Today's sports coverage is all about having an opinion. But what if there aren't enough facts to form an opinion? Why must there be a race to report or make a decision?
Texas Tech's Mike Leach was fired today after Adam James' allegations of mistreatment following a concussion.
Many people are angry that Leach was fired, while others empathize with James' allegations of mistreatment.
I do not think an injured player should be locked in an electrical closet. I also do not think a coach should be fired when an investigation is incomplete.
If you have watched ESPN's coverage of this story for the past two days, you might only see Leach as a cruel coach going outside of his bounds. I say this because, until today, I had only followed this story on ESPN.
I thought I had an opinion at that point; my mistake.
What is the first thing that pops up when you read this ESPN article regarding Leach from this afternoon? A video of Craig James, ESPN analyst and Adam's father, providing his commentary on the situation. I had to search the name of Ted Liggett, Leach's attorney, into ESPN's website, to find him speaking on Outside the Lines.
In "giving us both sides of the story," ESPN has provided us with an empathetic figure, a dad whose son has allegedly been mistreated, and an attorney, a profession that isn't too positively viewed, providing Leach's argument.
Yes, ESPN removed James from color commentary for the Alamo Bowl, featuring Texas Tech. That is an easy call. But if ESPN wants us to believe it is unbiased, why was James even on this telecast in the first place? Isn't there some inherent bias in an announcer who has a son on one of the teams in the game he's analyzing?
Why is it so easy to stumble upon employee James' response, but takes an effort to find Leach's attorney's take? Why does CBSSports have an entire article devoted to emails defending Leach, while these sentiments are buried in the middle of ESPN's article about Leach's firing?
Right now, there is still plenty we don't know. Was James really put in a small, dark closet? Or was it really a media interview room for visiting teams as some sources say?
Where are the other players' complaints about being mistreated in Leach's ten years as head coach? We know from the Tiger Woods scandal that once one comes out of the woodwork, it does not take long for others to follow. Or is this just one egregious incident?
Did ESPN report something without enough evidence, as it has multiple times now? And even worse for them, did they report it so quickly because an employee's son was involved?
Today's journalistic culture rewards being the first to break a story. But many times it is done in haste and is not accurately reported or researched. Is it worth it to get your name on breaking news when you are going by one source and people's livelihoods are at stake?
So, I do not have a concrete opinion on this situation because we simply do not know all of the facts. While I do not have an answer, I do have another question. If an investigation is not complete, how can you fire the man at the center of it?
One thing I do know: the Leach story has been propagated by haste. Lots of coverage for a report that may have been hasty, then a firing that also may have been hasty.
Me? I have no problem waiting a little to make up my mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment