Manti Te'O and the Stories We Hope Are True
After the Manti Te'o story broke on Deadspin, I was not able to write much about it because:
1) When the story broke, I was on my way back from Birmingham, helping a good friend who needed a ride back from UAB Hospital.
2) Then I taught a 6-9 graduate class.
3) Then I crashed, because of 1) and 2).
So now, the next day, with a story that has spread and been critiqued with lightning speed, I will link you to some excellent stuff on the topic, better than I would come up with in my post-Wednesday exhaustion.
First, check out the original Deadspin article. Great reporting explained in detail. It will take a while, but realize that these two guys did their homework. Note that the term "libel" is never mentioned in discussing this, even among Te'o supporters. Their reporting is why.
So the question is, how did sports journalists like Pete Thamel of Sports Illustrated and Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN allow themselves to disseminate a story that has turned out to be so false?
A piece by Josh Levin of Slate is very much to point on this. He compares Thamel's treatment of Te'o to his treatment of Tyrann Mathieu, and finds some troubling contrasts.
(And having just heard Pete Thamel interviewed on Dan Patrick's show, in light of Levin's comments, the bias is troubling.)
And finally, the Poynter Institute published an article that lays out the best strategy for Sports Illustrated, ESPN and the reporters involved from here on out. It calls for transparency and gut-wrenching self-examination. Whether the parties involved follow through on this is debatable, of course, especially in light of Thamel's comments on Patrick's show.
(One critique: The writer, David Griner, makes some unfortunate slams on sports writing toward the end. The same critiques about the hazards of access could be written about government reporters. I feel that good sports journalism is good journalism. It is no different than any other form.)
My only comment involves the mindset Thamel and Wojociechowski brought to their reporting. Both claim to have found what would have been perceived as "red flags" in their reporting. Both chose not to follow through.
One reason? Consciously or subconsciously, they wanted the story to be true. In a tweet, I mused as to whether they would have double-checked the story had it involved Mathieu or Cam Newton. Only they can answer that question.
But moving on from here, sports reporters -- all reporters, for that matter -- need to realize that even stories that seem too good to be true should be double-checked, regardless of what we want to believe about the individuals who tell them.
(Credit where credit is due: My good friend Troy Johnson reminded me that my advice to "sports reporters" should be extended to all reporters, so I made that change, and I appreciate his point.)
