Skip to content
Jan 27 / King Kaufman

Quote of the Day: The ultimate no-no

It is a cardinal sin to bore the reader.

Larry Niven

Jan 27 / Joel Cordes

Internship Insider: Telling the same old story for the first time

Very rarely in your sportswriting careers will you actually break news or be the first to react to any given topic. In fact, your editors are likely to assign pieces dealing with stories that have already been through the ringer more than once.

Chances are pretty good that you’ll be assigned to write on things that YOU have already tackled before!

So, how do you make the same old argument, story or premise feel fresh and exciting?

Just as you’ve been taught to increase objectivity by proofreading and arguing through another set of eyes, you can change a story angle by altering your perspective, focal audience or both. Sure, you always want to be yourself, but it’s a lot of fun to try to get inside the head of:

1. A fan who strongly disagrees on the issue. (Picking the opposite of what you feel and then stating this contrary opinion, only to prove it wrong and come back to your actual conviction, is fairly effective and entertaining.)

2. How the opposing players/teams view a player/team/event.

3. The coach/GM/owner’s perspective.

4. A complete outsider to the topic.

5. How teammates view a player/team/issue.

6. How the actual player/coach might view himself/herself.

7. How the event/person will be viewed in historical perspective. (one, 10 or a hundred years from now)

The possibilities are actually endless: You can probably think of at least half a dozen additional perspectives to write from or to. Regardless of the voice or audience you select, each one can vastly alter the angle, tone and ultimate conclusion.

Even as you still bring your thoughts to the table, it’s surprising how often this approach may change your own perspective on a particular story. This valuable experience can help you grow into a more balanced and knowledgeable writer.

Joel C. Cordes is Bleacher Report’s Sportswriting Internship Program Feedback Editor. Along with fellow editor Greg Pearl, he develops B/R interns by providing feedback and mentoring, the highlights of which are shared with the B/R Blog.

Jan 26 / King Kaufman

Quote of the Day: What to leave out

I try to leave out the parts that people skip.

Elmore Leonard

Elmore Leonard is one of my favorite writers, and I think this is my all-time favorite quote about writing.

I also hate to let a mention of Leonard go by without mentioning that I might be the only person in the world who has interviewed both Elmore Leonard and Leonard Elmore.

Jan 26 / King Kaufman

Bleacher Report is hiring writers

Bleacher Report is expanding its Lead Writer program. If you’re a good writer who’s fast, smart, knows a sport well and is comfortable on multiple platforms, this could be the gig for you.

This is from the press release:

As part of the program’s expansion, Bleacher Report plans to hire Lead Writers with backgrounds covering specific sports including National Football League (NFL), college football, Major League Baseball (MLB), Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), National Basketball Association (NBA), National Hockey League (NHL), college basketball and soccer. In addition to their writing responsibilities, Lead Writers will also leverage innovative platforms including video and social media in delivering news around teams and topics that Bleacher Report’s readers are passionate about.

You’ll remember that in the first round of Lead Writer hiring, we brought on Matt Miller, Bethlehem Shoals, Josh Zerkle, Dan Levy and Dan Rubenstein. We’ve since added Will Tidey on soccer and Jonathan Snowden on MMA. Adam Kramer, founder of the wildly popular Kegs N’ Eggs college football blog, will be joining B/R on Feb. 15.

Bleacher Report is looking for writers with experience covering their topic for Bleacher Report or another major sports outlet for at least one year. Significant applicable experience at the college level works as well.

The new Lead Writers will be called on to do on-air work for B/R’s in-house video unit and as an ambassador for the site to the outside sports world. Expertise in video and sports talk radio “expert” analysis is a plus, as is a working knowledge of Photoshop.

If you think you’ve got what it takes, email a cover letter and résumé to leadwriterjobs@bleacherreport.com.

Good luck.

Jan 25 / King Kaufman

Quote of the Day: Finding the words is the easy part

All the words I use in my stories can be found in the dictionary—it’s just a matter of arranging them into the right sentences.

Somerset Maugham

Jan 25 / King Kaufman

SI writer Thomas Lake: First impressions are lasting

Thomas Lake

Thomas Lake

Sportswriter Brandon Sneed has posted a very good interview with Thomas Lake of Sports Illustrated on his blog, BrandonSneed.com.

Lake is a 31-year-old SI senior writer who recently wrote a piece headlined Did This Man Really Cut Michael Jordan? about Pop Herring, the high school coach Jordan has for years said cut him from the team. Herring tells a different story.

I haven’t read its 7,000 words of goodness, but it has been widely praised.

I’m most intrigued by a bit of career advice Lake gives:

You know, I think this is why [legendary SI sportswriter] Gary Smith got me my first freelance assignment at Sports Illustrated. He’s about the best man in the world, but that’s not why. Here’s why he called up Terry McDonell and asked Terry to open the door. Because I didn’t reach out to Gary Smith until I actually had something good for him to read. And you know how long that took me, after college? Six years, that’s how long. Four newspapers in three states. Easily more than a thousand stories. It took me more than a thousand stories to write something worth showing to Gary Smith. That’s something young reporters should think about. Networking is fantastic, opportunities are valuable. But you have to get yourself good. You make yourself. Those first impressions are hard to shake.

Emphasis in the original.

A sort of corollary that Lake offers is to build your reputation and skills before you get where you want to go, pointing to a colleague who rose through the ranks at a national magazine, but is still thought of as the entry-level person he or she once was.

Lake acknowledges that his advice might not apply to everyone, that it’s possible to rise through the ranks. But I think his main point—make sure you’re good before you start shopping your work to the places to which you aspire—is solid.

What’s that old advertising line? You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

The interview is long and worth reading. There’s a deep dive into Lake’s story about Jordan’s old coach, and into his writing process.

Jan 24 / King Kaufman

Quote of the Day: The wisdom of the Greeks

Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.

Xenophon

Xenophon knew a thing or two about writing for the Internet, considering he died 2,348 years before Netscape launched.

Jan 24 / King Kaufman

Post-Paterno newsroom advice from a veteran editor

Modified newspapers at the Joe Paterno statue on the Penn State campus

Modified newspapers at the Joe Paterno statue on the Penn State campus

It’s worth staying on the subject of the erroneous reports of Joe Paterno’s death Saturday for another day to look at two more perspectives from smart observers.

First, newsroom consultant Carl Lavin spells out 10 Lessons for Newsrooms from Saturday’s events.

Lavin is an independent “content strategist” who’s held high-level editorial jobs at the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Forbes.com. “These 10 lessons,” he writes, “are drawn from my newsroom experience—decades that included my share of errors—and from watching across several hours as a false report of Paterno’s death spread and was debunked.”

These lessons are aimed not at the newsroom that made the initial mistake, the campus website Onward State, but at “the second ring of error, the newsrooms that repeated the inaccurate information.”

The post is a little confusing to relate because Lavin states his list as things not to do when you think you are right, and then after you’ve discovered you were wrong. It’s a lot of common sense, but it’s worth a read because if you care about getting things right, you can never hear this stuff enough. Also, common sense is not so common.

Clay Travis at Outkick the Coverage offers thoughts on the larger issues behind the mistake, especially CBS Sports’ role in the process.

Travis hammers CBS for only attributing its report to Onward State once the story proved to be wrong:

CBS’s apology rings hollow because it would never have linked that original report if multiple outlets had verified the death rapidly.

Why?

Because CBS Sports was engaged in a clear and blatant Internet sport—search whoring.

Search whoring has taken over an awful lot of sports media—and the Internet at large—in the modern era. If you climb to the top of Google’s search results for “Joe Paterno death” millions of people will click on your article both immediately and for years to come. Plus, you slingshot to the top of the Google News results which brings millions more hits and also serves to supplement, you guessed it, your Google search standing.

People ask, why rush to be first with a death report?

And the answer is easy, because being first—even if your reporting isn’t original in the least, which CBS’s wasn’t here—makes it rain pageviews.

Travis notes that CBS Sports even cynically sold ads on the page of its apology.

Online sports news and commentary is a business, and page views are central to that business. Bleacher Report writers need not concern themselves with B/R’s bottom line, but the way for individual writers to get ahead is also by building traffic.

But trying to game that process is a dangerous bet. Being quick, getting in on search early, is important, but being first and wrong can mean a high-profile mistake.

It doesn’t take many of those before people stop trusting you, and at that point it doesn’t matter how fast you are.

Photo: Patrick Smith, Getty Images

Jan 23 / King Kaufman

False Joe Paterno death report: How can we be both fast and right?

Mourners at the Joe Paterno statue on the Penn State campus Sunday.

Mourners at the Joe Paterno statue on the Penn State campus Sunday.

There’s a way to avoid the terrible thing that happened Saturday, when Joe Paterno’s death was reported prematurely by many outlets, including Bleacher Report. Paterno did die Sunday, but not before members of the 85-year-old coaching legend’s family had to spend some of his final hours reacting to media reports that he had already passed away.

It’s almost becoming routine: The death of a major celebrity is reported on Twitter, and not long after, that report is retracted. Not dead yet, it turns out. Someone jumped too quickly and others, eager not to get left behind, followed suit.

It happened with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the aftermath of her shooting a year ago. It happened with Paterno. It will almost certainly happen again. It’s how the business works these days. In a world that moves, if not at the speed of light than at the speed of wireless communication plus the time it takes to type 140 characters, the need to be right stands little chance against the need to be fast.

But what if we could be fast and right? There is, frustratingly, a simple way to do that. It’s so simple, in fact, that you risk boring would-be media stars by talking about it. It’s so Journalism 101.

Until a day like Saturday happens. Then everyone’s suddenly interested in this mysterious skill that everyone already knows how to do. At least, we’re interested in it for a little while. Then we lose interest again and the whole thing starts over the next time a major public figure is near death.

Here’s the secret: Only report what you know to be true, and tell your audience how you know it.

That might sound like a set of handcuffs, especially for you philosophy majors out there. After all, how can we really know anything? Well, let’s look at what happened Saturday.

Here are two tick-tocks, told mostly through collected tweets, of the Paterno false death report, one from the Social Meditation blog and one from Jeff Sonderman at Poynter. I recommend you take a few minutes and read both to understand the timeline of Saturday’s events.

You’ll see that the report started at a Penn State student site called Onward State, which tweeted, “Our sources can now confirm: Joseph Vincent Paterno has passed away tonight at the age of 85.” A second tweet said that football players had received an email informing them of Paterno’s passing.

We know now that that report was wrong. Onward State would soon retract it and apologize. But what would we have known if we saw it the moment it appeared?

We’d know that Onward State, citing anonymous sources, was reporting Paterno’s death, and that there was no confirmation from either the university or Paterno’s family.

That can be a story. It’s not much to go on, because as of the moment when Onward State tweeted that report Saturday, most people around the country had never heard of it and knew nothing about its reliability. For all the vast majority of people knew, Onward State was one person sitting in a dorm room, with no accountability to anyone.

And since it was citing unnamed sources, the report called for extreme skepticism. Bleacher Report’s Attribution Guidelines leave room for some judgment, but reporting that a little-known campus website was citing anonymous sources to say on Twitter that Paterno had died, and that there had been no official confirmation, would have been reporting something you knew to be true and telling your audience how you knew it.

We can back up a step in the process and look at what Onward State did. Daniel Victor of ProPublica talked to the site’s co-founder and posted an excellent recap of that this morning on Poynter.org. But here’s the story in a nutshell: Onward State reported something it did not know to be true, and did not tell its audience how it got the information in the report.

That’s a pretty good recipe for getting it wrong. It won’t always be wrong. There were very early, lone-wolf reports that Michael Jackson had died before there was any confirmation, and those reports turned out to be correct. But if you want to get something wrong, this is a good way to do it: Report anonymously something you aren’t sure is true.

There are appropriate situations for journalists to use anonymous sources, though not nearly as many as some journalists would have you believe. Whistle-blowers and others who could be hurt by their identity being known sometimes warrant identity protection. Was there a compelling reason for Onward State to grant anonymity to its sources on this story?

I doubt it. Victor’s recap quotes Onward State’s co-founder, Davis Shafer, saying the decision to run with the story reflected “how ego can be a very toxic thing for a news organization.” Shafer told Victor that the site was fooled first by an email that turned out to be a fake—though Shafer says he doesn’t think it was intended to deceive Onward State—and then by a reporter who seemed to corroborate the existence of the email, but turned out to have been overstating his knowledge of the situation.

That’s what Shafer was referring to when he categorized the ego problem as “Ego to act like you know something you don’t, ego to want to be the first person to break it.”

By going with the story and not identifying where its information came from, the site left itself open to being embarrassingly wrong. It’s one thing to report that a particular person is saying something. It’s quite another to say that thing yourself. That’s what Onward State did by relying on anonymous sources: It said, “Trust us, this is true.”

A great illustration of that difference came in the next step of the process, when CBS Sports picked up the story. CBS is a venerable and trusted institution in the news business, and CBS reporting that Paterno was dead seemed to convince many other outlets it was OK to run with the story. Breaking News, the Huffington Post, SBNation, the Big Lead, Poynter and many others posted stories or tweets saying that Paterno had died.

Bleacher Report followed CBS too. The editors on duty Saturday were aware of the Onward State report and had held off, waiting for corroboration from a more reliable source or news outlet. CBS Sports picking up the news story seemed to be that corroboration.

But notice how CBS Sports reported the news. The story has since been modified, but here’s a screen shot from the Twitter feed of a Portland TV news producer named Tim Williams. Though CBS Sports clearly ran its story based on the Onward State report, it did not credit Onward State.

That is, rather than reporting what it knew and how it knew it—Penn State campus site Onward State had tweeted that Paterno was dead—CBS Sports reported something it did not know, and did not say where the information came from. Once again, a good recipe for getting it wrong.

And then look what CBS Sports did once the Paterno family emphatically denied the report within a half hour of its appearance, tweeting and telling New York Times reporter Mark Viera that Paterno was very sick but still alive. Viera tweeted that a family spokesman had called the report “Absolutely not true.”

At that point, CBS Sports updated its story with the new information—and an attribution for the death report, now evidently false, to Onward State. Interesting how eager CBS Sports was for its audience to know where the information came from once it was shown to be incorrect, an eagerness the site hadn’t displayed in its earlier report.

Let’s linger on that point for a moment because it’s very telling. When CBS Sports’ story was exposed as false, it became concerned that the audience know where the information came from. By having that concern earlier in the process, CBS might have saved itself some embarrassment.

If the source of CBS’s story had been a solid one, such as the Paterno family spokesman or one of Joe’s sons speaking on the record, there’s no doubt that source would have been identified in the story. Right in the lead, in fact. Since Onward State is clearly a public website publishing in the open, CBS wasn’t protecting anybody by hiding its source. It was signaling, perhaps subconsciously, that it didn’t quite trust that source.

But by not citing Onward State, CBS was essentially saying, “Trust us. This is true.” It was staking its reputation on a site it didn’t trust enough to identify the way it would a more solid source such as the Paterno family. That’s a terrible bet.

Here’s an important thing to think about in this type of situation: “What’s it going to look like if this information turns out to be false?”

In the case of the Paterno death report, for CBS Sports and everyone who trusted it, what it looked like was that we reported bad information. If we had reported that a Penn State website was tweeting that Paterno had died and citing only anonymous sources—what we knew to be true, and how we knew it—it would have looked like we were reporting that someone was saying something that turned out to be false.

That would have been a much better service to everyone’s readers, as well as to everyone’s credibility.

As producers of content we have to be honest. As consumers of it, we have to be skeptical. As you write, only report what you know to be true, and tell your audience how you know it. As you read, especially if you are preparing to write about what you’ve read, demand the same, and question anything that doesn’t live up to that standard.

* * *

For further reading, here again are Bleacher Report’s Attribution Guidelines, B/R Copy Chief Dan Bonato’s posts about attribution and citing sources and about how to verify the sources you do use, and my post from a few weeks ago about linking to the source of your information.

Here are some apologies that appeared in the aftermath of the false report, from Onward State, from Breaking News, from CBS Sports and from SBNation. They are all worth reading if you’re interested in understanding how mistakes like this can happen. The transparency and openness in these statements is impressive. It wasn’t that long ago when media organizations were much more reluctant to own up to errors.

Photo: Patrick Smith, Getty Images

Jan 20 / King Kaufman

Quote of the Day: The work never ends?

Being a writer is like having homework every night for the rest of your life.

Lawrence Kasdan

There’s a cheery thought!

A few years ago, when I was writing a daily column at Salon, my wife was taking a college class for fun, a perk of her on-campus job. One night, she sighed, “I have a five-page paper due this week.” Ever the supportive husband, I said, “I have a five-page paper due every day.”

But really, if you like the work, there are a lot worse things than having homework every night. In fact, there are few better.