relevant because I didn't have any belief the columnist was the origin of the information unless they specifically claimed to be.

I have a mild problem with some of the instances where there was an exclusive that wasn't credited with at least a passing reference but beyond that ... I'm just not seeing a problem here.

I agree. I've never read a column as 'straight news' and I'm not sure there are a lot of people who do.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I disagree that "any other reporter" would be fired, hell, I'm not sure how much a lot of them would even be disciplined.

Mary Mapes/Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Stephen Glass, Patricia Smith, Diana Griego Erwin, Jim Van Vliet, Kim Stacy, Brad Smith. Some of those names you may recognize, some you probably don't, but what's the common thread?

Every single one of those people lost a job, either because they were fired, resigned, or resigned under pressure, as a direct result of fabricating a story, either in part or in total.

Whether or not you think Albom's actions deserve the same punishment is another matter.

But I think it's pretty clear that the precedent for discipline with regards to fabricating stories or sources has been set, and to excuse Albom because being a columnist isn't the same as reporting hard news is bogus. As a journalist, you either abide by a certain set of ethics, or you don't.

If you want to write fiction, there are plenty of publishing houses willing to accept such, as I believe Mr. Albom has already discovered (and quite profitably, I'm sure).

The newspaper isn't the place for fiction, whether it's about two high school kids, the homeless in Los Angeles, or the plight of the oppressed in the Third World.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This is definitely a witch hunt. The amount of hub-bub about this is ridiculous. It's a tempest in a teapot. It's a freaking joke. Was he wrong? Yes. But it was such a minor thing. The reason people are so after Mitch is because he's a bit of a smug, holier-than-thou little fella. That sort of thing doesn't fly well, especially in the blue Michigan sports world. Lots of people would like to see this guy fall and get his because of this. I think that's driving a lot of this and that's crap.

Far too much has been made of this. It's retarded.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

...to excuse Albom because being a columnist isn't the same as reporting hard news is bogus.

Well SA, this isn't exactly the first time you've been wrong and I doubt pretty seriously it'll be the last.

[Ksyrup]

This whole thing is pretty interesting, from a 10,000 foot view. When reading a column, I hardly ever think that the columnist has spoken to the people he's quoting. Hell, when reading a straight-up article, I don't even think that. The only expectation I have is that the statement is accurate and properly attributed to the person who said it. I've never read a column, unless it's advertised as a straight-up interview with someone, as containing quotes that were given directly to the writer.

As far as giving proper credit for quotes, frankly, I don't want to have to wade through a slew of "...as reported by the AP on March 26th" or "...Such-and-Such said in an interview given to Good Morning America on May 5th." I just want to read the damn column. These aren't law review articles and I don't expect exact footnotes documenting everything.

I also don't see why someone can't write a story about a game they watched on TV versus being there live. As long as there isn't any commentary about how the team seemed during pre-game, or something else that would suggest the writer was actually there and experienced something directly that he couldn't otherwise get from TV...I don't get the outrage. Then again, I don't write newspaper columns for a living, either.

[Suicane75]

I understand that there may be unwritten rules or even written rules that he broke, but I have no use for those rules and agree with what Ksyrup wrote.

That being said I've always found Mitch Albom a bit pretentious.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Mary Mapes/Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Stephen Glass, Patricia Smith, Diana Griego Erwin, Jim Van Vliet, Kim Stacy, Brad Smith. Some of those names you may recognize, some you probably don't, but what's the common thread?

Every single one of those people lost a job, either because they were fired, resigned, or resigned under pressure, as a direct result of fabricating a story, either in part or in total.

Whether or not you think Albom's actions deserve the same punishment is another matter.

Wow, because you can list a bunch of people who have been fired for getting facts wrong means that every writer/reporter who has ever done so has been fired. Sorry, I am not part of this discussion, but listing them as proof that any writer but Albom who had done so would have been fired is ludicrous. I am certain that the list of people who have made mistakes like this and not been fired is longer than the list of those who have, it just doesn't make the national news.

[QuikSand]

It seems to me that the intent of the writer is important in a case like this.

Albom was cutting corners. I don't think there's any real dispute about that. Personally, I'm a lot less worried about the second-hand quotes (as long as they are accurate) as I'd be about the misleading byline and description of the former MSU players (his writing about them being at the game which they ultimately did not attend). It certainly appears that Albom had noble intentions there -- he did talk to the players in question for the column, they did say they were going to the game later that weekend, and he had a deadline that required submission before the game actually took place. Was it wrong to write it on Friday as though it had already happened? Yes. Is that an offense of the same magnitude as a purely fabricated story. with a deliberate inten to substantially mislead? I think not. Is it as bad as a major news operation going with a major news story without anything approximating genuine confirmation of sources? Again, I think not.

I'm not much of a fan of Albom, and while I hesitate to call this a witch hunt, I do generally side with him that this is being a bit overblown. It sounds like the Freep needs to clarify their attribution guidelines, perhaps discipline Albom in some way, and move on. I don't think there needs to be a ceremonial beheading in the town square.

[gi]

The paper and editors are more at fault then Mitch. He shares part of the blame for this, but the paper should have done more to see that these errors do not happen. This event wasn't trivial and it has been blown out of proportion because of Mitch's success.

[Passacaglia]

Myers, Albom's direct editor, said, "I have no clue how I missed it. I totally screwed up. Everyone needs an editor, and I failed miserably in this case."

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...04&postcount=3

[Bonegavel]

How can you trust anything this guys writes ever again? When I'm reading an article for "news" content I don't want to be thinking "did the author make this up?" or anything of that nature. Integrity is number 1 for news. I have plenty of books to read when I'm interested in fiction.

Its just part of the job.

It is obvious the guy is over-extended. He needs to give up one of his jobs and by the sounds of it he needs to quit the freep. Even if the quotes are accurate they should be attributed. Credit needs to be given to those doing the actual work.

I don't care if a news story I'm reading is nothing but the author quoting other's or citing other news items... I just want it to be accurate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wonder how many people here actually realize/ever thought about how far in advance any number of things in their daily newspaper are actually written?

[kcchief19]

Maybe it is the trained journalist in me, but I don't see any bit of a witch hunt in this and I agree that a less celebrated journalist would likely have been fired for similar errors in judgement.

Writing about an event that did not happen is a horrific journalism crime. If Mitch Albom wrote about an incident at the Final Four that didn't happen, the reader next has to ask what else did write about that didn't happen. The Free Press asked that question and their answer seems to be that it was an isolated incident. How is that a witch hunt? That sounds like a fair and equitable ruling.

The use of non-attributed quotes is an entirely different matter. It would be one thing if Albom were using quotes gathered by other sources at the paper; many newspapers do this and the stories are often tagged at the conclusion with the names of other reporters who contributed to the story. In this case, Albom committed a significant journalistic faux pas by using material gathered by other news organizations and non citing those sources. In any industry, that is pirating another person's work.

Quik is right in saying that what Albom was doing was cutting corners. If you need a quote for your story, you get the quote for your story yourself. It's theivery to steal quotes from another reporter, particularly reporters who don't work for your paper, without proper sourcing.

I suppose I can see non-journalists not getting this. I think there are also way too many journalists who see nothing wrong with this. Albom's editors are just as guilty as he is if they allowed it to happen with their knowledge. If Albom presented quotes to his editors as his work when they were not, then that is another strike against him.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around, but I think the Free Press' review is pretty fair. I am concerned that Albom thinks he did nothing wrong. And if readers don't think he did something wrong, then I think that is unfortunately an indictment of journalism as a whole that standards are sliding or readers expectations are sliding. Readers should expect when the read anything in the newspaper than the reporter witnessed the event or spoke directly to sources about the event. Reporters should never give the impression they were at an event they were not at.

[lcjjdnh]

I'm actually surprised how many people agree with Albom, so I'll address my problems one by one:

However, the inquiry found that Albom at times has used quotes from newspapers, TV programs or other publications without indicating that he did not gather the material himself, in violation of Free Press rules on crediting sources. In several instances, Albom did not credit quotes exclusively gathered by another media organization.

First whether or not you want Albom to put where he got quotes from in his column or not, it's Free-Press rule to do so, so he should have done it. His editors are at fault too, but at many papers, if Albom was just any other columnist, he would have been reprimanded for breaking the rules.

Albom argued that it is more important for columnists, who are given more leeway in the paper than other writers, to use quotes accurately than to identify where they came from.

And then..

At times, quotes cited by Albom were worded slightly differently from how they appeared elsewhere in the media, with the quotes seeming to be livelier in some cases.

So he was not really even keeping the quotes accurate, but keeping them, as he said, "essentially accurate." This is a big no, no. Any reporter or writer knows you never, unless the grammer is so poor it's unreadable, are supposed to change a quote, so why would he do this. Once you start changing quotes, it ceases to be a quote. This is just poor journalistic form.

"I've been at the Free Press for 20 years -- have never had a whiff of controversy," Albom said. "And I would like to think I did a decent job in those 20 years."

No journalistic problem with this, just thinks it's a bit of a jerkoff comment.

Albom dutifully recorded the remarks and those of the day's hero, designated hitter Dmitri Young. But Albom wasn't anywhere near the locker room after the game. He'd left early, whisked by luxury car service to his popular afternoon radio show on WJR-AM (760), three miles away.

The thing about attributing the quotes is present here but more importantly is what he did. If Albom wanted to write a game day column, he should have stayed for the home game and taken his own quotes. It was opening day, he could have stayed through to the end. I'm sure he could have started his show an hour later, or had the show broadcast from Comerica, if he was really dedicated to doing his best on both the column and the radio show.

Just three days earlier, on Friday, April 1, Albom took a red-eye flight in from Los Angeles, dashed off two Free Press columns and hosted his radio show before flying to St. Louis the next morning. In one of these columns, which ran April 3, Albom described events at a Michigan State University basketball game that had yet to take place -- and later proved to be false. When the problems were revealed, Albom became ensnared in a crisis that damaged his career and his newspaper's reputation.

This is the big one. It shows a lot of big problems with what Albom does. First of all, he didn't make sure that what he said was going to happen was true. And he made it so specific, talking about the clothes those two wore. It makes the paper look really bad when they run stuff like this.

At the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, Albom said he relied on an Australian news story and discussions among fellow journalists to report -- inaccurately -- that a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea trained in a river with snakes and crocodiles. Albom concedes he did not attempt to interview the swimmer or check into the credibility of the story. The day after Albom's column appeared in the Free Press, the Miami Herald published a story on the swimmer, Eric Moussambani, who said the tale was untrue.

This is an example of something he does quite a bit. There's columns I've seen from him, like the Mike Hart column from early this year, where he writes them without ever talking to the person he is writing about. This is when you make mistakes, luckily for him it has always happened once. Even if you don't use a quote, he should have at least talked to this guy before he wrote the story.

In December 2000, Albom wrote a column about a Detroit Lions loss to the Chicago Bears that kept them from the playoffs, without revealing he watched it at home.

Alright, there's two problems I have with this. First, his editor specifically told him to make sure that he said he watched at home, and he didn't do it. Albom obviously questioned himself before doing, because he called to make sure it was okay, so why didn't he do what was necessary. It wouldn't have been too hard for him to just say "As I watched the game at home."

And he's done this numerous times. He obviously attempted to decieve people with the St. Louis byline, when he wrote the story in Michigan, so what makes you think he didn't want people to believe he was at the game in this piece. It's a column, but you should still make it clear that you were not at the game if you weren't there.

The newspaper industry has wrestled with recent scandals over the use of quotes and other credibility issues. Last month, a reporter at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution resigned after being accused of lifting quotes from another newspaper. And this month, a USA Today reporter resigned after lifting quotes from an Indianapolis newspaper.

Examples of others getting fired for a similar thing.

Albom wrote his apology in 10 minutes, dictated it to the paper by phone and hopped on his flight.

Albom was 100 percent wrong about what he did. He's supposed to be commentating on fact not fiction. He screwed up and refused to admit it. At least if he was going to write on something that was supposed to happen, you would have hoped he would have checked to make sure it was going to happen. How can he not realize he was wrong in this situation. He made a mistake, and it made it worse that he wouldn't just admit that he was wrong.

[QuikSand]

The last two posts are pretty compelling in my view.

I had missed in the original article the argument that Albom "livened up" quotes he drew from other sources. To me, that's a lot bigger deal than the lack of attribution.

[gi]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Maybe it is the trained journalist in me

I'll add the comments my journalist friend offered:



This is very murky ground--it depends on what could be
considered public domain. I think the article covers
it fairly well.

I would guess that Albom and others crossed the line a
bit in terms of leeway with those quotes, but, when I
did editorials and whatnot, I did the same at times,
if I felt the quote was in the public domain.
Columnists generally operate much more freely than
regular news writers.

Merits conversation . . .

And:

Well, if he had a byline that said he was there and he
wasn't, that's a 100% no-no. But that's also up to
the editors to handle.

However, from a storytelling perspective, being
"omnicient" isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it
depends on how you view columnist and feature Sunday
columns. They tend to be more relaxed. Again, I
can't really outright condemn writing in that style
(although the factual error was inexcusable, but more
the editors fault). Newspapers need to tell stories
and present information . . . kind of like a Civil War
history writer . . . he/she wasn't there, but can
paint an edjucated picture. However, newspapers, as
far as I know, have never gone the route of detailed
attribution (unlike history books).

I can't give you a clear cut answer--there really
isn't one.
End comments from friend.

I thought these were interesting points.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Readers should expect when the read anything in the newspaper than the reporter witnessed the event or spoke directly to sources about the event.

Sorry Chief, but that utter horseshit, plain & simple.

In the era where everybody brother's has a press contact who ships voluminous releases chock full of quotes, where soundbites are downloadable from the sources themselves via the internet, where fans are given direct & free access to media notes & briefings ... well, you get the point - there is no absolute requirement that anybody be within 1000 miles of any number of quotable sources to quote them.

Now there are certainly any number of cases where direct contact is useful and/or neccessary but that's far different from the absolute truism you try to portray and it's something that hasn't been true for years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gi

Well, if he had a byline that said he was there and he
wasn't, that's a 100% no-no. But that's also up to the editors to handle.

The underline is mine, because it's a critical point of the MSU story that's being overlooked. Albom delivered exactly what was demanded of him, a column some 48 hours before publication. What gets into the paper or doesn't isn't up to the writer, it's up to the editors & that responsibility lies solely with them. Surely there's an "evergreen" Albom column lying around somewhere (basically a backup column in case something goes wrong with the intended column), this is a case where it should have been used.

I can't give you a clear cut answer--there really isn't one.

And right here, your friend hits on the biggest point of all.

Aside from that, although it's a different issue entirely, I'll avoid a dola & throw in something else -- To me, Albom is a guy who I recognize by name but that's about it. I'm neither pro nor con on him, hell I don't really have an opinion about him per se. But to the DFP he is not "just another writer", he's a commodity that they promote & use to sell newspapers. It's clear from the comments from the jealous co-workers that he is handled differently than some others on staff, but that seems rather natural given his position at the paper. Hell, it seems so obvious & natural that I'm amazed anybody seems the least bit dismayed by it.

[Bubba Wheels]

Albom has always been quick to point of the ethical shortfalls of other public figures. But when it comes to himself, he expects to get a pass. This is the very problem many have with today's media.

Being all over the Metro Detroit area radio yesterday, had to outright laugh at the main excuse him and his editors used. Albom was 'very busy.' Very busy? Not like he's been flying back and forth cross-country for alturistic motives, he's been 'busy' cause he has his fingers in alot of pies and makes alot of money for himself doing that. And that is all well and good, but to then try to use that as his excuse...please....

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sorry Chief, but that utter horseshit, plain & simple.

In the era where everybody brother's has a press contact who ships voluminous releases chock full of quotes, where soundbites are downloadable from the sources themselves via the internet, where fans are given direct & free access to media notes & briefings ... well, you get the point - there is no absolute requirement that anybody be within 1000 miles of any number of quotable sources to quote them.

Now there are certainly any number of cases where direct contact is useful and/or neccessary but that's far different from the absolute truism you try to portray and it's something that hasn't been true for years.

No, it's not horseshit ... it's you not reading and comprehending clearly.

If you did not witness an event, you should not write an article that suggests you witnessed the event. If you did not interview someone, you should not lift quotes from another reporter, especially if that reporter works for another company. It's flat out stealing.

As for media notes, releases and soundbites from the Internet, journalists following the profession's code of ethics should and do cite that. "In a statement, John Smith said ..."

If a writer writes a bylined article that quotes someone, it shoulc be assumed the reporter heard or witnessed the quote first hand. If not, the source of the quote should be cited. If that doesn't happen in practice, then those journalists are acting unethically. I think most sports journalists are very good about this; if you watch ESPN, you will always see them identify the source of video or interviews when they originated from someplace other than ESPN.

What we're talking about is akin to Mitch Albom watching the Super Bowl on TV and then quoting the winning coach based on the interview on ABC afterward. If he gives the impression he was at the game, he's lying and should be punished. If he takes the quotes that the ABC reporter got and passes them off as his own, he's stealing and shoud be punished.

There really isn't anything as a public domain for quotes; the closest you would get would be from an interview with multiple media or a press conference. But once again, if you weren't there you should note as much, and it's not hard.

For example, a reporter attending Dick Vermeil's regular press conference might say, "Vermeil said ..." and you would instantly know that Vermeil said this in the reporter's presence. If the reporter watched on television or listened via teleconference, the reporter shoudl say, "During his weekly press conference, Vermeil told reporters ...".

I'll agree there is a fine line, but any reporter who gives the impression they witnessed and event or spoke to someone directly themselves but did not is committing intellectual dishonesty.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well SA, this isn't exactly the first time you've been wrong and I doubt pretty seriously it'll be the last.

Hi, pot.

Nice ad hominem attack, by the way. Sure convinced me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If a writer writes a bylined article

Well, we apparently draw different distinctions between "articles" and "columns".

it shoulc be assumed the reporter heard or witnessed the quote first hand.

I disagree completely.

...then those journalists are acting unethically.

Again, we disagree completely. "Journalistic ethics" does not cover every instance of readers/viewers drawing erroneous conclusions.

... if you watch ESPN, you will always see them identify the source of video or interviews when they originated from someplace other than ESPN.

Which has zero to do with ethics and everything to do with concern over being sued by competing networks and/or with shifting the blame to the cited parties in case any liability arises from the item.

What we're talking about is akin to Mitch Albom watching the Super Bowl on TV and then quoting the winning coach based on the interview on ABC afterward.

Which is absolutely 100% fine AFAIC, as long as he's a columnist quoting what he heard with his own ears, it matters not one iota where/how he heard it.
If he comments on something he didn't see or hear, such as (just for example) "the coach appeared angry with reporters in the hallway backstage but showed no signs of anger in front of the cameras", then that's stretching the line. But a public statement is a public statement.

The reason it isn't always noted whether a reporter is at the game, in the press box, on the sidelines, in the lockerroom or watching on tv is simple -- it really doesn't fucking matter, as long as the information in presented in as accurate a context as possible or as practical.

I'll agree there is a fine line, but any reporter who gives the impression they witnessed and event or spoke to someone directly themselves but did not is committing intellectual dishonesty.

And I'll agree that there are some lines, but I don't believe that the writer is responsible for the faulty assumptions made by readers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Nice ad hominem attack, by the way. Sure convinced me.

Actually, that was simply an honest and accurate observation.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, that was simply an honest and accurate observation used to dismiss an argument rather than address it directly.

Fixed it for you. If you're going to justify being an asshole with "honesty," be all the way honest, 'k?

[OldGiants]

So it was really Wednesdays with Maury?

And he didn't meet five people in Heaven?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Fixed it for you. If you're going to justify being an asshole with "honesty," be all the way honest, 'k?

Actually, if I wanted to be an asshole, I'd have done a lot more than just poke a small hole in your pompous pseudo-authoritative post. And since you apparently decided to get your panties in a bunch anyway ... well, what the hell.

To try to equate a reporter to a columnist shows just how little you actually know or understand about journalism. In your own words

to excuse Albom because being a columnist isn't the same as reporting hard news is bogus. As a journalist, you either abide by a certain set of ethics, or you don't.

Guess what? Columnists are entertainers, who happen to do their entertaining by writing. By and large they aren't journalists in any sort of traditional sense, the majority of them haven't been in years, if they ever were. Nor do many of the ones who aren't delusional claim to be, at least not seriously.

Nobody ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the general public and with that in mind, nobody can really be held repsonsible for what manner of foolish assumptions they make. If they can't tell the difference between commentary and reporting, I don't believe any amount of attribution is going to make a serious difference.

Now, you thought I was being an asshole earlier? No SA, I was letting you off easy. If you want the honest truth in detail, I think you'd do better to stick to the videogames and leave the serious stuff to the adults who actually understand WTF is going on and HTF the world works, because you clearly haven't yet acquired a clue on this topic.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, if I wanted to be an asshole, I'd have done a lot more than just poke a small hole in your pompous pseudo-authoritative post. And since you apparently decided to get your panties in a bunch anyway ... well, what the hell.

To try to equate a reporter to a columnist shows just how little you actually know or understand about journalism. In your own words



Guess what? Columnists are entertainers, who happen to do their entertaining by writing. By and large they aren't journalists in any sort of traditional sense, the majority of them haven't been in years, if they ever were. Nor do many of the ones who aren't delusional claim to be, at least not seriously.

Nobody ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the general public and with that in mind, nobody can really be held repsonsible for what manner of foolish assumptions they make. If they can't tell the difference between commentary and reporting, I don't believe any amount of attribution is going to make a serious difference.

Now, you thought I was being an asshole earlier? No SA, I was letting you off easy. If you want the honest truth in detail, I think you'd do better to stick to the videogames and leave the serious stuff to the adults who actually understand WTF is going on and HTF the world works, because you clearly haven't yet acquired a clue on this topic.

I read the paper every day, and I am aware of the distinct role of the columnist, but I was not aware they were held to a different standard of ethics, or, for that matter, not actually considered 'journalists.'

Just my $.02 ... I don't read Albon and don't really know what to think of this thread.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you want the honest truth in detail, I think you'd do better to stick to the videogames and leave the serious stuff to the adults who actually understand WTF is going on and HTF the world works, because you clearly haven't yet acquired a clue on this topic.

Sure thing. When you see one, let me know, won't you?

[mhass]

I agree that this inaccuracy is pretty small and relatively insignificant in the context of the Final Four. In fact, this has litte effect on my opinion of Albom. But - and I mean this as an honest question to those of who can look past this easily - at what point do you expect what you read in your newspaper to be true? What parts of the paper do you require truth in and what parts are okay for deliberate or accidental untruths?

[Bubba Wheels]

I read the news today, how sad...about a lucky man who made the grade...

Mitch is a big Beatles fan

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by mhass

I agree that this inaccuracy is pretty small and relatively insignificant in the context of the Final Four. In fact, this has But - and I mean this as an honest question to those of who can look past this easily - at what point do you expect what you read in your newspaper to be true? What parts of the paper do you require truth in and what parts are okay for deliberate or accidental untruths?

Good question. I remember some years ago, Cokie Roberts of ABC News went on the air in a raincoat on a windy day standing in front of the White House doing a report...except that she was really on a sound stage in California in front of a big picture with a fan blowing...

At what point does making stuff up in the news become become unacceptable?

[mhass]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Good question. I remember some years ago, Cokie Roberts of ABC News went on the air in a raincoat on a windy day standing in front of the White House doing a report...except that she was really on a sound stage in California in front of a big picture with a fan blowing...

At what point does making stuff up in the news become become unacceptable?

This is a slightly different issue unless Cokie was reporting on the weather in D.C. But the point remains, where is strict factuality expected in the news?

[Huckleberry]

What we're talking about is akin to Mitch Albom watching the Super Bowl on TV and then quoting the winning coach based on the interview on ABC afterward.

So when he reports the final score in his column the next day, shall he cite the ABC telecast where he saw it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by mhass

... at what point do you expect what you read in your newspaper to be true?

[/quote]

Although I haven't broken it down through any specific means, I'd say I believe about 40% of what I read from local reporters in the daily newspaper is presented both accurately & in remotely adequate context. I add that last qualifier because the accuracy of an individual fact does not always, in and of itself, provide anything of real value. As for what do I expect? At this point, from the average daily newspaper, I expect them to provide material that fits their own agenda and things that help them sell papers. Might explain why I haven't bought an actual physical newspaper for myself in several years.

(and I drew the local reporter distinction because I don't have any known reason to doubt the accuracy/attempted accuracy of things like box scores, stock listings,temperature listings, etc.)

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

So when he reports the final score in his column the next day, shall he cite the ABC telecast where he saw it?

Why not?

KC and others above are looking at the situation as Journalists or at least from the supposed prospective of a Journalist. From that viewpoint, I'd say a number of the things Albom did were unethical. Look at what Jason Blair went through, rightfully so. It is the height of irony that Albom violates the exact same journalistic principle as Blair in an article blasting Blair. He absolutely doesn't have a clue, nor a leg to stand on. Blair was canned, Albom should be Censured in some manner.

As for JIMG and the other Albom fanboys(sorry I really don't think there is such a thing...I just thought that sounded funny, and would tick Jon off), I think you are looking at this not only from the position of the layperson, but also in the best possible light.

I wouldn't be surprised if Albom was be scorned nearly universally by journalists. He seems to have broken the same rules as Blair, and gotten quite a bit of slack considering the reaction to the Blair story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for JIMG and the other Albom fanboys(sorry I really don't think there is such a thing...I just thought that sounded funny, and would tick Jon off),

You gonna have to work harder than that
(especially since I doubt I could pick Albom out of a lineup with 2 tries)