Peyton Manning and One Shaky Source

/ johncarvalho56 / Leave a comment

One shaky source is making Peyton Manning’s life miserable.

The Al-Jazeera news network ran a report on the shady network of sports doping. Just past the 40-minute mark, the report — much of it undercover taping — shows a pharmacist claiming that he sent human growth hormone (HGH) to Manning in 2011, and that he addressed the packages to the Bronco QB’s wife to help hide the purchases.

The revelation was explosive and has led to angry denials by Manning himself. It has also touched off a huge debate about whether the 18-season veteran, one of the NFL’s most reliable role models, is instead a cheater.

My concern, as a journalism professor, is the unreliable nature of the Manning info. The Al-Jazeera report relies on one source — Charlie Sly — for the information, and Sly himself recants at about the 47:35 mark.

The report presents no receipts or correspondence, no second source acknowledging Manning’s involvement. Just one interview, with the source later presenting himself as flaky.

The NFL Sunday/social media blowup over this has exploded past this troubling detail, as can be expected. It is obvious that the majority of those commenting have not viewed the report itself, to see the thin ice supporting the information.

I’m not judging whether Manning used HGH. I’m wondering why a respected news organization released a news report before it was ready.

Al-Jazeera or another organization might come up with a second source (a more reliable source, I hope). At that point, the ethical question becomes, Why not wait? Why run the story before it’s ready? And responsible journalism ethical standards dictate that a story is not ready until you have a second source.

Does Manning have a case for libel? As a public figure, probably not — even though Sly’s recanting brings the information a little closer to “actual malice,” the definition of which includes “reckless disregard of whether (the information) was false or not.”

Plus, within the definition of public figure status, Manning has the means to dispute the report within the media, and he is obviously using them.

Can Sly, who is more of a private citizen than Manning, sue for invasion of privacy? It’s an interesting intersection between two conflicting rules. On the one hand, Al-Jazeera is safe on the issue of consent; Texas is a “one-party state,” meaning only one person needs to be aware of the taping.

On the other hand, previous Supreme Court decisions do not 100 percent permit deception in taping a private citizen or business, and the Al-Jazeera report was based on an athlete, Liam Collins, deceptively claiming he was looking for shortcuts, legal or not, to restart his athletic career. I don’t know whether this conflict has been resolved within the courts.

But from an ethical perspective, Al-Jazeera is on much shakier ground, and needed more corroboration before releasing information that so damaged one athlete’s reputation.

To contrast, I remember a mini-storm this summer, surrounding the death of legendary SEC/NFL quarterback Ken Stabler. A report on Stabler’s death July 8 was released on the Tuscaloosa News web site and then taken down quickly, but not before it was cited and the news spread nationwide.

The sports writer generating the report, Aaron Suttles, had a good source informing him that Stabler had died, but was awaiting a second one to confirm it before posting the article he had ready.  Due to miscommunication, a digital staff member posted the report.

Anyone who knows Suttles recalls his mortification and regret — not because the story was not accurate (obviously it was, as would be demonstrated), but because it was not “ready” in terms of sourcing, even as subsequent events confirmed the information’s reliability.

If only Al-Jazeera were so careful on a story that involves an active SEC/NFL quarterback, who now must deal with the public fallout of a shakily-sourced report. Manning, the audience, and the journalism profession deserve better.

The Last Person MLB Banned for Gambling Before Rose? A Team Owner!

/ johncarvalho56 / Leave a comment

Originally published by The Sporting News web site. Link here.

Prior to Pete Rose’s being banned from major league baseball by Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti–as upheld by current Commissioner Rob Manfred Dec. 13–the last person to be ejected from the game for gambling was William Cox, president and owner of the Philadelphia Phillies, in 1943.

The accompanying saga, beyond the pain once again inflicted on Philadelphia sports fans, was a sure bet to keep the audience glued to the sports pages and radio broadcasts over the months it developed.

Cox was supposed to be the answer to the ownership problems the Phillies had suffered under Gerry Nugent, whose financial struggles kept the team in the National League basement and in debt.

A local lumber magnate, Cox bought the team in February 1943 from the National League, which had to take it over and assume its debts a few months before.

Barely six months later, rumors emerged that Cox was betting on Phillies games. The supposed informant was Bucky Harris, whom Cox had dumped as manager on July 27, though a more likely source was Harris’s outraged friends.

Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who had been hired as the first commissioner after several Chicago White Sox players were paid off by gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series, asked Cox about the rumors.

According to the November 25, 1943, Sporting News, the Phillies owner lied (see a parallel here?) and told Landis that a business associate had made the bets and that Cox had instructed him to stop. Under Landis’s persistent questioning, Cox finally admitted in early November that he had bet on the Phillies until May 20, when he learned (or so he claimed) that an owner was not allowed to bet on his own team.

With that evidence in hand, Landis informed Cox November 15 that he would schedule a hearing on December 4 to address the charges. Without acknowledging anything, Cox replied to Landis three days later and said that he would resign as Phillies president and sell his team. He also stated that in view of those actions, he saw no reason to attend what promised to be a public flogging.

The commissioner/judge was not accustomed to such a response to his invitations and promptly informed Cox that he would be banned from baseball immediately and permanently. The team was sold to the Carpenter family, part of the DuPonts, who would own the team until 1981.

Cox added drama to the proceedings by appearing on WOR radio station the night after Landis’s announcement for a farewell interview. “I made some small and sentimental bets before I learned of the rule against this,” he said. In closing, he said, “Good luck and goodbye to everyone in baseball.”

Just as quickly, Cox had a change of heart and asked to attend the December 4 hearing, to clear his name. Landis opened the hearing to sports writers, to record the spectacle.

As reported by the December 9, 1943 Sporting News, Cox claimed that his confession was actually part of a plan to expose a disloyal employee and presented three witnesses who supported his story.

His version was contradicted by Nathan Alexander, a longtime friend, who said that the charges were also aired at a Phillies team directors meeting, where Alexander had called on Cox to resign. Harris came forward this time and also testified against his former boss.

Cox’s attorney attempted to flatter Landis as an “eminent judge of vast experience on the federal bench,” but the irascible Tennessean cut him short. “Save your energy,” Landis said with a dismissive wave of his hand. He upheld his decision, citing not only Harris’s and Alexander’s testimony, but Cox’s own words over the radio.

With that, Cox was out, and held the “last person to be banished from baseball” for the next 46 years, until Rose assumed the dishonor in 1989. Manfred’s statement citing Rose’s dishonesty had the same effect as Landis’s shutdown of Cox’s attorney – a dismissive wave of the hand that leaves Rose banished to baseball’s sideline, in the same hall of shame occupied by William Cox and eight members of the Chicago White Sox.

John Carvalho is an associate professor of journalism at Auburn University, where he focuses on sports media history. He is the author of an upcoming biography of Ford Frick, commissioner of baseball from 1951-1965. He discusses sports media issues on Twitter at @John_P_Carvalho.

Trump’s Survey Data Is (Not Surprising) Also Biased

/ johncarvalho56 / Leave a comment

In defending his proposals to end Muslim immigration, Donald Trump cites research that says 25 percent of American Muslims agree that violence against the U.S. is justified, and 51 percent want American Muslims to have the option of being governed by Islamic law.

The poll that generated this data, commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, is unreliable and filled with survey error — or to employ a more popular term, crap.

In my Reporting classes, I teach my students how to evaluate survey data.  This survey fails on two counts that I talk about in class — one mathematical and the other conceptual — that render it statistically worthless, except as a gathering place for flies.

First, the math part (and yes, we’re starting with the math because if I put this second you would change the channel before you got to it).

The survey uses what we call a non-probability sample, which means that you cannot generalize its results to the population as a whole.  To swap the negatives, with a probability sample (a random sample being one example), you can generalize the results, with caution, of course.

A typical survey that employs a random sample involves mail, telephone or direct interview of a pre-selected sample.  The CSP survey was an online survey on a web site, a voluntary survey, that anyone could click on and answer.  Not only is the sample flawed mathematically, but the pollsters cannot even verify who took the survey.  For all we know, CSP staff could have clicked on the survey themselves and answered it in a way that advanced its organization’s initiatives.

You used to see these all the time, often on the entry page of news or sports sites like CNN, FOX News and ESPN.  They would put some current events or favorite athlete question on the page and let you click on it.  But it always had a disclaimer that this was not a scientific survey.

You also see these now on Twitter, with its polling feature.  It too is all in fun.  The results are meaningless for getting society’s pulse.

I also warn my students to note who is conducting the survey, to see if they have an interest in the results.  For this reason, sorry, but surveys conducted by politicians are usually biased and self-serving, worthless beyond the politician’s interests.

Speaking of which, this survey of Muslims!  As this report from Foreign Policy points out, the Center for Security Policy has a political agenda that it was seeking to advance with the survey.

The CSP actively promotes an anti-Muslim message, and the survey seems slanted to be consistent with the agenda.  Its executive director, Frank Gaffney, has a reputation for making extreme, even outlandish comments about political opponents.

That immediately casts suspicions on the results, which can be expected to support CSP’s agenda.  According to this report from Georgetown, that bias shows up in survey wording and in how the results are interpreted.

By comparison, the most recent numbers available from Pew Research Center (whom Trump also cited, though vaguely), 86 percent of the Muslims surveyed said tactics such as suicide bombing were rarely or never justified.

As with so much of Trump’s message, the numbers are hard to believe, once you look at them closely.