Why won’t Tom Heckert comment on his relationship with Joe Banner?

by Cleveland Frowns on August 1, 2012

Maybe it’s nothing more than a bit odd, but it’s at least that. The Plain Dealer’s Mary Kay Cabot quotes Tom Heckert and (as best we can tell) at least one “league source” as well as a separate “league insider” in a piece titled, “Cleveland Browns GM Tom Heckert acknowledges uncertain futures, stresses focus on winning.”

Cabot quotes “a source” as saying that, contrary to unspecific reports to the contrary, Heckert, in his former job as Eagles GM, “had a good working relationship” with former Philadelphia Eagles President Joe Banner, who’s reported to be a part of the new ownership group set to take over the Browns. The source adds that Heckert ”left [the Eagles] to have final say over the 53-man roster” in Cleveland, a responsibility that was Andy Reid’s in Philly.

Which all sounds fine in theory but why can’t Heckert just say so himself?

Per Cabot: 

“We can’t worry about what’s going on with the sale or what’s going to happen after the season,” [Heckert] said. “We’re excited about this season and we just have to focus on playing good football.”

Heckert said he also doesn’t know if his old boss, former Eagles President Joe Banner, is part of the [new ownership group led by Jimmy Haslam], as has been reported by The Plain Dealer and other outlets. He declined further comment on the sale and its ramifications until it’s finalized.

Why didn’t Heckert just answer this question that everyone’s asking with something like, “Joe and I had a fine working relationship. I left Philadelphia to advance my career by taking on more responsibility over the final roster, and to take the unique opportunity to work with Mike Holmgren in reversing the fortunes of a once-great franchise by building something special here in Cleveland.” We came up with that answer in about seven seconds on three hours of sleep. How could it have been hard for Heckert to say as much himself unless it wasn’t true?

—————

In other news, $78 million MLB ballclub fails to gain a significant boost through a trade deadline move in a league with $120, $150, and $197 million ballclubs. Stop the press and get real mad on Twitter.

Finally, the Browns are moving up in the world, with a panel of 12 NFL experts assembled by the AP giving them a pre-season ranking 30 of 32 teams, the highest such ranking so far by any expert not employed by the Plain Dealer Browns.

  • Dinger63

    Heckert: “That’s a great question Mary Kay, but I’m more concerned about the Tribe’s free fall in the Central. With the trading deadline over and so few moves made by their front office, yes I am concerned with their ownership and the message it sends to their people and fans. Does that answer your question?”

    What’s the guy suppose to say? There is no comment that he could make that would be personally beneficial or organizationally favorable. While Banner may be part of the ownership group it’s only slightly more than conjecture as to Banner’s true role in the evolving organizational structure. I’d give Heckert a pass on this one.

    • ClevelandFrowns

      “What’s the guy suppose to say? There is no comment that he could make that would be personally beneficial or organizationally favorable.”

      I would try this:

      “Joe and I had a fine working relationship. I left Philadelphia to advance my career by taking on more responsibility over the final roster, and to take the unique opportunity to work with Mike Holmgren in reversing the fortunes of a once-great franchise by building something special here in Cleveland.”

      • Jim

        Did Cabot even ask the question about his working relationship with Banner? Or did she just ask in general how the new regime would effect the current Browns’ plans? I read the article and don’t see anything that would suggest Heckert evaded questions regarding his personal relationship with Banner.

  • wiseoldredbeard

    I wonder what LaMonte has to say about this news…

    Also, can we as a society discuss this new trend in journalism to cite anonymous sources? It is complete garbage.

    • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

      journalism is a profession like phrenology is a science.

      it exists first to generate revenue profitably. factual reporting of current events is incidental.

      • NeedsFoodBadly

        Couldn’t disagree more. A healthy journalism is key to a functioning democracy. Just because some news organizations/professionals fall short in their ethical standards doesn’t mean that all journalists are rotten. Plenty of people are bad at their jobs, it doesn’t mean that their entire profession is a joke.

        • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

          i dont know about that.

          the key to a functioning democracy is that the citizenry be informed with accurate information about the government. back in 1750, you needed guys to go out and discover such info and print it out on paper. (and the accuracy was suspect, then as now.)

          technology has passed by print and video journalism. if i’m a conservative, i do all my press releases directly through my website. i sure as hell dont invite a chris matthews to ‘report’ my words through his prism. based on the number of press conferences obama has held, even democrats dont see a need for journalists.

          the white press corps is quaint link to another time. much like lighthouses.

          • NeedsFoodBadly

            LOL yes, replacing journalistic ethics with press releases and propaganda solves the issue of an informed citizenry.

            What you’re talking about is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how reporting works.

            And again, the failure of loud talking heads to accord to journalistic ethics doesn’t meant that journalism itself is the problem – it means that some highly visible individuals aren’t working in accord to ethical standards. They should be held accountable to those standards, which, in fact, do exist.

            Your reductionist cynicism plays into the hands of those who want to get rid of an informed citizenry by way of pure propaganda. Get rid of all the journalists trying to do actual reporting and that’s all you’ll have.

          • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

            lol. we have a credentialed journalist telling chris perez ‘keep being you’ this afternoon.

            so.. yeah. i’m cynical.

          • NeedsFoodBadly

            A journalist espoused an opinion in an editorial that you don’t agree with? Heaven forfend.

            I’m curious as to what other institutions you hold to the same standards as journalism. After Abu Ghraib, did you call for the dissolution of the US Army? When GM issues a recall, would you like them to shutter their factories permanently? Or do you accept that all human institutions, being made up of fallible humans, have the capacity to err?

            It’s no doubt that the journalistic profession is in a crisis at the moment, but would you expect buggy makers to adapt immediately to the internal combustion engine? It is wholly unsurprising that the profession is in flux, but that is no reason to call for its dissolution.

            Earlier this week, you were decrying reductionism, but today you are comfortable painting an entire profession with one broad brush. Tell me, who benefits from doing away with journalists? Do you think any White House wants an active, critical press corps? Do you think big business wants an informed populace? Do you think the Browns want journalists that ask hard questions? Who profits from the scenario you envision, in which everything is a press release?

            Getting rid of journalists increases the issues that fuel your cynicism.

  • Beeej

    “In other news, $78 million MLB ballclub fails to gain a significant boost through a trade deadline move in a league with $120, $150, and $197 million ballclubs. Stop the press and get real mad on Twitter.”

    Hamilton said the other night that, “You can’t trade for 5 bats.” This team is built to win with ground ball pitching, strong defense, timely hitting from…someone, and a shutdown bullpen. No (reasonable) trade was going to help this team get as many bats as they need to win this year. For this them to have a chance at the Central they are going to need a different guy to step it up on offense each night, and the starters have to get their heads on straight. Dropping Chief Wahoo would also go a long way to turn the team’s misfortunes around.

    Bottom line: If Lloyd Christmas has a chance with Mary Swanson, then this team has the makeup to win it all this year.

    • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki
      • GrandRapidsRustlers

        1 million likes…I am not the biggest Gilbert fan in the world but anyone who thinks that he would have any desire to own the Tribe was a college roommate of Josh Gordon.

        Last night he even sent out a tweet saying he was flattered but the Tribe is not for sale…which is of course nonsense. Everything is for sale and by looking at the future salary commitments of the Tribe it looks as if he is lining it up for a sale.

      • nj0

        And here I assumed my electronic rantings were being ignored and falling on deaf ears. I’m honored.

        Some more fiscal truth bomb ranting:

        The payroll for the ’95 Indians was about $40M. That team, as we all know, came up short in the World Series.

        With inflation, that is about $60M in 2012 dollars. Or rather, $18M less than what Dolan is spending this year on payroll.

        So Jacobs was spending less while drawing about TWICE the paid attendance that Dolan does. Yet Dolan is the cheap one.

        My questions: if Dolan is willing to spend more than Jacobs to win, why is Dolan the cheap one? Also, why doesn’t cheap ass Jacobs get any heat for pinching pennies when his team was on the cusp of a championship? One more player in ’95 and we might have a WS banner.

        But no, Dolan is the cheap one.

        • GrandRapidsRustlers

          Too add on to this…Is Dolan the one who sold the people of NE Ohio stock in a baseball team?

          How would you like to own a piece of the Tribe?*

          *Represents piece of paper with no true value or ownership of team.

        • Jim

          Comparing payrolls from the 90′s to today is nonsense. The price of major league talent has simply skyrocketed. That $40 million payroll in 1995 was the sixth highest in baseball. The Yankees, who had the highest payroll in 1995, spent $58 million.

          • nj0

            Yes, payrolls have skyrocketed.

            What has not is the revenue for the Indians which is why the Indians can’t spend like the Yanks et al which is kind of my point.

          • Jim

            I agree with that and that there is a significant disparity in baseball that effects the competitive balance. I just disagree with comparing payroll in terms of dollars between teams from the 1990′s and today.

          • nj0

            @Jim – I don’t see why it’s out of bounds. I’m not trying to make a 1:1 comparison or anything just to illustrate the difficulties that ownership currently faces that didn’t exist back in ’95.

            The numbers show that Dolan has to spend more for less with half the attendance.

          • Its Only Money

            I understand the economics of our market, my real issue with Dolan is that he continues to reward a front office that has not produced ML ready talent. The Indians have 2 of their own number picks still in the organization. That is pitiful. How many on their 25 roster or even 40 man have come through their own drafts. Obviously we aren’t a team that will be built through FA so we can’t miss on the draft. This front office consistently has. Why are they still employed, the only logical explanation is that the team itself is making money.

            That is what bothers me about Dolan.

          • nj0

            @money – I’m about at the same place. I’ve always liked Shapiro, but there comes a point where the record starts speaking for itself. The organization as a whole seems loyal to a fault, both with front office people as well as players.

        • Jim

          Out of curiosity, what player should the 1995 Indians have added to put them over the top? Their hitting led the entire league in almost every statistical category including runs, OPS, OBP, and home runs. Their pitching was also at or near the top in almost every major category. That team had everything it needed to win a world series. Unfortunately, the Indians ran up against a trio of hall of fame pitchers in the world series. Greg Maddox’s numbers that year are insane, especially when you consider that 1995 fell in the middle of the so called “steroid era.”

          • nj0

            I wasn’t being quite serious on that one. I guess I was engaging in some shock value stuff there.

            We were one game from the WS in ’07 and, after we lost, I had to hear people complain about how cheap Dolan screwed us. If we had spent more for that last piece.

            My point in the above post is to point out that I have NEVER heard that about Jacobs. Nobody would dare criticize him on those grounds even though one could, if one so wanted to.

            I do not want to. I think it’s rubbish, just like slamming Dolan for cheapness usually is. Just trying to show what I think is a double standard.

          • Jim

            I thought you were being facetious but one can never be too sure. My issue is not with Dolan. It’s with the front office. They have done a terrible job at developing talent (which was the core of those 1990′s teams), missed terribly on the CC and Cliff Lee deals, and then failed to do much of anything after trading Ubaldo to shore up the teams glaring weaknesses.

          • nj0

            @Jim – Then we’re in agreement, though I think we’re still in the minority.

            Even if Dolan replaces the front office, do you think the majority of fans will accept the new guys? There will just be more calls for Dolan’s head. It just drives me bonkers how one owner, who has honestly tried his best, ends up the scapegoat for MLB’s messed up system.

          • NeedsFoodBadly

            What’s the solution then? If the Indians organization is irrevocably hamstrung by the structure of MLB as a whole, what can be done? Should people just show up and support a team that is going to lose more than it is going to win in perpetuity?

            is it an effective protest of MLB structure not to show up to games? What can be done to try to achieve parity?

          • nj0

            @nfb – I don’t think the Indians are irrevocably hamstrung. They just need to be smarter and more daring (see the Rays) than they are now. Our front office, though I like them, just aren’t getting it done.

            The Indians are too timid imo and too comfortable with the status quo (see Chief Wahoo).

            Also, for the record, I have no issue with people not showing up for games or not watching baseball because of the inequity. What gets my goat is when Dolan and the Indians get chewed out by fans for making the best of a bad situation.

          • Petefranklin

            They ran into crappy NL umpires squeezing the plate in favor of the Braves.

          • Beeej

            I thought the same thing in the 07′ ALCS. There seemed to be two different strike zones.

          • Petefranklin

            WAHOO!!

    • nj0

      We don’t need bats as much as we need pitching.

  • GrandRapidsRustlers

    This is where I am torn as a baseball fan and a Tribe fan.

    I love what that Rays have done in the last 5 years (spending 100M+ less than Dolan over that time) and love what the A’s and Pirates are doing this year. The problem is that the smart teams who are finding a way to compete are being used by Selig as an example of parity.

    Can anyone get in the playoffs? Sure…there are 10 teams in now. Can they actually then win the damn thing? The last 2 decades tells me no. I still love the game and spend way too much time up in the middle of the night watching west coast baseball.

  • CleveLandThatILove

    I get the feeling Banner is a real s.o.b. to just about everyone, especially the media. Buckle up, there’s bound to be some turbulence ahead.

  • http://www.clevelandsports360.com/ CS360

    There could be a couple of reason’s why Heckert isn’t saying much about Banner. One could simply be he doesn’t want any kind of distraction to the team. The other could be out of respect to Mike Holmgren who hired Heckert to the Browns. Most likely Holmgrens time as team President is coming to an end..

  • bossman09

    30 was the average ranking. 25 was the highest and 32 the lowest. I’m looking at the rankings and I don’t really understand everyone’s logic. We draft players for 4 key needs and everyone considers it a net loss. Apparently they consider the Browns with Hillis, McCoy, Pashos, and Robiskie a better team.

    The problem Heckert has is that he generally says what he’s thinking. I’m fearful that Heckert and Banner don’t get along. Of the 3 key people in the current browns leadership, I think Heckert is probably the most valuable. Holmgren’s best action to date was hiring Heckert – pretty much everything else has sucked, and Shurmur is at best a question mark. I would prefer to give Shurmur at least the 2012 season if not the 2013 season to show he can do the job but Heckert would be hard to replace.

    • technivore

      30 was the average ranking. 25 was the highest and 32 the lowest. I’m looking at the rankings and I don’t really understand everyone’s logic. We draft players for 4 key needs and everyone considers it a net loss. Apparently they consider the Browns with Hillis, McCoy, Pashos, and Robiskie a better team.

      Not that hard to understand. National writers simply don’t think or care about the Browns at all, and to the extent that they do it’s easy for them to just say “shitty team, now with a rookie QB” and move on to the next team in their list. I mean take some other boring bad team (let’s say Jacksonville, with MJD and a decent defense and nothing else, they resemble the Browns pretty closely), how much time have you spent trying to figure out how much better their draft picks will make them, or how their offense is going to jell after a full offseason or whatever?

  • BIKI024

    Berman ranking the Clownies 25th! (which means a 5-11 prediction)

    re: Heckert/Banner relationship, at this point, who cares. maybe there is some truth to some resentment between Banner and Reid, Heckert, et all, maybe there’s not. maybe we should take Heckert’s word that he does not want to comment on the sale or people involved until the sale is finalized. I’m sure when/if Banner has his introductory press conference, MKC and the rest will have plenty of opportunity to ask the horse’s mouth themselves.

    • Beeej

      MKC from the PD, “Mr. Banner, do you see the Browns winning the Super Bowl by 2 touchdowns or 3?”

  • Art_Brosef

    My company is in the process of being bought. I know all the of the employees from their company with whom I will work, should I keep my job. This includes their employees in the same capacity as well, as well as the manager who will choose whether or not I keep my job. I like all of them, and have worked with many of them in the past.

    Whenever Im asked about the certain pending acquisition , which is at least twice a day, I say “I can only conrol what I can control, so I just put my head down and go to work. Im optimistic.”

    The bottom line is, while your suggestion is fine, there isnt a thing wrong with the one Hecket gave. To read anything into it is a reach in my opinion

    • Petefranklin

      Definitely not a reach, but maybe Heckart can’t say anything relevant until the deal is finalized. He (Banner) is still part owner of the Steelers at this moment right?

      • Art_Brosef

        My only point is that regardless of how Heckert actually feels about Banner, Haslem, etc, is that there is no reason for for him to give any other answer than the vanilla one he provided. Toeing the line.

      • BIKI024

        Haslam is still part owner of Steelers, Banner is currently a “strategic advisor” to his childhood friend Jeffrey Lurie, owner of the Eagles.

        But obviously by all accounts he’s a part of the proposed Haslam ownership group, but he (nor Haslam) has not gone on the record with that information. Maybe Frownie should be questioning why Banner hasn’t made a quote about that yet as well, oh wait, that’s right, because it’s not official yet, and they must have a policy that they choose to not comment on things before they’re official. As odd as that may be for some people to appreciate, it makes perfect sense to me. No need to create distractions for no apparent reason other than giving MKC another headline to butcher and manipulate.

        • Petefranklin

          If Banner is related at all to Laurie we’re screwed. The truth will come out, with or without orange colored glasses, thanks to Frownie.In our best interests, Heckart will keep his mouth shut, and Holmgren will migrate back up the Oregon trail.If not we have another mess, which Frownie was the FIRST to point out. Mess= new regime.We’ll find out soon enough whats up with Berea. Thanks Pete P for the obvious truth that got got glossed over by the walleye wrap. After the 2nd time reading the wrap(PD) I realized how obviously your rebuttal is the truth, it’ll come out…tick, tick, tick.As far as distractions?? Well let’s leave that alone, if a blog(albeit the best) creates a distraction, were screwed anyway.Laurie>Banner>Holmie>Heckart>the Clowns as we know them=DRINK!! Thanks for the bread Geoffery Laurie, we built a new casino on your losses. The bar is now set where it is… GO BROWNS!!

          • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

            speaking of oregon trail…

  • Kildawg

    I’ve heard that ESPN’s Chris Berman ranked us 25th, being enamored with T-Rich (Finally, a little respect!). However, Rich Gannon of CBS Sports and one of his cohorts ranked us dead last. Let those haters hate, I think Boomer knows what he’s talking about more.

    • Petefranklin

      I like your avatar…we were once good.

  • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

    @nfb — i was trying to keep it crisp by using the anecdote cited today. but ok.

    traditional media news outlets are anachronistic. we agree can agree here cant we? please dont make me source circulation numbers for any newspaper or ad revenue/nielsen numbers for the big evening news programs. please dont make me point out how ‘news programming’ is a collection of rachel maddow and laura ingraham and everything in between… it is very little unvarnished reporting. the industry, both as a business proposition and in upholding journalistic ideals, is dead or dying.

    is not this website a proof point that ‘traditional journalism’ need not be so revered? twenty years ago you’d have a steady diet of mkc asking when the starting qb will be named. today, thankfully, we have choices.

    i’m perfectly happy getting news feed from drudge, political info from politico.com. if you think mary kay cabots only exist in midwestern backwaters in sports departments, i give you this. and 50 years of helen thomas. i dont know that these institutions are worthy of your defense.

    w.r.t. to your aspersions re propaganda.. i would rather have a ministry of propaganda versus ‘objective news outlets’ who bring their agenda into what they do and dont report and then into the reporting itself. the propagandist is at least honest that in that he is a propagandist. i care not for solemn intonations from newsreaders who are no smarter than you or me. hey katie couric, i cant remember the last newspaper i read either!

    in short, i get that you believe that journalism provides a watchdog mechanism to government. i believe journalism serves the ideology of its outlet and has always done so. second and last point from me, i dont know how you reconcile the ideal of ‘journalistic ethics’ with the reality of ‘we need circulation/eyeballs/pagehits to keep this business afloat.’ compromises are made; quality and then ethics wind up being among them.

    • NeedsFoodBadly

      You never answered my question about standards. What other industries do you hold to the same standards as journalism? Do you recognized that the execution almost always falls short of the ideal? Not every receiver catches every ball. Not every college athletics program lives up to the student-athlete ideal. Journalists and journalistic organs sometimes fail to live up to to the profession’s ethical standards. This should not surprise you. This is human nature. A lot of the problems you identify are structural problems in the delivery of news that journalists are VERY aware of, and are struggling to deal with in the face of a changing media landscape.

      If you only define journalism as “newspapers and cable news,” part of your problem is a definitional one. I’d be curious to know what you consider journalism. If you agree that Frowns is, in part, practicing journalism (as he himself self-identifies as doing), how can you say that it is a “profession like phrenology?” I also feel like you’ve bought into an incorrect understanding of objectivity that has been foisted onto the public by anti-journalistic interests. Objectivity doesn’t mean the absence of bias. People who claim that definition for journalistic (or scientific) objectivity are placing an unreasonable and impossible standard upon the discipline. Once again, I ask you, who benefits from the destruction of an active and critical journalistic establishment?

      It is interesting to me that you espouse Drudge as an example of a worthy news source. I read Drudge every day. Is it not patently obvious to you that he’s a barely disguised schill for the Romney campaign? Were you reading several weeks ago when he was being fed (and subsequently breathlessly reported on) the ridiculous idea that Condoleeza Rice was a vice presidential candidate? Matt Drudge is not the model for new journalism, and in fact is emblematic of the sort of page hit/ethical compromise situation that you decry.

      I am in agreement with you that journalism, as it is currently practiced, is ill. But I think it is worth it to look at the underlying cause of the symptoms. The problem isn’t that journalists are public-deceiving, biased scumbags, nor is the solution to pull the plug on the journalism trade.

      The problem is that journalistic ethics aren’t being lived up to for very real structural problems that are directly related to fallout from Watergate, the disturbing agglomeration of media companies under a non-media big business umbrella, and a shift from focus on the reporting side to the business side.

      One of the great things about our era is the democratization of the newsgathering process. You’re absolutely correct in decrying the “gatekeeper” function of the press, and the proliferation of websites such as this are a wonderful thing. But you should also be very wary of how politically-motivated, astroturf type interests subvert and use this sort of communication for their own ends. It is much more sinister than a reliably left-of-center NY Times reporter, for argument’s sake.

      But you are absolutely wrong in believing that news shouldn’t be more than propaganda. You’re giving into the very problems that you seem so adamantly against. We shouldn’t be arguing for less journalism – we should be arguing for BETTER journalism, even as we educate ourselves to understand exactly what that means.

      • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

        i’m reluctant to broaden this dialogue to ‘What other industries do you hold to the same standards as journalism?’ out of respect to the other readers here. the line that kicked all this off was a quickie support to wiseoldredbeard’s comment on unnamed sources.* it’s journalism that has not been living up to its promise in that last decade or more… and in looking in ‘what went wrong’ you find that journalism is unique in claiming to have ethics while its history is notable for its relinquishing of ethics in order to make more money.

        i dont think of drudge as more than a news aggregator. i can filter his content.

        and that’s part of the problem: with drudge (still not considered mainstream by even huffpo) i’ll be allowed to learn about a 300 person flash mob at walmart in jacksonville. conventional news outlets sit on stories like that for fear of being called racist i guess? i dont know how i am well served by editors doing filtering like that for me. i dont know how an editor telling me i shouldnt hear about a riot in florida is different from a govt official doing it. either way.. some one is asserting power to control the information i receive.

        perhaps that’s my main point regarding propaganda: your news is being censored now. with propaganda at least you know it. also, as it stands now, your info is being censored by (often) self-righteous ideologues purporting to uphold ‘ethics.’ preceding has some hyperbole, nfb, so leeway please. but it holds up i think.

        we can agree on wanting better journalists. i dont think i need an education on what that means. it means to present news in a crisp, articulate (even artistic) way without the journalist (or his outlet) putting his agenda into the story. it means a clear line between reporting and analysis.

        *ironically i dont fully agree with W.O.R.B. on this. lol.

        • NeedsFoodBadly

          Oddly, I do agree with WORB regarding the overuse of anonymous sources. If you want to talk about propaganda, look into how governmental organs have started using anonymous cover to filter very carefully constructed statements through the press. I think anonymous sources in sports reporting is absurd – it’s not like these guys leaking stuff to the media are under any pain of imprisonment.

          And I’m aware how the conversation started – I leapt onto a probable throwaway comment. This is a subject near and dear to me – I’m not a journalist, but I’ve been studying journalistic practice for the better part of two years, doing serious research. And I like having an intelligent debate, since it helps me sharpen my arguments for when I’m writing this stuff up in other settings. If this discussion is tedious, annoying, or in any way inimical to you, feel free to punch out any time. I’m enjoying myself (it would be better over a beer), but I wouldn’t want to waste your time.

          I absolutely dispute that journalism is unique in claiming ethics, while falling short in pursuit of the dollar. Doctors have an ethical code, but sometimes push unnecessary surgeries or medications. Same circumstances apply to scientists. Teachers. Cops. Every profession has members that fail to adhere to their profession’s ethical standards. Why would journalists be any different?

          In a large part, I think you’re conflating journalists with the

          Regarding the news links you posted, I don’t feel like that story was hidden from me. The article itself seems very suspect – it depicts a “riot of hundreds” that somehow results in a mere $1500 of damage – I guarantee that particular Wal-Mart sells well over $1500 an hour in merchandise during the course of regular business. Does the first news story pass the smell test to you? It shouldn’t – it identifies no one by name, improperly uses a buzz phrase like “flash mob,” and is generally imprecise regarding reports. Was there a police response? Who actually reported gunshots? Is there any confirmation guns were fired? Why was so little damaged if it was such a horrible mob? And lastly, why would minor losses at a Wal-Mart be cause for national concern?

          if you think Drudge isn’t filtering your news for you, I don’t know what to say. He cherry picks the articles to post to frame very particular narratives. You are aware of this, it seems. Do you think that most readers of Drudge are aware of this? Do you think his bias is more visible or less visible than Fox News or CNN or MSNBC?

          I think your definition of good journalism is mostly dead-on. But I think you conflate the actual causes of poor reporting while underestimating the pressures of a reporter faces in the face of integrity, editorial oversight, and business forces. The latter factor has become overwhelmingly powerful – and THAT is the cause of poor journalism these days. Not “bad journalists.” You’re right that the pursuit of the dollar is a comprising force, but does that come from the journalists? Or the accountants and shareholders that run the organizations that now own newspapers and TV stations? Isn’t that where the buck truly stops?

          • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

            so much meat here early in the morning! i’m good too, enjoying. i do definitely want to be mindful about co-opting frowns’ forum… but i can go. appreciate the debate too, nice to do work on things like this with the mutual respect we’ve built up.

            I’m not a journalist, but I’ve been studying journalistic practice for the better part of two years, doing serious research.
            hah. i stumbled into another bill-simmons-article-sized back and forth with bupalos on the genesis of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in about the same way. mind your p’s and q’s with this crowd.

            ok….why do i find journalistic ethics more oxymoronic that the professions you cite?
            —
            a. grammar. we’ve covered grossi’s use of irregardless here. we haven’t touched on ‘athleticism’ and while i know made-up words become part of the lexicon, it bugs me that this word’s etymology would include ‘mis-used by illiterate sports journalists for decades and so it became easier to anoint it as a real word.’ the english language is in full decline. lack of journalists’ standards are contributing.
            b. gotcha. i mentioned the couric-palin interview earlier. couric persists in asking palin ‘WHATS THE NAME OF THE LAST NEWSPAPER YOU READ’ long after it was clear palin couldn’t remember. it was rude and antagonistic especially when juxtaposed in the friendly one-on-one set-up.
            c. double-standard. meanwhile, when a journalist asks obama at a press briefing how he can unilaterally grant amnesty to thousands of illegals, obama scolds him (doesnt answer)… and his journalistic peers get all peevy. they say he was out-of-line but dont censure. well… 1. how the eff does the president ‘not enforce’ laws… it’s a good question still unanswered, and; 2. sam donaldson? anyone? where was this white house press corps’ attention to decorum in the past?
            d. false authority. this is a bit touchy-feeling, i wont have data. it pertains mainly to sports journo. on one hand you have a zac jackson who’s tramping all over oxford and athens and toledo right now and when he throws ‘akr +15′ into his cheddar picks, take heed. on the other hand you have a MKC with the same credentials and using them to ask inane questions about peyton hillis’ flu in open forum (uh, emm-kay? you might need to get the sensitive info from ‘unnamed sources’.. unlikely hillis’ peers and coaches will get dirty on that.) for two or three weeks. and adam shefter retweets. but yet, in addition to her column, she is interviewed by local radio and tv shows… like she’s an authority on the browns. meanwhile rodofdisaster provides more content in one post working at it part-time than all of cleve-dot-com does in a month.
            e. meritocracy? in writing bullet d, it occurred to me that a profession where mkc has more reach than zac j. is innately flawed.

            do those other industries suffer the same problems and we just dont see them? yeah, maybe/probably. but this is the one is see and so i’m going to comment on it.

            you raise other good subjects that i’m not ignoring, but again, im surprised and embarrassed and the length of this already. lllata.

          • NeedsFoodBadly

            Righto. This’ll be my last word too.

            a. – Yes, absolutely. Professional writers should have the best grammar.
            b. – I wouldn’t hold up Katie Couric as the best of the journalism profession. At the same time, it should be the role of journalists to ask tough questions of those in power. It’s interesting to me that you think Couric’s question was rude, whereas the question in point c was not – but there are obvious differences in setting and content, so…
            c. – Presidents and politicians don’t want an active, critical press corps. The solution isn’t to do away with a press corps, because then the problems you identify would worsen. The solution is to demand more from the journalists. Part of the code of ethics for journalists is being independent of those in power. But there’s been a lot of co-opting in recent days.
            d. & e. – I like Zac’s writing and legwork – and it’s the latter that especially exemplifies what a journalist’s job is. To do the work finding the information we regular citizens either can’t or don’t have time to find ourselves. Some journalists coast on prior work, cronyism and sheer seniority. I hear Tony Grossi was once an active, good journalist but got worn down from the grind. This happens in a lot of industries, where the people at the top just don’t have the juice anymore. I’m sure as Zac Jackson continues to do his due diligence as a journalist, his audience will grow. The public, such as it is, isn’t stupid – it can sense quality, but sometimes it takes awhile to find what it really wants. So it’s folks like Zac that I’d hold up as showing that we do need professional journalists, guys who do the work.

            So, I think we’re in agreement in that we have a lot of the same problems with how journalism is practiced as it currently stands, but differ in what we see as the solutions. This was fun!

          • rodofdisaster

            Fascinating debate here and I applaud you both but I think that as the level of journalism declines and the watchdog function is in question, the internet has given rise to the “citizen journalist”.

            Stating the obvious, I know.

          • NeedsFoodBadly

            Absolutely. The rise of the citizen journalist and the democratization of the practice of journalism is one of the deepest stories in the media right now.

            Historically, there was a weakening of journalism during the 90s that got exacerbated by the challenges introduced by the internet. As I see it, print and TV journalists have reacted to the changes with very mixed results, while the media landscape has expanded greatly.

            There are a lot of issues with citizen journalism though. Transparency is one of them – who is actually doing the work? Some “citizen journalists” have been exposed as plants for special interests groups, which is creepy. Context is another – anyone can grab footage of a protest, or riot, or whatever, but what does it mean?

            I see journalism more as an ethically-guided enterprise, so that anyone who is acting in accordance to those ethics (truth-telling, independence, transparency, etc.) can be considered a journalist – so by my definition, not all practicing, credentialed journalists are actually doing journalism, if you get my meaning.

          • rodofdisaster

            NFB- agreed. I think back to when my dad used to tune in the BBC on shortwave radio. It seemed so much more informative than US news. Perhaps that was just an impression.

          • wiseoldredbeard

            Why is it odd that you agree with WORB?

          • NeedsFoodBadly

            Only odd in the context of the discussion, not in the sense that there’s anything wrong with agreeing with you. I’m defending the media more than JK, but I dislike the anonymous sourcing stuff more than he does.

        • NeedsFoodBadly

          Also, Jesus, sorry for writing a textbook on this topic. I understand if you don’t care to read it.

          • ClevelandFrowns

            I think you’re doing fine work, NFB. Thanks.

    • Petefranklin

      The evening national news is the truth, viagra and the purple pill are to die for, among others.

  • Beeej

    Livingston has been reading the Frowns archives.

Previous post:

Next post: