What do Colin Cowherd and Glen Beck have in Common?

To answer this post’s title, they have the same profession!

What is that profession? If you answered “journalist,” you’d be wrong! But you’d also be the reason I have for writing this entry.

There is no doubt that many people tend to take the word of these men as credible fact.

To be honest, I enjoy them both to a point. Cowherd is very entertaining and opinionated about sports. There is much that I agree with him on, and much that I don’t.

Beck is certainly polarizing, but he is not wishy-washy. He has his convictions and sticks to them.

However, they are not journalists. Both are a form of commentator. Their job is not to be strictly objective and critical of an establishment, but to inject opinion, questioning, and even humor into their body of work.

Interestingly, the set of professionals like Glen Beck seem to have been spawned from the set of professionals like Colin Cowherd.

While ESPN has always employed commentators who work right alongside their journalists, the 24 hour news cycle has only relatively recently welcomed commentary into their fold.

While not being journalists, both camps have their place in the media world.

I would just implore the public to recognize that these commentators are NOT the representatives of journalism.

Unfortunately, I don’t know if they can really tell the difference anymore.

Journalists in Celluloid

One of my favorite shows on television is “How I Met Your Mother” on CBS.

It is a very funny show, often irreverent, and even occasionally heartwarming.

So imagine my surprise when the show from a few weeks ago (which I just saw now online) factored right into my blog.

For who was staring back at me but sports broadcaster Jim Nantz!

Now, this is an interesting situation because many people do not consider play-by-play guys to be “journalists” in the sense that this blog seems to regard journalists.

However, I would argue that Nantz is still broadcasting sports for an outlet (oftentimes several) and that his conduct outside the booth should be just as scrutinized as the conduct of more traditional journalists is.

Nothing involving his time on the show was particularly offensive. Sure, there were some slightly off-color jokes, but that’s the nature of the show itself.

What was interesting, if not unethical, was the fact that Nantz was portraying Nantz. An actual sports broadcaster within the confines of the show.

To be fair, he was in the character Barney’s imagination.

But does this involvement cross any sort of line?

It’s complicated, but I suppose my answer would be “tentatively no.” It is true that Nantz is somewhat more of a celebrity than the average sports journalists, and because of this, such offers will come up because he is recognizable.

I think he still runs the risk of bringing negative attention to whichever outlet he happens to be representing, but this is not really a terribly dangerous ethical situation in the long run.

Moneyball

I have taken the last few weeks to re-read one of my favorite sports books of all-time, “Moneyball”.

Now, the subject matter of the book itself is not entirely the purvey of a blog like this.

It follows the Oakland Athletics baseball team of the early part of this decade in its quest to be more efficient by preying on less-utilized statistics and theories than other MLB teams.

It is a revealing look into the intricacies of the front office and the subcultures in baseball.

Now here’s the rub.

This book is not written by a sports journalist!

That’s right, it’s possible to have an “insider” story come complete with editorializing without a sports journalist at the helm, damaging their own objectivity.

I bring this point up because I have heard the argument that if not journalists, who can write sports books that are entertaining and from an insiders’ perspective.

This is clearly inaccurate, as Michael Lewis does a phenomenal job in “Moneyball” and also in “The Blindside”, both done from the perspective of someone outside the industry.

I’m not cold-blooded, and I know that sports journalists are people that once had their own rooting interests. If they want to write a book, that’s okay with me.

I just wanted to point out that they are not the only professionals that can think to write a compelling read on the matter.

Recruiting and Blame

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/04/kiffin-offers-13-year-old-qb-scholarship/

The above link is a story regarding the 13-year old named David Sills whom Lane Kiffin has offered a college football scholarship.

Lane Kiffin is the head coach of the football team at the University of Southern California.

Take a step back for a second. Does this seem just…wrong to you?

We’re talking about a child here who has not come close to figuring out what he really wants to do with his life; and now he’s being badgered and promised a scholarship for something 5 years down the road!

Five years in teenage years is an eternity. So much can change. What if this kid gets hurt?

What if he never develops how Kiffin envisioned he might?

His heart stands the very real possibility of being broken here.

What does this have to do with journalism ethics, you may ask?

I submit that Kiffin is the not the only one to blame for this situation.

I’d argue that the ever-increasing coverage of high school athletics has placed additional pressure on young athletes and will continue to push recruiting ages lower and lower because the notion is that America loves young phenoms.

I implore the field and journalists to think about the implications this stance could have on kids like David Sills.

Notice I didn’t say “young adult.”

Social Media Pitfalls

This one might technically fall under a subheading of sports journalism. But the takeaway from this story is important for the future of the industry, so it bears discussing.

ESPN2 created a new show this year called ‘SportsNation.’ It features the increasingly popular Colin Cowherd (interestingly a sports talk radio star who is now transitioning into the television platform) and Michelle Beadle.

The distinguishing factor between ‘SportsNation’ and other ESPN sports programming is a heavy reliance on ‘the Nation’, or the social conglomerate of the everyday fan. Via online polls, questions, and twitter interaction, fans are directly involved in the content of the show.

As with most things Web 2.0, this also means that the show relies on a great deal of social video. The clips they show on the program range from insane basketball shots, strange sport combinations, and of course, failed extreme sport stunts.

Typically, everyone has a good laugh over these. But on Tuesday, ‘SportsNation’ showed a video of a BMX rider hitting a ramp, flying roughly 20 feet into the air, and plummeting onto the pavement. The crew in the studio, including Beadle and fill-in host Marcellus Wiley, had a great big laugh over the video, which indeed did look comical.

Beadle concluded the segment by saying,

“He’s fine, just in case you wondering.”

Unfortunately, what the crew and hosts of ‘SportsNation’ did not know, was that Colin Winklemann, the BMX rider was not fine, and in fact had committed suicide 5 years earlier as a result of the injuries suffered in the failed stunt.

On today’s show, Beadle read a statement on behalf of the show and ESPN apologizing for running the video in light of the consequences the accident had.

ESPN’s statement was,

“Given the larger context that we were clearly unaware of at the time, we should not have shown that video and we apologize. We will make every effort in the future to prevent something like this from happening again.”

Now, I am not trying to pile on ESPN or ‘SportsNation’ here. They made an error, and apologized for it. I simply feel it is important to point out how easy something like this can happen in today’s sports news climate.

If ESPN or other sports outlets plan on expanding their coverage into social media, it is important they stay diligent and sensitive when running user-generated content.