How to Destroy Your Website - Sat, Apr 4 2009 at 8:59 pm
Yesterday, a nascent draft site made a huge mistake. This website had already come to my attention from folks who were relaying its “visit” and “interest” reports, and we first noticed that they were disagreeing with the information we had. It’s simple things like a team “visit” getting confused with a “workout” that indicated that the writers didn’t have a firm grasp on what was going on.
On Thursday, one of the national football sites got themselves headlines by relaying a rumor that practically everyone in the business had heard about DT B.J. Raji testing positively for drug use at the combine. Whether they’ve made it more solid than just the rumor is hard to tell, I certainly hope so.
Perhaps inspired by this, one of these (NFL)Draft(Noun/Verb) sites decided it would be a good idea to quote a “source” in relaying another rumor that had been heard by virtually everyone regarding steroids and some of the USC linebackers.
Let me try to explain this to folks attempting to report the news: Hearing from a rumor passed along by a pal who has some tangential relationship to sports media is not hearing “news” from a “source”. It’s a freaking rumor. It might be true, it might not be.
Just becomes someone says it doesn’t mean he’s a “source”. Just because it’s said doesn’t make it “news”.
Do you have two independent sources verifying it? Do you have any sort of real evidence? No? Then don’t mess with people’s lives.
Anyhow, not long after this “our source tells us” stuff hits the web, the baseball bats came out. It probably took two or three hours.
First off, the site got pimp-slapped by none other than USC coach Pete Carroll who wrote on his Twitter feed that he was “Really upset about the FALSE steroid rumors going around about Brian Cushing and Clay Matthews” and linked to a story on USC’s site.
Around this time, I started getting communication from some pretty well-respected national writers that the reports on the USC steroid use were wrong, but not offering much in the way of strong denial on some of the other stories.
The NFL then comes strong with this statement:
“Neither the 32 clubs nor the league office know the results of drug or steroid tests taken at the 2009 Combine. The independent medical advisors who administer the tests have notified in writing those players and only those players who tested positive at the Combine. Unfortunately, rumors about draft eligible players, including rumors about test results, begin to circulate every year at this time. Many of these rumors are circulated for self-serving reasons and they are terribly unfair to the players and their families."
Here’s one from Clay Matthew’s lawyer.
“To the publishers of NFL Draft (Noun/Verb), I am following up on my earlier correspondence to you today regarding your false and defamatory report that Clay Matthews tested positive for steroids at the NFL Scouting Combine. As I mentioned, neither Clay nor this office has been notified by the NFL or Dr. John Lombardo, the Independent Administrator of its Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances, that Clay tested positive for steroids or any other banned substance. Moreover, Clay has since spoken with Dr. Lombardo who likewise confirmed that Clay did not test positive for steroids at the Combine. Last, and certainly not least, the NFL has not disclosed the names of any Draft-eligible players who may have tested positive under the policy for a banned substance to any NFL club.”
Welcome to Slapville, population: you. Might as well tear your site down, folks.
I’ve seen journalists increasingly acting like bloggers, desperately grabbing information in the race to stay relevant. That’s especially true here in Cleveland, where the team is no longer spoon-feeding stories to the local media.
Fans and journalists alike need to be careful with these little independent sites. Most of them are well-meaning, but others get perhaps a little too ambitious and start throwing stuff out there based on whatever they hear or see. I got this message six hours ago:
“That Draft(noun/verb).com site had Nic Harris listed as a player that had a visit or workout with New England. Just got a text from Nic saying he’s not done either one, nor does he have one scheduled.”
Oops. Here’s another:
“Just checked out NFLDraft(noun/verb).com’s depth charts for sh*ts and giggles, and it provided one major reason not to trust these guys. The date on them is March 5, 2009 and for the Dolphins they have Chris Crocker as the first-team free safety and Boomer Grigsby as the starting fullback. Crocker was released after six games last year, signed with Cincinnati and re-signed with Cincinnati this offseason. Grigsby was released after one game last year and never signed with anybody else.”
Alright, whatever. If there’s an web browsing equivalent of a condom, probably a good idea to get it. Please, folks, practice safe surfing.
Excellent piece. You have a way of using words to make your point.
Hey man, EVERYBODY is posting rumors as “news” quoting “sources” nowadays, even ESPN or Cleveland.com. I’m not saying it’s right, in fact, I can’t stand it. But nothing’s going to change until some people get sued or fired as a result.
Well, we do it, too. The real question is how good is the source, and how reliable is the news. Do you have it verified from a second independent source? Has this “source” been accurate in the past? Does the source have first-hand knowledge?
I’m guessing not asking that final question is why these guys just nuked themselves beyond repair.
We’ve had great stories that we passed up because we didn’t trust the source, or couldn’t get it verified. With drug reports, especially, you’re messing with people lives.
This is about bloggers deciding that they want a bunch of traffic or to be taken seriously. So they hear something, think they have a scoop, and go running to the blog entry page. And it’s about folks in the media who think they can get away with similar behavior because they work for a “respected” publication and therefore consider themselves untouchable.
Most readers are smarter than that, and, unfortunately, they now have to act as arbiters of quality because they can no longer rely on the standards of the institutions that serve them.
Nice piece, Barry. As hungry as I get for news, I appreciate the OBR’s restraint in reporting. There is sometimes a conflict between being first and being sure you’re right. Overall, I think you and the OBR minions do a great job…unlike some other sites!