PressEthic

The New York Times scolded news outlets ESPN and the The Fort Worth Star-Telegram for reporting bids for the Japanese baseball pitcher, Daisuke Matsuzaka, through anonymous sources. Should the news outlets have kept quiet about the bids until they were made official? Did the New York Times handle the situation ethically?

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Friday that "a baseball official with knowledge of the process" said that the Texas Rangers were in top bidding for the pitcher. However, ESPN reported the Boston Red Sox as top bidder today "according to a source." Here's how the New York Times handled it:

Still, the delay has helped create speculation about which team has made the top bid. ESPN reported that the Boston Red Sox might have made the bid, and it might be as high as $45 million. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that the Texas Rangers might have bid as much as $30 million, and might have a chance for Matsuzaka’s rights. Both outlets relied on anonymous sources.

The Los Angeles Times also reported today that the Angels had made a bid, but in their coverage, they named specific sources from the Angels and Major League Baseball. They also didn't purport that the Angels had made a top bid. If anything, their coverage is most similar to the New York Times, emphasizing again the confusion of the sources:

In the absence of an announcement, rumors circulated frantically in baseball circles Friday. ESPN reported the Red Sox might have submitted the high bid, at between $38 million and $45 million.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported the Rangers might have bid $30 million; ESPN reported the Rangers might have bid $22 million.

A Boston television station reported the Angels might have the high bid, without offering an estimated amount.

Every source had the same thing in commom: focusing on one team as a possible bidder. This is completely legitimate because of their readership. Of course, those that New York Times want to know where the Yankees and Mets stand in the bidding. Same with the Rangers and the Angels.

The difference in coverage boils down to accuracy. Both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times report the facts: that there are many possible bids, and there is confusion and rumors as to which is the highest. However, ESPN and the The Fort Worth Star-Telegram make assumptions and rely on unnamed sources.

The use of anonymous sources in this case simply delegitimizes the information in my eyes. If there is no named source, the information cannot be confirmed. In addition, the fact that the New York Times and the LA Times point out their faults further makes the information and news outlets untrustworthy.

In another light, one could argue that the public would rather hear rumors that cannot exactly be confirmed than nothing at all. Especially concerning an issue that is not altogether urgent to the public interest, baseball fans may just want to know what the hearsay is on the subject. They want to be provided with some hope that their team may be a contender. Is this ethical if the news outlets are providing the people with what they want, even if they can't confirm it to be truth?

I would still say no and side with the New York Times. In many intances, I would have a problem with the fact that the NY Times actually named the news outlets who did this. This seems unnecessary, and correcting their information is enough. However, since the LA Times did this as well, it doesn't seem so bad, but I'm wondering what you guys think. Should news outlets be watchdogs on each other?