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

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Vincent Mallozzi's "Doc": The Ultimate Hack Job

Vincent Mallozzi's Doc: The Rise and Rise of Julius Erving is a quintessential hack job; it is so poorly put together that it redefines the term "hack job" and from now on "Mallozzi" should be considered a synonym for "hack job." Mallozzi's book is touted as "The first complete biography of one of the greatest and most popular basketball players of all time" but the truth is that "Doc" is largely comprised of poorly thrown together quotes and stories from other people's work. Mallozzi contributed very little original content.

It should be illegal to write a biography of Erving without citing/mentioning/praising Marty Bell's classic The Legend of Dr. J: The Story of Julius Erving. Bell's book is vastly superior to Mallozzi's--and Bell's book includes Bell's first hand accounts and Bell's research as opposed to simply retelling other people's stories without proper attribution. Not only does Mallozzi act as if Bell's book does not exist, Mallozzi borrowed/stole heavily from Bell in terms of style and content, particularly when describing Erving's streetball exploits: the first chapter of Bell's book is titled "Me and Julius Down by the Schoolyard," while chapter four of Mallozzi's book is titled "Julius and Dave Down by the Schoolyard." The "Dave" in question is Dave Brownbill, a player who Bell interviewed regarding Erving's early days; Mallozzi simply ripped off Bell's research without any acknowledgment.

As I noted in the comments section of my Del Harris interview, Mallozzi's account of Julius Erving's brief 1972 preseason stint with the Atlanta Hawks consisted mainly of quotes from my exclusive one on one interview with Erving. Mallozzi stated that the quotes came from Basketball Digest but he did not mention my name at all; I suppose that is just as well, because on one of the rare occasions that Mallozzi actually gave credit to the real writers/researchers who produced the majority of the material in his book, Mallozzi repeatedly misspelled Sports Illustrated's Peter Carry as "Peter Garry."

Mallozzi clearly stole his description of Erving's exploits in the 1974 ABA playoffs from my article about Erving's teammate Mike Gale; Mallozzi used a Gale quote from my article without any attribution at all, a standard Mallozzi tactic in this book: Mallozzi is trying to convince the uninformed reader that he did a lot of original research and interviewing when all he actually did is cut and paste quotes/anecdotes from various sources. The ironic thing about this is that Mallozzi is a sloppy plagiarist: In the aforementioned Gale article, I wrote, "Gale averaged 8.3 ppg during the playoffs, ranked third on the team in assists (4.1 apg) and played strong defense" but in the book Mallozzi prefaced my words with the incorrect statement, "In the first championship series," which produces a sentence that is not only redundant--by referring first to the ABA Finals and then to the playoffs as a whole--but also inaccurate, because the numbers that I cited were Gale's playoff numbers, not his Finals numbers (Gale averaged 5 ppg and 4.4 apg in the 1974 ABA Finals).

Mallozzi followed in the footsteps of fellow amateur hour journalist Ming Wong by incorrectly asserting that Julius Erving's famous dunk over Michael Cooper took place in the 1983 NBA Finals; as I explained in April, that dunk happened in a January 5, 1983 regular season game (click on the preceding link to see a highlight of the dunk; that post also contains a link to a brief Sports Illustrated recap of the game that mentions Erving's "majestic dunk over Cooper"). Wong contented himself with a faulty headline over a photo spread in Hoop, but Mallozzi rambled on extensively, providing an entirely fictitious account about how Erving's dunk over Cooper was a key play in game four of the Sixers' sweep of the Lakers. Erving did in fact have a dunk late in that game, but that dunk was a two-handed, solo jaunt to the hoop after stealing the ball from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, not a "rock the cradle" special over Cooper (note that Erving dunked over Cooper in the Spectrum while wearing his white home uniform but that Erving wore his red road uniform when he stole the ball from Abdul-Jabbar and dunked in the Forum in game four of the Finals). It is disappointing, frustrating and infuriating that many people will "learn" NBA history from hacks like Mallozzi and Wong instead of from someone who actually takes the time to get the facts straight.

You can watch Erving's game four dunk at the 5:16 mark of this video:



If you saw the Table of Contents for Mallozzi's book online and decided to buy it to read the chapters about Cory Erving and Samantha Stevenson then you surely were disappointed to find out that Mallozzi's coverage of Cory Erving's death consisted mainly of a lengthy quotation from Julius Erving's appearance on Larry King Live! I wonder if Mallozzi received permission to make such an extensive quotation from the show's transcript or if he is liable for copyright infringement. Mallozzi added absolutely no new information. Similarly, Mallozzi's account of Julius Erving's affair with Stevenson simply includes information from articles that any Erving fan has already read. Mallozzi actually filled some space by providing a verbatim account of his brief telephone conversation with Stevenson requesting that she do an interview with him. Stevenson declined even though Mallozzi whined that he is a real journalist just like she is--insert your own punchline here--and that to properly do a book about Julius Erving he needed to speak with her. I wonder if Stevenson gave permission for the contents of this phone call to be published; I would guess not since she made it clear that she did not want to be interviewed by Mallozzi.

I am surprised and disappointed that first class journalist Dave Anderson lent his name to Mallozzi's book by writing the foreword; this is surely the low water mark in Anderson's distinguished career.

Julius Erving did not participate in the production of Mallozzi's book and it appears that the only time that Mallozzi interviewed Erving at all was in 1999, a conversation that did not produce any substantive insights. At the end of the book, Mallozzi gushed that he is a big Erving fan and that he hoped that Erving will enjoy reading the book as much as Mallozzi enjoyed writing it. I doubt that Erving will waste his time reading a book that simply rehashes old articles about him and I don't see why anyone would waste money to buy this book.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by David Friedman @ 11:21 PM

5 comments