Dialogue Web Extra: Poynter/ESPN project

>> WELCOME BACK TO THIS "DIALOGUE" WEB EXTRA.
I'M HERE WITH KELLY McBRIDE, ETHICIST, MEDIA ETHICIST FOR
THE POYNTER INSTITUTE IN ST.
PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, LEADING JOURNALISM TRAINING INSTITUTE,
PLACE, AND STUDIES THE MEDIA.
I WANTED TO ASK YOU, BUT WE COULDN'T GET TO THIS, FOR THE
LAST YEAR AND A HALF OR SO, YOU HAVE BEEN THE OMBUDSMEN FOR
ESPN, PERSON WHO TAKES A LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON IN AN
ORGANIZATION AND CRIES FOUL IF THERE IS A FOUL TO BE CALLED.
>> YEAH.
>> FIRST OF ALL, WHY DID YOU WANT TO DO THAT, VENTURE INTO
THE SPORTS ARENA?
ANOTHER PUN, I'M SORRY, AS OPPOSED TO STAYING JUST WITH
NEWS.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT SPORTS IS THEY ARE ABOUT FIVE
YEARS AHEAD OF THE NEWS BUSINESS.
IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE BLOGS THAT ARE OUT THERE ON SPORTS,
YOU LOOK AT THEM -- YOU LOOK AT THE MONEY THAT THEY MAKE IN
SPORTS, I MEAN, ESPN IS AN INCREDIBLY PROFITABLE COMPANY.
THEY CAN EXPERIMENT A LOT.
THEY HAVE THEIR FINGERS IN EVERYTHING.
I WAS INTERESTED IN WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WERE FOR NEWS OF
THE ONE THING THAT I NOTICED IS THAT WHERE THERE IS MONEY, AND
THERE IS ROOM TO EXPERIMENT, THEY TEND TO FIGURE OUT, LIKE,
OKAY, THIS IS WHAT WORKS.
AND NEWS TENDS TO FOLLOW BEHIND.
I WANTED TO SEE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIKE.
SOME OF WHAT I SAW SCARED ME.
THERE IS A LOT OF -- THERE ARE A LOT OF SITES OUT THERE THAT
ARE BASED ON VERY FEW RESOURCES, A LOT OF PEOPLE
CONTRIBUTING INFORMATION THAT HASN'T BEEN VERIFIED AT ALL,
AND THE INFORMATION IS SENSATIONALIZED, AND IT IS VERY
HARD TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH OF WHAT IS GOING ON.
>> SITES WITHIN ESPN.
>> NO, NO, THAT ESPN HAS TO COMPETE AGAINST.
ONE IS THE BLEACHER REPORT.
MOST OF THEIR CONTRIBUTORS ARE UNPAID, LIKE 99% OF THEM.
THEY PUBLISH SOME OF THE MOST SENSATIONAL RUMORS THAT ARE OUT
THERE.
ESPN HAS TO COMPETE AGAINST THAT.
I WANTED TO SEE HOW A COMPANY THAT TAKES JOURNALISM SERIOUSLY
IS DOING.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE DOING, AND I SAID THIS IN
THE COLUMN, THEY ARE GETTING A LITTLE BLURRY AROUND THE
BOUNDARIES ABOUT WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT ISN'T.
ESPN HAS A PRODUCT CALLED "RUMOR CENTRAL" AND IT IS
EXACTLY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.
THEY TRY TO BRING A LITTLE VALUE ADDED TO IT.
BRINGING ESPN ANALYSIS TO THE RUMORS.
AND A STANDARD THAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS AT LEAST
POSSIBLE THAT THE RUMOR IS TRUE.
>> KIND OF A LOW STANDARD -- >> EXACTLY.
INSTEAD OF YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IF IT IS TRUE OR NOT, WHICH
WOULD BE THE JOURNALISM STANDARD --
>> DID YOU FIND POTENTIAL ANALOGIES BETWEEN WHAT ESPN IS
TABLE TO DO AND NEWS MEDIA -- ESPN HAS A LOT MORE MONEY.
THEY CAN DO A LOT MORE.
>> WITH ALL OF THE RESOURCES THAT ESPN HAS, THEY HAVE TO
DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND, AND THEY HAVE TO AT SOME POINT SAY
WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMPETE.
THEY DON'T EVEN TRY TO BE FIRST WITH A LOT OF THE STUFF
ANYMORE.
>> THEY CERTAINLY WEREN'T FIRST WITH THE SANDUSKY SITUATION.
I AM WONDERING AS AN OMBUDSMEN HOW YOU ANALYZED THAT.
LOCAL PAPER GOT THE PULITZER PRIZE.
LOCAL PAPERS NORMALLY YOU THINK LOCAL PAPERS ARE NOT GOING TO
WRITE IN A REAL CRITICAL WAY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS SO
IMPORTANT TO THEIR COMMUNITY.
BUT THEY DID.
AND ESPN HAD THIS INFORMATION FOR AWHILE AND PASSED ON IT.
>> THEY TOTALLY -- THEY TOTALLY MISSED THE BOAT ON THAT ONE.
THEY DID IT AT A COUPLE OF POINTS.
THE LOCAL PAPER, HARRISBURG NEWSPAPER HAD WRITTEN LIKE 18
MONTHS EARLY THAT A JURY, GRAND JURY WAS CONVENING AND THAT
JERRY SANDUSKY WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE AND STARTED WRITING STORIES EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HEARING OUT OF THIS GRAND JURY.
NOBODY ELSE WAS FOLLOWING IT.
AP PICKED UP AND ATTRIBUTED IT TO THE HARRISBURG PAPER.
ESPN RAN A COLUMN DEEP, DEEP IN THE SITE BUT DIDN'T DEVOTE ANY
RESOURCES TO IT.
THEN WHERE THEY REALLY MISSED THE BOAT I THOUGHT WAS SANDUSKY
IS INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY.
AND ANYBODY WHO HAS COVERED COURTS KNOWS THAT A GRAND JURY
INDICTMENT IS WAY MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN SIMPLY HAVING
A PROSECUTOR FILE CHARGES.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE HAD CITIZENS LOOKING AT THIS INFORMATION FOR
A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND DECIDING WHETHER IT IS
LIKELY THAT A CONVICTION WOULD HAPPEN.
THAT WAS HUGE.
AND IT WAS LIKE 48 TO 72 HOURS BEFORE ESPN DECIDED TO REALLY
FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT CHILDREN HAD BEEN --
>> POTENTIALLY -- >> HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED.
>> NOW HE HAS.
BUT AT THAT TIME -- >> BUT TO FOCUS ON THE GRAVITY
OF THE CHARGES RATHER THAN THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD HAVE ON
PENN STATE RECRUITING.
I NAILED THEM FOR IT.
I SAID IT WAS HORRIFIC THAT THE WORLDWIDE LEADER IN SPORTS
WOULD MISS IT BY THAT MUCH.
BY 72 HOURS.
THE INDICTMENT CAME DOWN ON A SATURDAY AND IT WAS LATE
TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY BEFORE THEY FINALLY WERE RUNNING WITH
ALL OF THE ENGINES ON THAT ONE.
>> WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WERE SO SLOW BECAUSE OF THE
STATURE OF SANDUSKY OR BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T VERIFY IT OR --
>> SO, THERE IS THIS -- THERE IS THIS MYTH THAT SPORTS HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL WORLD.
WHEN, IN FACT, SPORTS ARE AN EXACT MIRROR OF THE REAL WORLD.
EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD, WHETHER IT IS STUFF
ABOUT RACE RELATIONS OR LABOR RELATIONS OR PUBLIC HEALTH, IT
ALL PLAYS OUT IN OUR SPORTING WORLD AS WELL.
AND I THINK THAT ESPN WAS SLOW TO REALIZE THAT THAT IS TRUE
EVEN IN THIS CASE.
AND SO I JUST THINK, SPORTS METAPHOR.
IN SOCCER, WHEN YOU HAVE THE BALL, IF YOU ARE THE DEFENDER,
YOU WANT TO KEEP THE OFFENDERS HEAD DOWN, KEEP HIM LOOKING AT
THE BALL RATHER THAN LOOKING AT OTHER PEOPLE.
ESPN WAS FOCUSED ON THE BALL RATHER THAN GETTING THEIR HEAD
UP AND LOOKING AROUND AT THE BROADER STORY AND MISSED IT.
>> AND THE NETWORK LEARNED ITS LESSON, I ASSUME.
>> YEAH, THEY GOT IT TOGETHER.
THEY DID.
ONCE THEY GET IT TOGETHER, THEN THEY HAVE -- THEY HAVE LIKE,
YOU KNOW, A GAZILLION CHANNELS --
>> ALMOST A MONOPOLY -- >> NO, NO, NOT AT ALL.
THEY HAVE SO MUCH COMPETITION.
CBS, FOX, NBC, THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN VERSION OF SPORTS
NETWORKS AND THE ONLINE COMPETITION IS FIERCE FOR THEM.
>> YOU ARE A SPORTS -- DID GETTING INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY
OF SPORTS AND PEELING BACK SOME OF THE AURA, WAS THAT
INTERESTING?
?
>> IT WAS FUN.
I'M WATCHING TV AND IT IS MY WORK NOW.
THAT'S COOL.
ESPECIALLY WATCHING SPORTS ON TV.
BUT AFTER AWHILE, IT ALMOST -- IT TOOK THE FUN OUT OF SPORTS
FOR ME.
BECAUSE I HAD TO KEEP THINKING ABOUT LIKE RATHER THAN WATCHING
THE GAME AND HOW INTERESTED I WAS, I HAD TO THINK ABOUT WHAT
THE COVERAGE WAS.
>> I HEARD AN NPR INTERVIEW WITH A MAN WHO HAS WRITTEN
ABOUT DOPING IN SPORTS.
HE HAS TO PUT A DIFFERENT HAT ON WHEN HE WATCHES THE OLYMPICS
BECAUSE HE KNOWS FOR A FACT WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THE
SCENES, AND AS WE CAN SEE NOW, THE SPORT OF CYCLING, THE LID
HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF OF THAT AS WELL.
>> A LOT OF CORRUPTION IN A LOT OF SPORTS.
AND THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF -- THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF ABUSE.
WHETHER IT IS THE ABUSE OF CHILD ATHLETES -- THERE IS A
SCANDAL WITH SWIM COACHES THAT BRIAN ROSS, OF ABC NEWS BROKE
OPEN.
>> WE HAVE THE HEAD INJURY ISSUE.
SPORTS IS -- SPORTS IS NEWS.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> SEGUEING, I KNOW THAT YOU ARE WORKING ON EDITING A BOOK
ABOUT WHAT THE NEW LANDSCAPE IS LOOKING LIKE WITH SOCIAL MEDIA,
AND SOME STANDARDS THAT CAN BE USED BY ENTITIES AND PEOPLE
INTERESTED IN REPORTING IN THIS MEDIA, MEDIUM.
AND WORKING ON THE SPORTS PROJECT HAS HELPED INFORM YOU
AS YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT BOOK, YES?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
ONE OF THE EXECUTIVES FROM ESPN IS HOPING TO PARTICIPATE AND
HOPING TO WRITE ONE OF THE CHAPTERS, ROB KING.
WHO IS OVER ALL OF THEIR DIGITAL ENTERPRISE.
HE IS GOING TO WRITE ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA.
BECAUSE SPN WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO BE OUT THERE.
THEY WANT ALL OF THEIR PEOPLE OUT THERE ON SOCIAL MEDIA --
THEY ENCOURAGE THEM AND THEY HAVE TO REEL THEM IN WHEN THEY
GET IN TROUBLE.
THEY SPEND A LOT OF RESOURCES -- ESPN HAS MORE THAN
1,000 CONTRIBUTORS.
PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID TO CREATE CONTENT OR GO ON THE AIR AND
TALK ABOUT THINGS.
MORE THAN 1,000.
>> HOW CAN YOU FACT CHECK THAT AS AN ENTITY --
>> THEY HAVE 7,000 EMPLOYEES.
THEY HAVE -- YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T FACT CHECK SOCIAL MEDIA.
>> I HAVE HEARD THIS EXPRESSION -- TWITTER IS LIKE A
SELF CLEANING OVEN.
EXPRESSION THAT HE USED.
SOMEBODY THROWS SOMETHING OUT THERE AND IT MIGHT NOT BE
ACCURATE.
SCRUBBING BUBBLES COMING ALONG AND CLEAN IT OUT.
>> SOMETIMES.
>> IN THE MEANTIME, PEOPLE'S LIVES CAN BE DRASTICALLY
CHANGED ABOUT WHAT IS GETTING OUT THERE.
YOU SAY 1,000 CONTRIBUTORS TO ESPN -- I KNOW AS A JOURNALIST,
I DON'T RETWEET SOMETHING UNLESS I CAN SOMEHOW VERIFY
IT -- NOT MYSELF, BUT GO TO THE SOURCE AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT
AND READ THE ARTICLE.
I AM SCARED TO RETWEET SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE
INACCURATE OUT.
>> THERE IS A SENSIBILITY IN ALL OF THIS, RIGHT?
YOU WOULD RETWEET SOMETHING FROM THE "NEW YORK TIMES" MORE
READILY THAN YOU WOULD RETWEET SOMETHING FROM SAY DEAD SPIN, A
BLOG THAT COVERS SPORTS.
BECAUSE THE "NEW YORK TIMES" HAS A BETTER BATTING AVERAGE --
ANOTHER SPORTS METAPHOR THERE -- ON GETTING IT RIGHT.
THERE IS A SENSIBILITY TO IT ALL.
YOU WON'T BE 100% CORRECT STILL.
YOU MIGHT RETWEET SOMETHING FROM NPR, AND NPR PUT OUT IN
THE SHOOTING AFTER GABBY GIFFORDS -- WHEN SHE WAS SHOT
IN ARIZONA, THEY PUT OUT THAT SHE WAS DEAD.
AND THEY PUT IT OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND IT WAS RETWEETED BY
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND IT WAS OUT THERE FOR
A LONG TIME.
MORE THAN AN HOUR BEFORE THEY COULD PULL IT BACK AND SAY
ACTUALLY WE WERE WRONG.
SO, THE OLD -- OUR OLD STANDARDS WERE NEVER PERFECT.
THERE ARE NEW STANDARDS AND DIFFERENT STANDARDS ESPECIALLY
IN SOCIAL MEDIA.
WE CAN'T APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE
NEWSPAPER TO TWITTER.
WE CAN'T.
IT IS NOT THE SAME MEDIUM.
>> A GRAPEVINE BASICALLY -- GAME OF TELEPHONE TAG.
>> IT IS -- TWITTER IS THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.
IT IS WHERE PEOPLE TALK TO EACH OTHER.
>> WHAT I DO WORRY ABOUT A LITTLE BIT IS THE ECHO CHAMBER
WHERE PEOPLE YOU KNOW NOT -- PEOPLE ARE RETWEETING EACH
OTHER AND IT IS DERIVATIVE.
>> THIS IS WHERE WE NEED CITIZENS TO GAIN A NEW SKILL
SET SO PEOPLE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT IS A GOOD THING TO RETWEET
AND WHAT ISN'T.
WE NEED JOURNALISTS TO FIND THEIR ROLE.
WE DON'T NEED JOURNALISTS REPEATING THE THINGS THAT OTHER
JOURNALISTS SAY AND COMMENTING ON THE THINGS THAT OTHER -- WE
NEED JOURNALISTS WHO ARE BREAKING ORIGINAL GROUND,
TURNING UP ORIGINAL FACTS.
SO THE VOLUME FROM JOURNALISTS MAY NOT BE AS MUCH AS FROM A
CITIZEN BLOGGER.
>> I WILL PUT A PLUG IN FOR THE BLOG THAT COVERS THE SUPREME
COURT.
I MADE THE CHOICE TO TURN THAT ON ON THE COMPUTER AND TURN OFF
THE TELEVISION.
I'M GLAD I MADE THE CHOICE.
THE REPORTERS THERE, GIVE US A MOMENT.
WE ARE GOING TO READ THE DECISION.
WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK WITH YOU.
AND THEY GOT BACK WITHIN A MINUTE AND THEIR OLD MEDIA
REPORTER -- >> RIGHT.
>> HE READ IT.
TRANSMITTED IT TO A -- THEY GOT IT ON TO THE SITE AND THEY WERE
RIGHT AND THE FIRST TO BE RIGHT AND BIG NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, FOX
AND CNN GOT IT WRONG.
>> GOT IT WRONG.
>> AND THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR THEM GETTING IT WRONG.
IT IS NOT LIKE WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT DECISION WOULD BE
HANDED DOWN AND IT WOULD BE COMPLICATED AND WOULD YOU NEED
SOMEONE WHO KNEW HOW TO READ A SUPREME COURT DECISION IT READ
IT AND TELL YOU WHAT IT SAID.
COMPETITIVENESS GOT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE TOO QUICKLY.
ONE CREDENTIALED JOURNALIST FOR THE SUPREME COURT, AND HE IS
NOT CREDENTIALED BECAUSE HE WORKS FOR THE BLOG, BUT BECAUSE
HE IS A FREELANCER FOR --HEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A WHOLE STAFF
OF CREDENTIALED SUPREME COURT REPORTERS.
THEY HAVE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE SUPREME COURT AND HAVE LAW
DEGREES AND GOOD AT READING DECISIONS --
>> HE IS -- >> HE IS, WITH THE
CREDENTIALS -- >> IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE
THAT -- THE OTHER THING THAT FAILED THAT DAY WAS THE SUPREME
COURT WEB SITE, WHICH FOR 30 MINUTES COULDN'T PUT OUT THE
DECISION BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO GET TO IT THAT
IT CRASHED THEIR WEB SITE.
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EVEN LONGER THAN THAT.
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THREE HOURS.
BUT IF THE SUPREME COURT COULD HAVE -- I MEAN, MANY REPORTERS
SAID, HEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE EMAIL THE DECISION, AND THE
SUPREME COURT SAID NO, WE'RE JUST GOING TO POST IT TO OUR
WEB SITE.
REPORTER SAID WE THINK YOUR WEB SITE IS GOING TO CRASH.
AND THE SUPREME COURT IS LIKE, NO, WE'VE GOT THIS.
DON'T WORRY.
WELL, YOU KNOW -- >> THE SCOTUS BLOG THEY HAVE A
CUTE LITTLE THING THAT SAID, SURVIVED A HACKING ATTEMPT.
GOT IT RIGHT.
THANK GOODNESS.
BREATHED A SIGH OF RELIEF.
AND WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE DEBATE BETWEEN O'REILLY AND
JOHN STEWART -- THE >> THE INFRASTRUCTURE --
>> THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND HUE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
WE WILL LOOK FOR YOUR BOOK.
>> IN THE SPRING OF 2013 -- THAT WILL TRY TO DEVELOP NEW
STANDARDS FOR THIS LAND SCRAPE, WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT --
MAYBE YOU WILL COME UP WITH A NEW WORD.
>> THE NEW ETHICS OF JOURNALISM, A GUIDE FOR THE 21
21st CENTURY.
LATE MARCH, EARLY APRIL SHOULD BE ON STANDS.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO KELLY McBRIDE, MEDIA ETHICIST
FOR THE POYNTER INSTITUTE IN FLORIDA.
I'M MARCIA FRANKLIN.
THANK YOU FOR TUNING IN TO THIS