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
