"Media Circus" - New England Patriots Forums

SVN · 05-19-2008, 10:25 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...tion=si_latest

Quote:

PERSON OF THE WEEK

Armen Keteyian, CBS News chief investigative correspondent: Keteyian was soft on Bill Belichick. That was my initial take upon watching the two minute and 45-second edited interview that ran during the CBS Evening News last week. It provided too much of a one-sided forum for Belichick to blast former employee Matt Walsh. But watching the 14-minute video posted on the CBS News Web site, as well as reading the transcript in full, proved my initial take was wrong.

Keteyian was fair and tough. He pressed Belichick when the subject called for it. The full transcript also offered Belichick time to expound on the subject. It's remarkable that the producers of the CBS Evening News didn't let viewers know that the entire interview was available online -- a huge missed opportunity. But at least I know how to submit a story idea to Assignment America with Steve Hartman.

Quote:

DUDS

• ESPN Radio's John Clayton and Jeremy Green (both of whom are usually solid) lamented on Saturday about the over-the-top coverage of the Spygate saga. Both hosts also decried that there was nothing left to talk about involving the issue. The two hosts then proceeded to talk about the issue for 20 minutes, including playing three clips from Keteyian's interview with Belichick.

It's an old radio shell game to lament about the overexposure of a story as an intro to talk about the same story. How do I know? My radio partner (a talented guy named Rich Redanz) and I occasionally committed the crime when we were working for our 50,000-watt employer in Buffalo. Certainly Green and Clayton should have talked about it the day after Keteyian's interview -- especially on a show titled The Huddle.

Green later bellyached that Matt Walsh had offered little news upon meeting with Roger Goodell. Well, after meeting with the NFL Commissioner, Walsh told HBO and the New York Times that he was coached on how to evade NFL rules and that the Pats assistants knew about the team's illegal taping of signals. I'd call that news. And so would Clayton and Green's employers, who have (correctly) covered this with an army of reporters.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 05-19-2008, 11:09 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how a mediot can acknowledge mistakes and yet be doomed to repeat them.

Quote:

Keteyian was soft on Bill Belichick. That was my initial take upon watching the two minute and 45-second edited interview that ran during the CBS Evening News last week. It provided too much of a one-sided forum for Belichick to blast former employee Matt Walsh. But watching the 14-minute video posted on the CBS News Web site, as well as reading the transcript in full, proved my initial take was wrong.

Quote:

Green later bellyached that Matt Walsh had offered little news upon meeting with Roger Goodell. Well, after meeting with the NFL Commissioner, Walsh told HBO and the New York Times that he was coached on how to evade NFL rules and that the Pats assistants knew about the team's illegal taping of signals. I'd call that news. And so would Clayton and Green's employers, who have (correctly) covered this with an army of reporters.

***jmt57*** · 05-19-2008, 11:49 PM

One of the links above brought up a very important but also very overlooked topic. It is in regards to how the media "reports" about a story that another media outlet is reporting. In this case, nobody would run with the spygate story due to lack of cold hard facts and evidence. But as soon as another media outlet (the Herald) ran that story - with no proof, evidence, corroboration, video, photographs, or anything else changed from the time they felt they could not run the story - now it was okay to make it a headline!

In other words, a reporter, editor, and media outlet won't run a story without verified facts. But if another media outlet breaks the story first, then it is not only okay for them to run the story without verifying facts, but they can follow up with hundreds of additional stories based on rumors and opinions posing as facts?

Huh?

PaulRevere · 05-20-2008, 06:14 AM

has done a decent job of covering the other story of "How Much Cheating WAS Going On in the NFL?"

I mean if a couple of tapes can cause this much commotion imagine how much attention this story would get.

I am also surprised that no local paper has tried to defend the Pats against the NY papers. I suppose our local reporters are too far above that.

signbabybrady · 05-20-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt57

One of the links above brought up a very important but also very overlooked topic. It is in regards to how the media "reports" about a story that another media outlet is reporting. In this case, nobody would run with the spygate story due to lack of cold hard facts and evidence. But as soon as another media outlet (the Herald) ran that story - with no proof, evidence, corroboration, video, photographs, or anything else changed from the time they felt they could not run the story - now it was okay to make it a headline!

In other words, a reporter, editor, and media outlet won't run a story without verified facts. But if another media outlet breaks the story first, then it is not only okay for them to run the story without verifying facts, but they can follow up with hundreds of additional stories based on rumors and opinions posing as facts?

Huh?

Just more evidence of how irresponsible journalism has become....and as I have said in other threads the really sad thing is that this is justs sports coverage, think about the fact that journalists cover real issues and stories with the same or even less accuracy and accountability.