Arkansas radio personality fired for wearing Gators hat

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

Was it okay for Nuxhall to scream "Get out of here" when a Reds player hit a shot that looked like it might be a HR? Was he not part of the media? Was he not on a press pass? Was he not welcome at press conferences?

I answered that question pretty specifically in my previous post. One thing though: don't confuse broadcasting with broadcast journalism. Radio play by play is slightly different than 'reporting.'

I don't know what to tell you though. I'm just passing along what any school would teach if you were a journalism student. This is one of the first things you're taught.

[Boston Red]

I'm aware of what a journalism school would say. But are these guys (play by play, Rivals, this Ark. radio station) really holding themselves out to be serious journalists? As long as they're not (and I don't think press passes go strictly to serious journalists these days), I think you're absolutely wrong that they're crossing any line in admitting their biases. They're simply catering to their customers.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

I'm aware of what a journalism school would say. But are these guys (play by play, Rivals, this Ark. radio station) really holding themselves out to be serious journalists? As long as they're not (and I don't think press passes go strictly to serious journalists these days), I think you're absolutely wrong that they're crossing any line in admitting their biases. They're simply catering to their customers.

If you're sending a reporter to a press conference, that's journalism. Reporting is journalism. I don't see how there's any denying that.

Here's the litmus test: if they fired this woman, not because she had a hat on but because it was something other than Arkansas, then they're just as guilty of breaching the code of ethics.

Note: in response to "and I don't think press passes go strictly to serious journalists these days," trust me... getting credentialed is still a pain in the rear with most schools/organizations unless you work for a major media outlet. This is from personal experience(s).

[ThornWithin81]

Originally Posted by westofyou

It's a logo on a hat, not a dogma.

It's especially silly considering it is her Alma Mater. I went to OSU - if I was running a business (even one located on OSU's campus) I would never fire someone for wearing Michigan garb.

Is Florida even Arkansas' biggest rival? We're not talking Yankees/Sox or Buckeyes/Wolverines here.

[Boston Red]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

If you're sending a reporter to a press conference, that's journalism. Reporting is journalism. I don't see how there's any denying that.

Here's the litmus test: if they fired this woman, not because she had a hat on but because it was something other than Arkansas, then they're just as guilty of breaching the code of ethics.

Note: in response to "and I don't think press passes go strictly to serious journalists these days," trust me... getting credentialed is still a pain in the rear with most schools/organizations unless you work for a major media outlet. This is from personal experience(s).

To go back to my Nuxy example, I think the difference between Nuxy (okay to be biased) vs. Joe Morgan (not allowed to be biased calling a game for ESPN) is the same as a reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal (needs to be objective) vs. a reporter for the Louisville Sports Report (it's fine for him or her to be biased). Why would you expect a reporter for the Louisville Sports Report (who are always credentialed at UofL press conferences and games), whose sole intended audience is UofL sports fans, to be unbiased?!?

Same with this radio station in Arkansas as long as they're not pretending to be a serious news outlet.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

To go back to my Nuxy example, I think the difference between Nuxy (okay to be biased) vs. Joe Morgan (not allowed to be biased calling a game for ESPN) is the same as a reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal (needs to be objective) vs. a reporter for the Louisville Sports Report (it's fine for him or her to be biased). Why would you expect a reporter for the Louisville Sports Report (who are always credentialed at UofL press conferences and games), whose sole intended audience is UofL sports fans, to be unbiased?!?

Same with this radio station in Arkansas as long as they're not pretending to be a serious news outlet.

I'm really struggling with this "not pretending to be a serious news outlet."

So there are news outlets and "serious" news outlets? What does it take to be a serious news outlet versus just a news outlet? Either you report "news" or you don't. There's no in-between. Some people report Louisville news, some people report national news. No matter what "news" you reporter, you are supposed to be serious, professional and unbiased. Having content slanted toward something doesn't make it biased. If I write about Louisville, it doesn't mean I don't have an obligation to be professional and unbiased in how I write about Louisville.

I don't care what fans want or expect. Yes, it's true many fans want bias out of their reporters covering their favorite teams. That doesn't make it right or just.

When you enter a press conference, the media booth or some other event you're covering, it's verly explicitly expected that you are not there as a fan. You leave your biases at the door. What the woman did was wrong, though it seems to be an honest mistake and one that should have been forgiven. By the radio station, who sent her there to report, saying she was fired for not supporting Arkansas, they are just as guilty as she was.

If they don't want to be a "serious" news outlet, then they should just stop sending reporters to news conferences and they can "blog" with the rest of the wannabe (but not serious) news outlets.

I'm not trying to mock you with this serious news outlet thing, but come on... either you are a news outlet or you aren't. Social media may have blurred some of the lines these days with media, but if you're covering the news, you've an obligation to be a news outlet. That's cut and dry. This is the kind of argument you'd get from a blogger who wants to be treated like a journalist while expecting to be able to break all of the ethics and rules that go along with it because he's 'not really a journalist.'

[Boston Red]

I think there is a huge difference between a major metropolitan newspaper (the Courier-Journal) intended to report the news of the community (and to some extent national news), and the Louisville Sports Report targeted solely at Louisville Cardinals fans. I think the distinction is pretty obvious. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether open, obvious and expected bias is okay, I suppose.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

I think there is a huge difference between a major metropolitan newspaper (the Courier-Journal) intended to report the news of the community (and to some extent national news), and the Louisville Sports Report targeted solely at Louisville Cardinals fans. I think the distinction is pretty obvious. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether open, obvious and expected bias is okay, I suppose.

The people issuing credentials don't think there is a difference. If you're given a credential, you're expected to act like you have a credential.

The people educating up-and-comers to the profession don't think there's a difference. You're taught to be unbiased in everything you do professionally.

Though my background was in broadcasting, I owe my career to the new media. I appreciate all the new opportunities available to people, like myself, that wanted a career in journalism. I didn't take the old-fashioned route, but advanced through new media.

And I promise, the stigmas and stereotypes are still very much alive. Many places (including Major League Baseball as an orgaziational policy) still will not credential websites, unless you're backed by a published circulation of (typically) over 40,000 or otherwise are a major television outlet. Heck, the Baseball Writers Association of America won't accept members that are 'internet' writers.

When breaking in, struggling to get credentialed for what I was doing... I was told, "they don't treat you like media. So if you want to be a member of the media, you need to make sure you act, talk and write like it. You need to be better than they are."

I think this is a very important issue, and one that goes beyond news. Social media is blurring the lines of vision. On one hand, I think it's a good thing that people turn to things other than the news to receive, digest and interpret events happening in society without the 'aid' of media. People need to not believe what they're told and educate themselves. On the other hand, the lines between reality and fiction are becoming far too indecipherable.

The best way to continue seperating bloggers from reporters: what is the goal. If your goal is to report the news... like I said, it can be national, it can be about the Louisville Cardinals or it can be about the Cincinnati Reds. But if you're reporting on it and covering it, you should then follow all the standards of journalism.

[Boston Red]

Well stated, though I still disagree with you. Of course they should act professional at the press conferences, etc., but I disagree that they need to keep the bias out of their writing, reporting, etc. if their customers expect (and usually want) them to be biased.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

Well stated, though I still disagree with you. Of course they should act professional at the press conferences, etc., but I disagree that they need to keep the bias out of their writing, reporting, etc. if their customers expect (and usually want) them to be biased.

I agree many customers want them to be biased. I don't at all deny that. I've seen it first hand. My issue is that I don't think it's right just because the customers want it. I think many customers respect and appreciate someone that works hard, writes well and does their job correctly even if they're unwilling to show bias toward their product. If you're good at what you do, and cover what people want to read about, they'll still respect you and you will still be successful without having to be biased to do it.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

The people issuing credentials don't think there is a difference. If you're given a credential, you're expected to act like you have a credential.

As much as we'd like to think that there are only two options -- serious, unbiased journalism, and mere fans/bloggers -- there's a middle ground and it's existed for a very long time. Nearly every professional or big-time college team has publications or web sites whose sole reason for being is to cover that team. Some of them, if trusted, get media access to that team. Teams have radio and television partners whose business models depend on attracting fans of that team. They get credentials too. In all those cases, it's understood where the bread is buttered and that embarrassing the team is a good way to lose your access. So yes, they function somewhere in between the daily newspaper and the sports-information office, and everyone understands the arrangement. Or is supposed to.

In this specific case, I think firing was a little harsh based only on what the article said, but the parallel would be a WLW reporter ("WLW, your home of the Cincinnati Reds!") wearing a cap of some other team in the NL Central while interviewing Dusty. Something's going to be said.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

As much as we'd like to think that there are only two options -- serious, unbiased journalism, and mere fans/bloggers -- there's a middle ground and it's existed for a very long time. Nearly every professional or big-time college team has publications or web sites whose sole reason for being is to cover that team. Some of them, if trusted, get media access to that team. Teams have radio and television partners whose business models depend on attracting fans of that team. They get credentials too. In all those cases, it's understood where the bread is buttered and that embarrassing the team is a good way to lose your access. So yes, they function somewhere in between the daily newspaper and the sports-information office, and everyone understands the arrangement. Or is supposed to.
.

But within that context, they're still covering news. The news they cover are concentrated within a single program, university or franchise, but nonetheless they're still reporting news. They're no different in their goal, just specific types of news. There's no middle ground... whether you report national, local or team news, you're still reporting. Focusing on a particular subject is not a middle ground of what you are as a news organization, it just means you're only covering a specific topic. Rules and ethics aren't thrown out the window because you focus on a specific topic.

As far as WLW: their tagline is meant that they are the local AM affiliate of the Cincinnati Reds. It's not meant as 'hey, we're Reds' homers.' It just means that 'come here, and we have the games and will provide you with Reds' news.'

[texasdave]

Sports isn't news; it is trivia.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by texasdave

Sports isn't news; it is trivia.

Everything that happens that is of interest is news. If people want to read or hear about it, clearly it's newsworthy. Considering many news staffs dedicate the last 7-10 minutes of the newscast to sports, I would say it's news.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by texasdave

Sports isn't news; it is trivia.

If advertising revenue is attached to it than it's a business and if it's business run it like that.

Not like some HS gym class where blind loyalty is the omnipotent master of all.