Was NYT doping story journalism or hatchet job? You make the call…
On Monday, the New York Times published a story about two of Lance Armstrong’s former teammates who are now saying they used the banned EPO prior to the 1999 Tour de France. Armstrong was a tad miffed:
“I think it’s a pretty nasty attempt by The New York Times to link me to doping through somebody else’s admission,” Armstrong said. “You have to read way down in the article until Frankie says, ‘I never saw Lance do anything.’
“To me, this is a story about Frankie Andreu,” Armstrong said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Los Angeles. “The fact he took drugs has nothing to do with me.”
In defending itself, the Times said:
“We feel the story is completely fair. It says in the eighth paragraph his teammates never saw him take drugs and in next paragraph that he always denied using performance-enhancing drugs,” Times sports editor Tom Jolly said.
“They are two of his former teammates. Obviously, he was the star of that team and that’s their claim to fame. The story never accuses him of using drugs,” Jolly said.
So, which was it? Fair journalism or cheap character whack job?
Let’s review the story for clues.
- Armstrong’s name appears three times before the story tells us who the guilty parties are (one is Frankie Andreu, and the other remains anonymous because he doesn’t want to jeopardize his current cycling job).
- Floyd Landis is mentioned before we learn who the subjects of the story are, as well, and best we can tell he has nothing to do with this one.
- Andreu says he’s coming forward now because he thinks doping is damaging his sport. (If the anonymous source’s rationale is the same, might we ask about the virtues of putting personal gain ahead of the well being of other athletes and the very sport itself?)
- While “[m]ultiple attempts to interview Armstrong for this article – through his lawyers, his agent and a spokesman – were unsuccessful,” it’s important to understand that the disclosures by Andreu and the anonymous source “are rare examples of candor in a sport protected by a powerful code of silence.”
- While Armstrong’s name is certainly a key hook in selling interest in the story, the fact that there’s no new evidence against him, well, that information makes its first appearance in graf eight, or well into the second act. As it turns out: “Both of Armstrong’s former teammates also said they never saw Armstrong take any banned substances.” Including the caption in the picture at the top of the story Armstrong’s name appears six times before the reporter allows that, by the way, here are two more eyewitnesses who have no evidence against him. You know, just in case you were counting.
So, since I’ve been out of the loop for awhile, can somebody tell me when The Old Grey Lady hired Geraldo to run its copy desk?
This is nothing short of disgusting – how much longer before we can count on the Times for front-page stories on who dumped Jessica Simpson this week and eyewitness accounts of aliens at the Pentagon and magical appearances by the Virgin Mary in grilled cheese sandwiches in Nebraska?
Juliet Macur gets the byline, and I’d like to see her original story before I call for her head. The editors that this got past – the story itself is pretty much prima facie evidence that they need to be turfed, I think.
And if the ESPN story accurately reflects his thoughts and his view on the story, sports editor Tom Jolly is a mealy-mouthed disgrace who needs to be shown to the street yesterday. With his credentials he should have no trouble landing a job at the Enquirer or in talk radio, where his ethics are more appropriate. Or maybe Le Monde, which has made nailing American cyclists its raison d’etre.
Hey, maybe Lance was guilty. Maybe he outjuiced Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Raffy Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa combined. Maybe. Honestly, I wasn’t there, and all I have to go on is what we know to be true. He repeatedly passed every test known to sports medicine. Still, if you’re a “where there’s smoke” type, I can respect that. But let’s not masquerade, shall we? Let’s be honest about our motivations, our ethics and our tactics.
Especially if we’re the New York Feckin’ Times, the Last Bastion of Responsible Journalism in the Land®.
If somebody has details that mitigate any of this please let me know, because right now I could use something to believe in…
:xpost:
lullaby pit 
Two thoughts.
1. It’s a sign of the times. We have learned that if you put two non-related words together enough, people will make the jump and tie them. 9/11 = Iraq is a perfect example. While report after report (and the president, himself) said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 he still says them w/in close proximity and more than 1/3 of this gullible country think that they are related. My own experiment linking Neph with emeralds has not netted me any green sparklies, however.
2. Lance Armstrong is a house-hold name. Everyone knows who Lance is. Put his name above the fold to grab the reader’s attention. If they (correctly and honestly) put the WHO first, people who say “who’s that guy?” and stop reading.
Is it right? No. But one has to assume that those are the possible motivators.
Two thoughts.
1. It’s a sign of the times. We have learned that if you put two non-related words together enough, people will make the jump and tie them. 9/11 = Iraq is a perfect example. While report after report (and the president, himself) said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 he still says them w/in close proximity and more than 1/3 of this gullible country think that they are related. My own experiment linking Neph with emeralds has not netted me any green sparklies, however.
2. Lance Armstrong is a house-hold name. Everyone knows who Lance is. Put his name above the fold to grab the reader’s attention. If they (correctly and honestly) put the WHO first, people who say “who’s that guy?” and stop reading.
Is it right? No. But one has to assume that those are the possible motivators.
I hear that a doped-up Lance rode a tandem bike through Nebraska with Barry Bonds and ate that grilled cheese sandwich.
I hear that a doped-up Lance rode a tandem bike through Nebraska with Barry Bonds and ate that grilled cheese sandwich.
mmmmmmmmmmm grilled cheese.
I so know what I am having for dinner tonight!
mmmmmmmmmmm grilled cheese.
I so know what I am having for dinner tonight!
I predict that when you take it off the grill for the last time and flip it over, you’ll see Osama’s face burned into the bread. Or maybe Saddam’s face, which would make your supper a sandwich of mass destruction. Which will lead to your kitchen being invaded and, next week, the president standing in a chef’s apron in front of your house, which will have a banner in front of it saying “Cheese accomplished.”
Maybe you should just send out for pizza instead.
I predict that when you take it off the grill for the last time and flip it over, you’ll see Osama’s face burned into the bread. Or maybe Saddam’s face, which would make your supper a sandwich of mass destruction. Which will lead to your kitchen being invaded and, next week, the president standing in a chef’s apron in front of your house, which will have a banner in front of it saying “Cheese accomplished.”
Maybe you should just send out for pizza instead.
as long as they liberate my kitchen from the mess. I think I am growing WMDs in my ‘fridge.
–toddles off singing “I love a man in a uniform”
oh! oh!
Wallace (from Wallace and Grommit) needs to be on the Cheese Accomplished banner, grinning his “CHEESE!” grin.
as long as they liberate my kitchen from the mess. I think I am growing WMDs in my ‘fridge.
–toddles off singing “I love a man in a uniform”
oh! oh!
Wallace (from Wallace and Grommit) needs to be on the Cheese Accomplished banner, grinning his “CHEESE!” grin.
re NYT / Lance
If I were the reporter on this I’d have held it until / unless I got (publishable) details from Frankie and the anon postie. The comment that got me was the anon postie’s reference to peer pressure – that IS news, and I’d like to know more about that – ie who pressured them? Was it overt? More subtle? How was the doping organised? Did Frankie go out and find his own doctor? Was someone suggested to him? How was it all arranged? I think this story was premature and intended to shake some trees and see what fell out. Nothing has yet, tho Lance and Discovery’s OTT reaction has to be rather telling.
re NYT / Lance
If I were the reporter on this I’d have held it until / unless I got (publishable) details from Frankie and the anon postie. The comment that got me was the anon postie’s reference to peer pressure – that IS news, and I’d like to know more about that – ie who pressured them? Was it overt? More subtle? How was the doping organised? Did Frankie go out and find his own doctor? Was someone suggested to him? How was it all arranged? I think this story was premature and intended to shake some trees and see what fell out. Nothing has yet, tho Lance and Discovery’s OTT reaction has to be rather telling.
Re: re NYT / Lance
So is that the function of America’s most prestigious news outlet – to shake trees when they don’t have evidence to see if somebody confesses to something?
If so, this is one motherfucker of a precedent to set, and let’s hope for all our sakes that they never take an interest in us, huh?
Re: re NYT / Lance
So is that the function of America’s most prestigious news outlet – to shake trees when they don’t have evidence to see if somebody confesses to something?
If so, this is one motherfucker of a precedent to set, and let’s hope for all our sakes that they never take an interest in us, huh?
Re: re NYT / Lance
I’m not American, I didn’t grow up worshiping the NYT. I find some of it good but more of it turgid. Regarding drugs in sport… i wasn’t impressed with their Floyd coverage either. Loose use of words used to paint a guilty picture. I’m not saying he isn’t, I’m just saying it was irresponsible and “cheap” of the reporters (same one on this story). And I agree, the NYT should operate to a higher standard – if only because all reporters should.
Re: re NYT / Lance
I’m not American, I didn’t grow up worshiping the NYT. I find some of it good but more of it turgid. Regarding drugs in sport… i wasn’t impressed with their Floyd coverage either. Loose use of words used to paint a guilty picture. I’m not saying he isn’t, I’m just saying it was irresponsible and “cheap” of the reporters (same one on this story). And I agree, the NYT should operate to a higher standard – if only because all reporters should.
Re: re NYT / Lance
Agreed completely.
Who is this, btw?
Re: re NYT / Lance
Agreed completely.
Who is this, btw?
May I add you to my list of LJ friends? This exchange hints at the promise of further interesting conversations, many of them much less frivolous, of course.
May I add you to my list of LJ friends? This exchange hints at the promise of further interesting conversations, many of them much less frivolous, of course.
mostly frivolous, but, sure! Most of my non-frivolous stuff consists of snarky attacks on the Administration at neph_politics.
mostly frivolous, but, sure! Most of my non-frivolous stuff consists of snarky attacks on the Administration at neph_politics.