Interestingly, commenters on the site have shifted from near-universal praise of Deadspin’s reporting chops to something far less settled. Citing the above judgment, one commenter called Deadspin’s tone “corrosive and cancerous” (mattmckinney). Some have started to link to mainstream media reports as alternatives to Deadspin’s coverage. DawgCorleone added, “Just admit you didn’t get the entire story right and move on. The more you try to discredit ESPN, the more foolish you look.”
This time, it seems, by delving into reporting in the first place, Deadspin opened itself up to the same criticism it usually doles out so savagely well. With the Te’o story, after that first, great post, Deadspin created what it usually despises most from others: half-assed work. Or as commenter OaklandsOwn put it when commenting on one of the Te’o posts:
DEADSPINE SP N
Just saying,,,,,,
This isn't true, of course. Deadspin followed up by reporting how Sports Illustrated reported their original story. Then they obtained and released all of Te'o and Kekau's twitter communication. Then they reported on the hoaxer's own family's battle with leukemia, and how he used it to inform his lies about Kekua. Then they reported on ESPN's handling of the story, including how Te'o's agent first approached ESPN with the tip. Just today they reported on ESPN suspending two producers.
#1 Posted by Art, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 03:37 PM
I feel like this could have benefitted from a phone call or two to the people at Deadspin. Or an email. Just an IM maybe? One lone Facebook message???
#2 Posted by CAS, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 04:01 PM
You praise ESPN for landing an interview with Te'o--it's because his agent reached out to them seeking an outlet that would cover him sympathetically. Katie Couric got the Te'o interview because she shares a publicist with him.
Getting cozy with flacks and providing controversial subjects favorable coverage. Is that the lesson you really want to impart here?
#3 Posted by Ex-NDer, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 04:43 PM
Art,
Thanks for posting. My point in all of the content you cite is Deadspin was simply re-reporting what others were doing. The Thamel report was a link to the SI piece and to a Dan Patrick show piece of content. The leukemia piece was a linkback to a USA Today story. Also, the one on ESPN's handling of the story proves my point perfectly: Whatever digging Deadspin was doing was about the media's handling of the story, not the story itself. Finally, on today's reports: The suspension content comes from The Big Lead and the latest on the spreadsheet comes from ESPN itself.
This is all great content. It's just not Deadspin's. They are not reporting the Te'o story.
CAS: I reached out to Deadspin and they did not reply.
Ex-NDer: I don't praise ESPN at all for beating Deadspin to Te'o. Your point about why those people got Te'o and Deadspin didn't is a great one--it's one of the main reasons Deadspin exists to expose that kind of cozy, PR-driven relationship. My point was, Deadspin got the scoop but couldn't and didn't do any reporting of its own after that.
Thanks for reading guys.
Scott Berinato
#4 Posted by Scott Berinato, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 04:56 PM
I'm a regular what?
#5 Posted by Raysism, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 06:29 PM
I hope your professor gives you an F for this.
#6 Posted by Jack Doyle, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 06:49 PM
You're right, Art, Deadspin really should be more omnipotent next time.
#7 Posted by John , CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 06:52 PM
Oops, I meant to type: You're right, Scott, Deadspin really should be more omnipotent next time.
As for Art, you nailed it - good show.
#8 Posted by John , CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 06:54 PM
Scott, you say, "it's one of the main reasons Deadspin exists to expose that kind of cozy, PR-driven relationship."
Who are you to say why Deadspin exists? Honestly . . . please tell us.
#9 Posted by J, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 07:05 PM
Disappointed how the comments have devolved already, especially the ad hominem attack by Pence. I'm not sure people are really reading the post. Maybe I haven't communicated my message clearly enough. On the whole, I think Deadspin is great.
Raysism: A regular commenter.
Jack D: Why?
John: I don't understand your comment. l wasn't suggesting Deadspin be omnipotent. I was expressing disappointment at how quickly the focus shifted from the Te'o story to coverage of the Te'o story.
J: Fair point, maybe could have been worded more carefully. Having said that, Deadspin spends a fair amount of resources on this very thing, often extremely successfully.
Best,
Scott
#10 Posted by Scott, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 07:24 PM
Because you're so full of yourself and out of touch. Look at how you closed this piece.
"Or as commenter OaklandsOwn put it when commenting on one of the Te’o posts:
DEADSPIN
E SP N
Just saying,,,,,,"
That person is joking, as Deadspin commenters are wont to do, about some big ESPN/Deadspin conspiracy in the same vein that people joke about the Ancient Aliens guy who blames everything on aliens (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens) You're misunderstanding and cherry-picking from the comment section of Deadspin -- of all places -- as if you're uncovering some deep, hidden truth. You've only proven that you can stretch any truth, bend any reality, to prove the point that Deadspin isn't the NY Times -- as if that needed to be proven.
As J pointed out, why should Deadspin -- or anyone for that matter -- care what you think about their continued coverage of this story? Your demands come off as self-important, brattish even.
#11 Posted by Jack Doyle, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 07:42 PM
Jack,
I don't think I'm uncovering some deep, hidden truth. And I'm definitely not trying to prove that Deadspin isn't the New York times. I thought the initial Te'o report was fanstastic. I think what Deadspin does day in and day out is fantastic. I only wish Deadspin, in this case, focused less on how the media was covering the story and more the actual story.
No one should care what I think if they don't want to. And I don't have any demands at all. I don't see where in the story you see me making demands. I had an opinion on the coverage as a consumer of that coverage. That's all. You don't like it. That's okay.
Best,
Scott
#12 Posted by Scott, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 08:06 PM
I think what Deadspin does day in and day out is fantastic.
Lampoon the media - got it.
I only wish Deadspin, in this case, focused less on how the media was covering the story and more the actual story.
Don't lampoon the media - got it.
I must be stupid, Scott because, as my tiny brain understands it, you're saying that you should get what you want because. . . it's what you want.
#13 Posted by Jack Doyle , CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 08:22 PM
Jack,
I'm not understanding why you're taking this so personally or how you're conflating my criticism with some sense of entitlement I may have about what Deadspin owes me. I don't think Deadspin owes me anything. The only thing I'm entitled to is my opinion, which you think is crap. Okay. That's cool. But your reductive reasoning suggests that Deadspin can only do one or the other--lampoon the media or not lampoon the media. I don't think that's the case. I think it can do both. In fact Deadspin proved with its scoop it can.
#14 Posted by Scott, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 08:37 PM
Actually, my reasoning suggests that you're contradicting yourself in your expectations for what Deadspin should be. At the crux of your opinion lies this fundamental contradiction.
I'm not understanding why you're taking this so personally
From the man who eschewed ad homonym attacks.
#15 Posted by Jack Doyle, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 08:46 PM
One time Five Guys gave me an extra slice of cheese on my burger. I enjoyed that. Let me go write a few hundred words on how Five Guys is such a disappointment for not giving me an extra slice of cheese every time I go. That's what you sound like.
#16 Posted by Jack Doyle, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 08:52 PM
Sorry, Jack. I give up. I'll leave it at this: I think Deadspin could be both, and that's not a contradiction. Also, an ad hominem attack is an attack on the opponent instead of the argument--such as Pence calling me a cunt rather than talking about the content of the post. Do you feel I've attacked you personally instead of your argument? I don't think I have.
Best,
Scott
#17 Posted by Scott, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 08:53 PM
If you had bothered to interview me personally, you'd know that I'm a regular jackass. So it looks like you've missed your chance to break something here.
#18 Posted by Raysism, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 09:00 PM
Why are you deleting comments, Scott? I saw comments here that are here no more. Not all of the ones you deleted were awfully foul - I saw them. What a shame, the Columbia Journalism Review is censoring opinions that don't jive with theirs - so sad.
#19 Posted by Jack Doyle, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 10:46 PM
Did Sara Ganim get the interview with Jerry Sandusky? Would she ever, in a million years have gotten an interview Jerry Sandsuky? Before she got her Pulitzer or after? Of course not. Who ever rewards the person who screws them? Bob Costas, Jeremy Schaap and Katie Couric are have something to offer their subjects. Deadspin has nothing to offer Manti Te'o and that's why they smoked every single one of those "journalists" on this story.
This is a ridiculous post.
#20 Posted by A Dude, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 11:20 PM
Great point, A Dude. Too bad Scott will delete it. Don't worry, I took a screenshot for posterity.
#21 Posted by Jack Doyle, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 12:07 AM
Jack,
I don't control the comments here. A Dude: Sara Ganim did not get the interview. But primarily she covered and reported the Jerry Sandusky story, not how the media covered the Jerry Sandusky story.
Best,
Scott
#22 Posted by Scott, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 05:45 AM
You still don't get it. How the media is covering this story IS the story. I'm not even a journalist and I know that.
#23 Posted by Raysism, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 07:00 AM
Raysim,
I agree that's become the story in many ways. I think that's too bad. D/s's first report was so compelling it left me wanting more. That's all.
Best,
Scott
#24 Posted by Scott, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 07:57 AM
A missed opportunity by Deadspin, for sure.
#25 Posted by Betty, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 08:33 AM
I guess I don't understand why you would say it's "too bad" that the media's role in this has "become the story." The core facts are pretty uninteresting by themselves: some athlete strikes up a relationship online, blows it a little out of proportion and then later finds out it was a hoax. As we've learned over the past week or so, this is actually a fairly common (or not uncommon) occurrence. The only interesting part of this story is that this particular athlete's journey was propped up by a media that had dozens of opportunities to sniff out the lies and break the story.
Don't you find it interesting to see how ESPN and SI cover this story going forward when you know how badly they botched the initial reporting? Or perhaps I should say, what's more interesting and important: monitoring ESPN's post-story attempts to redeem itself, or these relatively minor new facts that have been "broken" since the initial Deadspin story?
#26 Posted by Raysism, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 09:22 AM
Scott,
Now that it's been pointed out to you that you missed the point of OaklandsOwn's joke, are you going to remove it from your missive? I understand using the quote to promote your point if you think it really does promote your point. However, once you find out that you're using it out of context, isn't it unethical to continue to use it? Using someone's words out of context to prove your point makes you and, by extension, the Columbia Journalism Review look quite disreputable.
I wonder what commentator OaklandsOwn thinks of his joke being re-contextualized for your personal gain; I certainly wouldn't like it and I don't think you would either.
In the end, commentator Raysism is 100% right. The story has become the way the media has reported the story and that's as plain as day.
Warmest Regards,
DC
#27 Posted by DC, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 01:25 PM
August 18th, 2012:
OaklandsOwn wrote:
"Deadspin fucking sucks"
http://deadspin.com/5935965/?post=51988458
I dunno...Maybe I just don't understand the "humor" that Jack Doyle was describing earlier. Can someone explain the humor of that comment to me?
#28 Posted by Drew, CJR on Sat 26 Jan 2013 at 03:42 AM
Scott - good article, and generally fair because I got the sense that you were trying to both praise and criticize Deadspin. I'm a fan of Deadspin but don’t expect the kind of investigative reporting they showed with the Te'o story. However, it is always a welcome "cherry on top". Drew also has some impressive, surprisingly insightful writing in the Dadspin section. I guess by keeping my expectations low the site never disappoints. (I might have to work on my positive praise ability).
So really what I'm trying to say is good article, don’t let all the haters bother you too much!
#29 Posted by J, CJR on Mon 28 Jan 2013 at 10:54 AM
1. As a college football fan, physician, and researcher, my curiosity was piqued by the initial public knowledge of the GF, and I looked her up and found nothing. I thought I was mis-spelling a name, but I was surprised by how the death of a Stanford student who was on twitter and who was dating an already famous FB player made not a ripple on the internet.
2. I don't read Deadspin but may start to now. That is what they are about, I think. Hits. Get hits.
3. Your criticism is off base. The media's failure is the big story. Who cares about a fake GF? She's fake. Now she's dead fake. The only question left is whether Teo's really, really dumb or a liar.
Do the readers of the COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW (their caps) care whether a FB player is dumb or a liar? Or do they care that journalists don't know that Google Image Search exists?
4. Your bigger failure is not acknowledging the wisdom of Rayism and Jack. Listen to your critics. It's a hard, they aren't always right, but you can learn a lot from them.
#30 Posted by quigley, CJR on Mon 28 Jan 2013 at 12:22 PM
I am dumbfounded that no is questioning Deadspin as to why the added the statement at the end of their original story on Te'o regarding the 80% comment. Incredibly poor journalism. I am not an attorney, but if I were the Te'o family I would pursue the heck out of that comment. First, I doubt that anyone really said that, and secondly, is it not horribly unprofessional to make such a statement? Why isn't this being discussed widely by the media? I don't get it. I have heard a few in the media discuss this, but very few. Why??? I would really like someone to explain this to me!
#31 Posted by Chris Hakes, CJR on Fri 1 Feb 2013 at 06:30 PM