PressEthic

A story published on the website of "Editor & Publisher" reveals that many sportswriters blame themselves for not exposing the use of steroids by professional baseball players from as far back as the 1980s. In the piece, the author describes how a story published in 1995 by Bob Nightengale of the Los Angeles Times exposed steroid use in the major leagues by talking to several general managers and players. But, according to the author, nothing really came of the revelation.

Three years before an AP reporter found a bottle of androstenedione in slugger Mark McGwire's locker, seven years before former MVP Ken Caminiti would admit he had regularly used steroids, and nine years before the San Francisco Chronicle would disclose that Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi had revealed steroid use in grand jury testimony, Nightengale got the word out.

But instead of sparking a wave of follow-up articles or investigations to ferret out the details of steroid use in baseball -- who was using it, where it came from, what it did to the body -- sportswriters essentially left the story alone. For several years, even through the home run derby summer of 1998 when McGwire and Sammy Sosa shattered the long-held 61-dinger mark, barely a word was printed about the illegal substances that were likely helping to boost home runs and endangering long-term health.

The article then goes on to quote various sportswriters, who admit to ignoring the increasing use of steroids or not knowing about it, and many even blame themselves for the lack of coverage.

The story was later used in an editorial on Poynter by author Evan Weiner, "Business and Politics of Sports," who came to the conclusion that sports writers should not be trusted to do what he calls "real journalism," which I can only take to mean investigative reporting on meaningful subjects.

Weiner criticizes sportswriters for wanting to be "one of the boys," and not reporting on issues that may negatively effect their relationship with the club they are covering.

Sportswriters want to be one of the boys and accepted in the exclusive sports clubbing world. As the Dallas Morning News writer Gary Jacobson pointed out "a beat writer has to continue covering a team or a sport. If you piss people off, they shut you out."

No writer wants to be shut out, the majority of sportswriters are fans first, extensions of team's public relations departments second and journalists, maybe third.

Although I do not entirely agree with this last point (there are many stories published everyday that criticize sports franchises) there is some truth to it.

My question is: how is this different from any other beat? Are reporters inside the White House not faced with the exact same dilemma? What about reporters covering the police beat? It seems to me that this is always a very delicate balancing act that a journalist must master in order to do good work while not losing the trust of his/her sources.

Weiner's editorial closes with this paragraph:

Ringolsby and his colleagues just want to cover baseball and sports and not let any issues come between them and their love, watching and enjoying baseball. Its too much to ask for real journalism from writers when there is a game going on.

So while Weiner may have a point that some sportswriters are ill equipped to cover "medicinal" and "law enforcement" issues, I think this is a rather gross generalization of sportswriters. Yes, many do love going to and watching games, but this statement completely trivializes the profession, which has produced some terrific stories. If you don't believe me, take a look at the "Best American Sports Writing" series to see how sportswriters are not only good at covering sports, but many are extremely adept at doing "real journalism."