FLUFF ESPN

[nsentv]

I go to ESPNews, and it says "Breaking News: Knicks' Davis into crowd at Chi".

Here I am, thinking there's been another brawl. They show the highlight, and it's Antonio Davis calmly walking into the stands to confront a person who'd been harassing his wife. No fighting, no punching, nothing serious. Granted, Davis gets ejected (automatic ejection for just going into the stands) and the fan gets ejected, but it's not at all what it is implied by the headline.

That's pretty irresponsible of ESPN.

[infrared41]

That's pretty irresponsible of ESPN.

And fairly typical. ESPN's "sports news coverage" has about as much to do with actual sports these days as MTV does with music.

[Jigga]

As long as that tease got you to watch, that's all they care about.

[CaolinaJoe]

According to what you posted, nothing misleading there. Looks like you just read too much into the lead.

[Cujo]

ESPNEWS is really trying to milk this story for all its worth. They're making this out to be much more than it really is.

[CS85]

Antonio Davis spies wife being molested in crowd! Charges into stands, crowd is in mayhem!

Referees hand out an ejection left and right, bloodshed, heartbreak, and drama!

[nsentv]

From NBCSports.com

Knick charges into stands in Chicago

Is this journalism? Let the story stand on its own, and don't manipulate it to make it sound sexier. If I remember correctly, the coverage of the Gary Sheffield "brawl" was pretty nauseating as well. I actually remember some ESPNews anchor saying that it would 'change baseball forever'. I hope that this doesn't get to that insane level.

[NJTank]

I saw it he went in stands but nothing really happened he stayed fairly calm but was ejected apparently someone was bothering his wife, if thats the case then he had every single right to go in there.

[WSU151]

From NBCSports.com

Knick charges into stands in Chicago

Is this journalism? Let the story stand on its own, and don't manipulate it to make it sound sexier. If I remember correctly, the coverage of the Gary Sheffield "brawl" was pretty nauseating as well. I actually remember some ESPNews anchor saying that it would 'change baseball forever'. I hope that this doesn't get to that insane level.

I don't see how it's misleading. It is what it is. And journalism is all about making unique stories sexy. Welcome...to the real world.

[BJ Sands]

From NBCSports.com

Knick charges into stands in Chicago

Is this journalism? Let the story stand on its own, and don't manipulate it to make it sound sexier. If I remember correctly, the coverage of the Gary Sheffield "brawl" was pretty nauseating as well. I actually remember some ESPNews anchor saying that it would 'change baseball forever'. I hope that this doesn't get to that insane level.

I don't see how it's misleading. It is what it is. And journalism is all about making unique stories sexy. Welcome...to the real world.

No, dude. Journalism is not about making "unique stories sexy." As a journalism major at Mizzou, I can tell you that in NO WAY is that the goal of a good journalist. The goal is reporting an event as fairly and clearly as humanly possible.

Your definition is for tabloid journalism and doesn't work.

As one of my journalism professors say "it's all about the verbs," and whoever wrote that headline used a very misleading one. Instead of "charges," "enters" would have been correct.

[WSU151]

From NBCSports.com

Knick charges into stands in Chicago

Is this journalism? Let the story stand on its own, and don't manipulate it to make it sound sexier. If I remember correctly, the coverage of the Gary Sheffield "brawl" was pretty nauseating as well. I actually remember some ESPNews anchor saying that it would 'change baseball forever'. I hope that this doesn't get to that insane level.

I don't see how it's misleading. It is what it is. And journalism is all about making unique stories sexy. Welcome...to the real world.

No, dude. Journalism is not about making "unique stories sexy." As a journalism major at Mizzou, I can tell you that in NO WAY is that the goal of a good journalist. The goal is reporting an event as fairly and clearly as humanly possible.

Your definition is for tabloid journalism and doesn't work.

As one of my journalism professors say "it's all about the verbs," and whoever wrote that headline used a very misleading one. Instead of "charges," "enters" would have been correct.

Okay. Then what is nsentv so pissed off about in his first post in this thread? What is wrong with that article?? It's not tabloid journalism. He thought there was a fight, but in no part of that headline does it mention any kind of fight. Even using the verb "charges" does not indicate a fight. When a player leaps over the scorer's table, and goes up 10 rows, I don't see how "charges" is a bad verb. The player was obviously upset at something and ran into the stands.

And ESPN last night did fix the headline - they used "enters" as the verb. On ESPN "Davis, worried for wife, enters stands".

And I do think that in today's world "tabloid" journalism is 70% of all work, and IT DOES WORK. You gotta sell your story. Unique stories have to be sexy, otherwise they will never compete with the "If it bleeds, it leads" headlines. You might be a great journalist, but if you're boring and don't use exciting verbs, many people won't read the article. Professors might tell you one thing, and that's great, but it's a bit different when companies are trying to make money.

[CS85]

As a journalism/radio double major, my journalism teachers have been telling me that while objectivity is a key value of any good reporter, it depends on what you're reporting and who you're reporting for.

ESPN likes to make little cuts turn into deep bloody gashes at every opportunity, and they shameless promote themselves at every turn. If you have this Davis running into the crowd, you're damn well going to exxagerate the headline and writing so that you can increase the sales of your product. If the headline was "Davis Rises Valiantly to Defend Wife", and made him out to be a hero and a good husband, that just won't sell. After Artest went bonkers in Detroit, any time somebody does something remotely similar, it's going to get similar headlines, and comparison.

[yh]

I heard Spicoli pulled a knife on Mr. Hand.

I don't know what's more disheartening, the vague headline itself or the fact that people were disappointed to hear that it didn't lead to a story about a violent confrontation.

[nsentv]

I don't know what's more disheartening, the vague headline itself or the fact that people were disappointed to hear that it didn't lead to a story about a violent confrontation.

I certainly wasn't disappointed. Believe me, as an NBA fan, the one thing I've been dreading has been another brawl. Also, after thinking about it, the original ESPNews headline wasn't necessarily horrible. Yes, it didn't tell the whole story. That being said, they did report exactly what happened (Davis was in the stands), even though they didn't say anything about the circumstances surrounding it (he was trying to help his wife). Vagueness is irresponsible, but then again it's nothing like CNN reporting "Williams sister dies" when one of Venus and Serena's sisters died. (Yes, a Williams sister did die, but it wasn't one of the two sisters who are so well-known in America). It's an interesting line between being vague or telling half-truths and lying.

Edit: I thought this was a good quote:

Sports and news outlets are trumpeting headlines like "NBA Player Goes Into Stands." The purpose of the headline is to spark a reaction in the reader and make an association to a fight like the Artest situation from last season.

Exactly. That's the exact purpose of the half-truths. To make you think something happened that didn't happen. Even if they're not lying, not telling the whole truth creates a completely different implication.

[WSU151]

I wouldn't call it irresponsible, especially in a headline or a tease.

That's like watching a movie trailer and saying "We'll, they didn't show everything that happens. How irresponsible."

Or a news commercial saying "Could your next visit to the salad bar be your last? Find out at 10." (I think I got that from Family Guy, but it's funny because it's true)

Vagueness and teases are $$$$$$$$

[Brass]

I'm more surprised that this article wasn't in the Insider Only section.

[quantum]

I know ESPN bashing is in, but there is nothing misleading about the headline. Another case of someone reading too much into something.

[WSU151]

I know ESPN bashing is in, but there is nothing misleading about the headline.  Another case of someone reading too much into something.

Exactly.

nsentv, based on what you said, I gathered the following: ESPNews had a headline that was void of any biases, but based upon seeing that headline, YOU came up with YOUR OWN expectations of the outcome of the headline (possible fight), then got pissed off when the headline (and story) didn't match up with YOUR expectation/vision of the story.

How is that ESPN's fault, again?

[gashouser27]

If you saw the story on ESPN it was very balanced.

They showed a reporter interviewing Brown and he said "he was defending his wife"

They showed Davis' quote and it was the same thing.

The played up the drunk fan more than Davis' action.

It was newsworthy because he was automatically ejected and may be suspended because of the rule

I bet they made more of it in the NY papers

[-kj]

The original headline complained about:

"Knicks' Davis into crowd at Chi"

I see nothing misleading.

- Davis plays for the Knicks.

- The Knicks were playing in Chicago.

- Davis did, in fact, go into the crowd.