20 Second Timeout is the place to find the best analysis and commentary about the NBA.

Tuesday, May 05, 2026

Pablo Torre's Pulitzer Win is the Latest Example of Declining Journalistic Standards

Jay Mariotti made an excellent point about the Pulitzer Prize that has been awarded to Pablo Torre's New York Times-sponsored podcast: 

A journalist won a Pulitzer Prize for "seemingly" breaking a story. "Seemingly" is not what was demanded from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein when they toppled Richard Nixon. "Seemingly" never has been a qualifier in an industry that must be perfect.

But Pablo Torre — who was wrong about Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson at North Carolina and wrong about NFL Hall of Famer Antonio Gates playing in a rigged poker game — won the audio reporting award Monday for "seemingly"  busting Steve Ballmer. The New Oxford American dictionary explains that  "seeming" appears to be "real or true, but not necessarily being so."  Yet the Pulitzer judges honored Torre for investigating "how the Los Angeles Clippers seemingly evaded the NBA's salary cap rules by funneling money to a star player through an environmental startup."

If the story turns out to be true, good for Torre, who went to Harvard and greased Tony Kornheiser’s scalp on "Pardon the Interruption." But if it is not true — and we won't know until league commissioner Adam Silver says it is or isn't — I must ask what in the name of hellishness the Pulitzer board was thinking. Sports media usually are ignored for the major awards. Now, we have no idea if he was correct on his podcast ("Pablo Torre Finds Out") or soon will be blown up by the NBA's billionaires. Victims are erased by grand investigations. Ballmer and his star player, Kawhi Leonard, are up and alive.

In Analyzing the Media Storm Surrounding the L.A. Clippers, I raised some of the same concerns that Mariotti mentioned:

I deliberately left the words "accusation" and "scandal" out of this article's title because I don't know if the L.A. Clippers violated the NBA's salary cap rules. You don't know, either, even though you may think that you do. The only things that we know are (1) there is a media storm surrounding the L.A. Clippers, and (2) the NBA is investigating the Clippers for a possible violation of the league's salary cap rules. 

Unless you avoid all media outlets and social media outlets--which may not be the worst way to live--you are aware that podcaster Pablo Torre accused the L.A. Clippers and their majority owner Steve Ballmer of circumventing the NBA's salary cap rules by arranging for Kawhi Leonard to be paid $28 million by a sustainability startup called Aspiration for an allegedly "no show" job that involved no work (feel free to insert a joke about Leonard also not working at his main job due to load management).

Torre was armed mainly with anonymous sources speaking about a stack of documents allegedly pertaining to the business dealings, bankruptcy proceedings, and federal prosecution for fraud of Aspiration. Joe Sanberg, Aspiration's founder, pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud for his role in a $248 million scam...

It is fascinating to listen to non-lawyers talk about legal issues. An anonymous source speaking on a podcast is not presenting evidence from a legal standpoint; a person testifying under oath or a person submitting a sworn affidavit is presenting evidence.

So, not only do we not know for sure the facts concerning the relationships that may or may not exist among the L.A. Clippers, Kawhi Leonard, and Aspiration, we also do not know the legal significance of such relationships.

It is wise to reserve judgment about the credibility and motives of the anonymous sources interviewed on a podcast sponsored by "The Athletic," which is owned by The New York Times. The New York Times has been a shady organization in a variety of ways for a long time, including treating writers shabbily, and refusing to apologize after falsely accusing three Duke student athletes of rape. Torre assures everyone that he has total editorial independence, notwithstanding the funding he receives from The New York Times. It must be just a fortunate coincidence that Torre happened to break such a big story in the first edition of his podcast after his partnership with "The Athletic"/The New York Times was formalized; there is no doubt that Torre and "The Athletic"/The New York Times are not motivated at all by such crass concerns as money or clicks, and that they live by a credo consisting of truth, justice, and defending the sanctity of the NBA's salary cap rules...

All we have for sure right now is a media storm generating clicks, page views, ratings, and social media activity. That is not to say that there is no substance here; the NBA will investigate the assertions, and make a determination regarding whether the L.A. Clippers circumvented salary cap rules. The NBA's announcement of the results of that investigation is news; Torre's podcast and the ensuing media storm is what Daniel J. Boorstin called a "pseudo-event" in his seminal book The Image. Boorstin described what constitutes a pseudo-event (p. 11):

1) It is not spontaneous, but comes about because someone has planned, planted, or incited it. Typically, it is not a train wreck or an earthquake, but an interview.

2) It is planted primarily (but not always exclusively) for the immediate purpose of being reported or reproduced...The question "Is it real?" is less important than, "Is it newsworthy?"

3) Its relation to the underlying reality of the situation is ambiguous...

4) Usually it is intended to be a self-fulfilling prophecy...

Torre could have presented to the NBA privately the information that he found. If the NBA determined that the Clippers had violated rules, that announcement would have been a news event--but a debut podcast sponsored by a legacy media outlet and expected to deliver a big attention-grabbing splash is not a news event: it is Torre talking about something less from the standpoint of "Is it real?" and more from the standpoint of "Is it newsworthy?" or how much attention it will bring to Torre and his new partnership with "The Athletic"/The New York Times.

It is important to be able to distinguish events from "pseudo-events" and to distinguish journalism from sensationalism. Media members--and consumers of media content/social media content--would do well to read The Image and learn from Boorstin's wise words:

Boorstin notes that the traditional expectation of news reporters was that they would report on significant events that happened; if nothing significant happened, "He could not be expected to report what did not exist" (p. 8). Boorstin observes that in the twentieth century, the expectation of what a news reporter should do shifted dramatically: "If he cannot find a story, then he must make one--by the questions he asks of public figures, by the surprising human interest he unfolds from some commonplace event, or by 'the news behind the news'" (p. 8). Boorstin adds, "Demanding more than the world can give us, we require that something be fabricated to make up for the world's deficiency" (p. 9). Boorstin calls these fabrications "pseudo-events," a neologism based on the Greek word "pseudo," which means false. 

The incessant attempt to create news and excitement where no news and no excitement exists can be observed in the ridiculous questions asked by many reporters at basketball games, at the World Chess Championship, and at almost any press conference pertaining to politics or public affairs.

If the NBA's investigation of the L.A. Clippers finds that the Clippers did not violate any NBA rules then Torre and the Pulitzer Prize Board will look foolish--but even if the Clippers violated NBA rules, Mariotti is correct that it is premature to honor Torre for "seemingly" breaking a story. 

The collapse of journalism as a serious profession is sad. During my writing career, I have encountered a lot of shady people doing shady things in this profession, and I have called them out by name when they steal my ideas without proper attribution (Ming Wong) or added insult to injury by plagiarizing my words while also making factually incorrect statements (Vincent Mallozzi); these are just some examples of the general decline in the quality of published writing that has been taking place for decades, and it is unfortunate that this decline appears to be accelerating.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by David Friedman @ 10:46 PM

7 comments

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Unlike Hoop Magazine, ESPN Does Not Tolerate Plagiarism

Kevin Ding, the L.A. Lakers' beat writer for the Orange County Register, experienced a very disconcerting kind of deja vu when he watched ESPN's "Highlight Express" show a couple weeks ago: anchor Will Selva used the first several sentences of a recent Ding column to introduce the Lakers-Spurs highlights. Ding rightly called out Selva publicly and ESPN promptly responded by suspending Selva indefinitely.

It is still not too late for Hoop magazine to do the right thing regarding the way that editor Ming Wong blatantly allowed one of his writers to rip off my story about Jim O'Brien, basketball and chess; after all, Selva "only" lifted a few sentences but Hoop essentially recapitulated an entire article. It is worth noting that when Selva apologized for his actions he said that while researching the Lakers-Spurs game he had copied down Ding's words intending to rephrase them but then had forgotten to do so. This is basically what Wong told me his writer had done with my Chess and Basketball article. ESPN properly did not accept Selva's weak excuse and the publisher of Hoop should take the same approach regarding not only their plagiarist but also Wong, the editor who allowed the plagiarism to take place and did nothing to redress this matter even after I pointed it out to him.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by David Friedman @ 4:08 PM

0 comments

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Hoop Editor Ming Wong is in Midseason Form

I recently went to a local bookstore and flipped through the new issue of Hoop Magazine; I am not foolish enough to buy such garbage but sometimes it is interesting to see what is being printed in the NBA's "official" publication. Instead of publishing an in-depth, insightful look at Clyde Drexler's career--a task likely beyond the capabilities of anyone on Hoop's staff--Hoop ran a tiny item ostensibly about Drexler's first NBA game. However, even though Hoop provided Drexler's stats from that game--and it would not surprise me a bit if Hoop got the numbers wrong--the quotes from Drexler had nothing to do with his first NBA game but rather simply addressed his general recollections about his rookie season with a Portland team that featured All-NBA Second Team shooting guard Jim Paxson, future All-Star small forward Calvin Natt and solid point guard Darnell Valentine. Drexler noted that even though he possessed the versatility to play any of those positions it was difficult for him to earn much playing time ahead of those veterans (Drexler averaged 17.2 mpg as a rookie in 1983-84, starting just three games). The funniest thing about the Hoop piece is that the writer not only repeatedly misspelled Darnell as "Darnelle" but also repeatedly referred to Hall of Fame Coach Jack Ramsay as "Ramsey." If the writer made these mistakes in his submitted copy, shame on him for being so sloppy--but, more to the point, shame on editor Ming Wong for not fixing this mess. Clearly, Wong--who is not above "borrowing" the work of others without proper attribution and who ran a story that incorrectly stated that Julius Erving's famous dunk over Michael Cooper took place in the 1983 NBA Finals--is in midseason form, which is sad news for anyone who loves basketball and is seeking out intelligent writing about the sport.

Hoop used to feature at least one or two full length, in depth articles per issue--for example, consider my 2005 piece about Walt Frazier. Now, though, the magazine largely consists of a series of brief puff pieces that lack any substance, depth or insight. The same thing has happened with the Sporting News: instead of producing fully developed articles, SN trots out a ton of "mini-articles," many of which consist of little more than a series of brief quotes from various "experts" (some of whom are "experts" only in the loosest sense of the term); the Yogi Berra interview in the current issue is interesting but such a full length piece is the exception rather than the rule now with SN. John Feinstein's back page column is usually good and occasionally excellent but Will Leitch's column is a waste of space/ink and the rest of the magazine often seems like the sports version of the Dick and Jane reader. I'm not sure if this trend means that editors/writers lack the attention span and/or talent to put together full length articles or if they simply assume that their readers are not interested in spending more than 30 seconds reading an article. Sports Illustrated may be the last remaining sports magazine that regularly publishes articles that resemble real journalism (ESPN the Magazine is a promotional tool for the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader" that occasionally--seemingly by accident/chance--publishes an in-depth, thought provoking article or column).

Labels: , , ,

posted by David Friedman @ 12:32 AM

1 comments

Friday, April 24, 2009

Rewriting History: Julius Erving's Dunk Over Michael Cooper, According to Inside Stuff Magazine

I was going through my archive of old basketball magazines when I came across the May 2005 issue of Inside Stuff. Page 18 featured a cool frame by frame photo spread of Julius Erving's famous dunk over Michael Cooper:


My favorite part of the play is when Cooper at first looks like he is going to try to block Erving's shot but then Cooper not only lowers his arm but covers his head!

There are two problems with the Inside Stuff feature about this play: one is the bold headline reading "Julius Erving: 1983 NBA Finals, Philadelphia 76ers vs. Los Angeles Lakers." The dunk actually took place in a January 5, 1983 regular season game that the Sixers won, 122-120. Erving's steal and slam put the Sixers up by four points with 1:27 remaining, so it was not only a spectacular highlight but it was also a key sequence in a matchup between the teams that met in the 1982 Finals and would square off again in the 1983 Finals. The second problem is the note in small print that crawls up the side of the page stating "Dr. J is the 76ers all-time leader in blocked shots with 1942." Erving blocked 1941 shots in the 15 seasons of his career during which the ABA and NBA officially recorded statistics in that category (no such numbers were tracked during his rookie campaign), including 1293 in the 11 seasons that he played for the 76ers.

It should not surprise anyone that Inside Stuff was edited by Ming Wong, whose handiwork I have previously discussed here. Apparently, the way to advance in this business is to not know the history of the sport and to produce sloppy work; I guess I should have figured that out early in my career when I wrote for Basketball Digest, a magazine that has since folded: I would submit articles that needed absolutely no editing either in terms of writing style or factual information--something that is a lot rarer in this field than you may suspect--but when I received the issue in the mail I would often find to my dismay that some fool had "corrected" my article by making my prose clumsier and including inaccurate statistics and photo captions. The nice thing about using a blogging platform is that I have 100% control over my content; I am not perfect by any means but at least a mistake posted here under my name is truly my own and I can correct it in an instant when either I or an eagle-eyed reader sees it. I must also add that it is great to work with editors like Sam Amico of ProBasketballNews.com and Tariq Ali of CavsNews.com, both of whom are a lot better at their craft than some people in this field who are much more well known.

Labels: , , ,

posted by David Friedman @ 1:40 AM

11 comments