What is the Value of Non-Emergency "Breaking News"?
Two basketball-related stories caught my attention today. One story noted that ESPN has reportedly agreed to pay Adrian Wojnarowski $10 million a year to retain his services; his major role with the network is to report breaking news. The other story listed individuals who, "sources say," have been selected for the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame's 2022 class; the official announcement will, per tradition, be made this weekend during the Final Four festivities.
Those two stories brought to mind something that has puzzled me for a long time: What is the value of non-emergency "breaking news"? The value of emergency breaking news is obvious: if a tornado, hurricane, military invasion, or terrorist attack is imminent or just beginning, it is important to report such news as quickly as possible.
Wojnarowski proved himself to be a solid writer/commentator before ESPN hired him, but ESPN does not use his writing/commentating skills very much: he has become best known for his "Woj bombs," his much-admired ability to break a story a day, an hour, or even a minute before that story becomes publicly available knowledge to everyone. Forgive the sarcasm, but what is the great value in finding out non-emergency news a short time before such news is the subject of a press release?
Take the Hall of Fame story as an example. Anyone who missed the "breaking news" today would find out this weekend when the Hall of Fame makes the official announcement. Not only that, but it has often happened that non-emergency "breaking news" turns out to be wrong. Prior to LeBron James announcing to the world that he would take his talents to South Beach, how many "breaking news" stories incorrectly reported that James was going to New York or some other destination? Even if all of the "breaking news" stories had been accurate, what is the value of knowing where James is going shortly before James tells everyone?
You may counter by asking, "What harm does such reporting cause?"
One "harm" is that a journalist's first and most important obligation is accuracy; reporting what "sources say" before a story has actually happened carries an inherent risk of being wrong. Even if that risk is small, there is no corresponding reward to balance that risk; consumers are better served by 100% accurate reporting than by reporting that is less than 100% accurate but sometimes "breaks" non-emergency stories shortly before those stories can be reported with 100% accuracy.
A second "harm" is that no one is giving out information to "news breakers" out of the kindness of their hearts; the price that Wojnarowski and other "news breakers" invariably pay--whether or not they admit it--is the promise (overt or implied) to give favorable coverage to the "source" at some future time when that "source" needs some public relations help. Since the "sources" who are doing all of the "saying" are anonymous, the public has no way to know which "sources" are owed favors by which "news breakers." I am not accusing Wojnarowski or anyone else of any specific wrongdoing, because I have no way of knowing if he or any other "news breaker" has committed any specific wrongdoing--but that is the point: the inherent nature of the "news breaking" process is suspect, and ripe with opportunities for various types of corruption. When Wojnarowski or any other "news breaker" provides commentary about teams, GMs, coaches, or players, we have no way of knowing the extent to which his commentary is influenced by which people have agreed to be his sources or refused to be his sources. More broadly, when ESPN's coverage appears to be slanted for or against a player or a team we have no way of knowing the extent to which this apparent slant is related to sources providing or refusing to provide information to the network's $10 million "news breaker."
I don't need or want to know non-emergency news before it happens; I would prefer to have accurate, unbiased coverage of news when it happens, along with objective, informed commentary about the news.
Since "breaking news" of non-emergency stories is demonstrably not valuable while also coming at the cost of corruption, why are such "news breakers" provided such outlandishly large compensation? I understand why play by play announcers and in-game analysts are highly-paid; it takes a special skill to be a smooth play by play announcer (which is painfully evident when you have the misfortune of watching or listening to a play by play announcer who lacks that special skill), and an expert in-game analyst like Hubie Brown or Jeff Van Gundy points out strategic nuances that average fans might otherwise miss. The NBA is a multi-billion dollar business, so it makes sense that TV networks are willing and able to pay millions of dollars to their play by play announcers and in-game analysts--but it does not make sense that networks and news organizations pay so much for "breaking news" of non-emergency stories. ESPN and ESPN's viewers would be better off if the network got rid of "Screamin' A" Smith--who is reportedly paid even more than Wojnarowski--and changed Wojnarowski's role from "news breaker" to commentator. Instead of Wojnarowski proving "Woj bombs" of what "sources say" will happen, I would prefer to wait until something happens and then hear his objective take on what happened. Objective commentary about actual news is much better than hearing "Screamin' A" bloviate about what Wojnarowski's "sources say" will happen.
Labels: Adrian Wojnarowski, Hubie Brown, Jeff Van Gundy
posted by David Friedman @ 10:19 PM
Press Conference Follies
Imagine that the San Antonio Spurs, who are 31-44 this season, just lost a game by 18 points. This is the Spurs' third straight losing season, and they have not advanced past the first round of the playoffs since 2017. Coach Gregg Popovich is being interviewed at the post-game press conference, and a local reporter who regularly covers the team asks him, "What changes going forward?"
What kind of answer would you expect from Popovich?
Suppose that Popovich replied, "Nothing man, nothing."
Then, our hypothetical reporter asked, "Why is that?"
Suppose that Popovich calmly replied, "Because it doesn't. What does it change? We've still got games to play. Other teams still have got games to play. We still have got to play teams that are above us in the Play-In. Don't really change much. What do you think should change?"
Then, our hypothetical reporter said, "Winning."
How would you expect Popovich to answer that retort? Suppose that Popovich rolled his eyes, and calmly said, "OK, that's obvious. And what do you think should change?"
Then, our hypothetical reporter said, "Winning. Winning games, playing hard. You asked a question, I gave you an answer."
Suppose that Popovich then got up to leave the press conference, and on his way out he said, "That's cool. Do you have the answer for winning?"
Then, our hypothetical reporter said, "I am not out there playing." The reporter then admitted that he did not have the answer for winning, and Popovich stated that he is just one member of the team, so he does not have the answer, either. Popovich then hugged the reporter and left the press conference.
Neither man raised his voice, or acted in a threatening manner. If you wrote the headline for an article describing the above interaction, would you describe it as "heated" or as an "altercation"?
The exchange described above happened last night, word for word--but the person being asked the questions was Russell Westbrook, not Gregg Popovich.
Unlike Popovich, Westbrook does not verbally attack reporters--but Westbrook does ask reporters to answer questions: that is Westbrook's way of showing that the question he was just asked was not particularly smart or insightful. The reporter interviewing Westbrook was Broderick Turner, and it is interesting how quickly Turner became defensive after Westbrook turned the spotlight on him. Turner proved that he asked a question that was so vague that any answer--or no answer--would have been appropriate. That was Westbrook's point, which is why he said, "That's obvious."
Was Turner asking Westbrook's opinion about roster composition, about coaching, about matchups, about effort level? We don't know, because Turner does not know. That is why all he could do after Westbrook asked him the same question was lamely answer, "Winning." Imagine if Westbrook had answered Turner's question by saying, "Winning."
It is fascinating to watch media members in action, to watch how they respond to being challenged, and then to watch how their fellow media members rush in to bash Westbrook while defending their own. Skip "Clueless" said that he would not have been able to contain himself if Westbrook had answered him that way. What would he have done? Would he have slapped Westbrook in the face? Would he have called Westbrook a "clever" name like "Westbrick"? I generally refrain from name-calling, but I make an exception for "Clueless" and for "Screamin' A" Smith, because those guys get paid a lot of money for making fun of other people's names so they more than deserve a dose of their own medicine. At least Westbrook is an all-time great at his chosen profession; "Clueless" and "Screamin' A" are buffoons.
Turner's question is far from the worst or dumbest one that I have heard in an NBA press conference, because I have had the misfortune of hearing many stupid questions, but Turner's question was lazy. What kind of article was he planning to write, based on the question he asked? It sounds like he just wanted some filler material. If he really wanted to know specifically what Westbrook thinks about the Lakers, then he would have asked a specific question. Instead, Turner asked a variation of the ubiquitous "Talk about" question; lazy reporters often say, "Talk about...," which of course is not even a question. "Talk about tonight's game" is what passes for journalism today, as is "What changes going forward?"
I don't know Turner, and from what I've seen of his work he is far from the NBA's worst beat reporter, but this notion that Westbrook somehow violated protocol or attacked Turner is ridiculous. Turner asked a lazy question, Westbrook turned the question around on Turner, and at the end the two men hugged it out. It takes a fevered--or devious--imagination to twist this into an excuse to attack Westbrook.
If you watch Westbrook's press conferences live and do not base your opinions on how other people describe his press conferences, you will see that Westbrook is proud, but he is also respectful when he is treated respectfully, and he refuses to throw his teammates or coaches under the bus. If a reporter asks Westbrook a lazy or stupid question, Westbrook does not play along and give a boring, cliche-filled answer; Westbrook challenges the reporter. Reporters do not like being challenged, but that does not mean that Westbrook is wrong to challenge them.
The notion that Westbrook cannot handle being in a major media market is ridiculous; he is handling it just fine, in the same way that he has always handled it. What Westbrook cannot handle is the way that General Manager/Coach/Team Captain/P.R. Director/Self-Proclaimed Greatest Player of All-Time LeBron James is throwing everyone else under the bus while he limps his way toward Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's all-time regular season scoring record. The other thing that Westbrook cannot handle is that most media members are committed to protecting James at all costs, which means that Westbrook has become the convenient scapegoat for the Lakers' disastrous season.
Labels: Broderick Turner, Gregg Popovich, L.A. Lakers, Russell Westbrook, San Antonio Spurs, Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith
posted by David Friedman @ 9:59 PM
