Response to Egg

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I missed this yesterday, but want to address a few of her points/questions.

Egg wrote:

We are seeing the same thing, Mark, but where you ''blame''  the 
media, I  blame Ainge. I realize you are a former sports writer 
and would appreciate your input on this because the topic  
interests me.  I consider this Bulpett column and others like it to 
be the result of the limitations implicit in the title '' beat reporter''  
vs. columnist or editorial writer.  Bulpett, Murphy, and Springer 
are beholden to news originating from local sources (in this case, 
Danny). They are obliged to accurately report what they are 
officially told (even if it changes from day to day) and able to 
substantiate. They are not expected to speculate on rumors or 
mouth-off on their own opinions.  And when they are dealing with 
double speak on just about every question, it renders their columns 
useless... maybe even offensive to sophisticated observers such as 
Jessen or yourself. 

<end snip>

Steve Bulpett is covering the Celtics in Boston, whereas my sports writing
experience was limited to a mid-level paper near Cincinnati, so any
criticisms I make should be put into that context. He's way out of my
league. But here's my perspective: Even in my position, there were times
when my desire to get the story was in opposition to a source's desire to
keep something secret. I always made it clear: "You don't have to tell me,
but that doesn't mean I won't find out." Just as an example: A large high
school with a prominent, successful basketball program was hiring a new
coach. The AD, who I knew well and dealt with often, told me he didn't want
to comment on it until the school board approved the candidate. I told him
that was fine, but I was going to try to find out anyway. And I did. You
hear things, then you make some phone calls to the other end of the story,
and that's how you break a story. I did that in the case of the coach. The
final confirmation for the story actually came from the new coach's travel
agent. The AD wasn't thrilled that the story came out, but it didn't damage
our relationship. I understood that he was doing his job, and he understood
that I was doing mine. If Steve Bulpett goes out and talks to Karl Malone's
agent and reports that he's had conversations with Danny Ainge (or
whatever), then Bulpett is just doing his job. Ainge may not like it, but
he's been around enough to know that's how the game works. Just as Bulpett
has been around enough to know that Ainge can't be honest with him all the
time. That's just the way it is. If he hears a trade rumor and Ainge denies
it, that's fine. Report that Ainge denies it. But if a phone call to New
York (or wherever) turns up something contrary to that, then report that as
well. For example: "Ainge denied it, but sources in NY say the Celts and
Knicks did have serious discussions on a Walker trade... " That's all part
of the game. So if Bulpett does that, Ainge is going to do what? He's not
going to cut off Bulpett. Not for that kind of stuff. Maybe he doesn't
promise him an exclusive next time, but how big a deal is that if it comes
two days late? I'm not saying Bulpett shouldn't report what he's told by
Ainge-he has to-but he also has a responsibility to put that into context.
If Ainge says "we're not shopping Antoine" then quote him saying that. But
if you know that's not true (as Bulpett apparently does), then don't repeat
the Celtics' company line in your own words (which Bulpett did). Better yet,
go out and find evidence and people willing to be quoted (probably
anonymously) that runs counter to Ainge's statement. It's not Bulpett's to
JUST report what Ainge says. It's his job to report on the Celtics,
INCLUDING what Ainge says.

Remember, Ainge has an agenda. If he's wooing Karl Malone, he wants to keep
it a secret because if it gets out, it becomes obvious that he's actively
shopping Antoine, and he doesn't want to ruffle any feathers if things fall
through (as they have to this point). But that's Ainge's agenda, not
Bulpett's. Bulpett's agenda is to find this stuff out and report it
regardless of whether Ainge likes it or not. And Ainge understands that. In
my experience, as long as the writer is up front about it, the source
respects the writer's efforts to do his job. Going back to the example about
the high school basketball coach... When I had the story, I called the AD
again to tell him I had the story and was running with it, and would welcome
his comment if he'd like to give it. He wasn't thrilled that I had the
story, but he appreciated that I was up front with him and gave him that
second chance to comment. We always had a good working relationship. And the
same was more or less true of writers I knew well at larger papers who were
beat writers for teams like the Reds and Bengals.

So that's my take on being a beat writer for a pro sports team. Where I will
admit there are concessions made is in dealing with players. The players are
much more thin-skinned and vindictive than the executives and coaches
(although I have a good story about former Raptors coach Butch Carter I'll
share sometime). I'm sure it comes with immaturity. Anyway, I don't think
there's a beat writer anywhere who will tell you, if he's being absolutely
honest, that he doesn't consider how a player will react when he's writing a
story. If I'm covering the Bulls in 1992, and I write something that leads
Michael Jordan to refuse my interview requests and not answer my questions,
then I have a problem. So you have to consider those things.

Sorry so long.

Mark