Let’s get this straight right off the top: I was wrong, way wrong about Pedro Martinez being on the verge of signing as a free agent with the Astros.
You come to this site expecting to be informed, entertainined and sometimes amused. Most of all, you want accurate information that cuts through so much of the BS that is out there these days.
Unfortunately, I did not cut through enough of it last night when I posted an item here on Unfiltered that said Martinez was Houston-bound. I caught wind of the possibility Martinez was going to sign with the Astros early in the evening and it kept getting stronger and stronger the more I checked it out. I felt so strongly that the information was correct that I went with it. As it turned out, the sources I checked it with had also been the recipient of misinformation.
The Astros held a press conference this morning at their spring training camp in Kissimmee, Fla., but it wasn’t to announce the signing of Martinez. Instead, it was the sad news that classy veteran infielder Aaron Boone’s season is over because he will need heart surgery.
I would love to be able to write this off as easily as saying you win some and lose some. That’s not the case, though. As a reporter, your No. 1 responsibility is to get the story right.
I didn’t do that and, to you the readers, I apologize.
As a reporter your job is to report what you learn, and you did. It's not your fault someone lied to you.
This is just like the Pete Rose story Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg broke some years ago. Because they broke it, it didn't happen, and they took a lot of flak for it. But that doesn't mean they weren't doing their jobs (and doing them well).
Thank you for the apology, though I think the Pedro thing was not the greatest bit of misinformation this offseason or failings in journalism. One could look to either the Rafael Furcal flittering when he was supposed to sign with the A's, Braves and Dodgers all at once, or the haphazard coverage of A-Rod.
That being said, though, I didn't think that BP actually had "reporters". I thought they mostly had "analysts".
Just to clarify, I didn't intend "analyst" to be something lesser than a journalist. There's a difference between a job whose primary focus is gathering news, and a job whose primary focus is interpreting the news.
John, thanks for stepping up and being an honest person instead of just trying to explain away the (minor) mistake. I'm sure it's tough to get good info at this stage of the internet reporting game. People who admit when they're wrong are easier to believe in the long run.
I just hope we find out where he's going before my NL roto draft on Sunday; I could use a fifth starter. Thanks for correcting your minor mistake so quickly.
My understanding as to journalism ethics is that you're fully allowed to 'out' your sources in the event that they intentionally misinform you. As in, 'I reported such-and-such because Bob and Carol and Ted all told me so after Alice lied to them that it was so'.
So who was the original misinformer? Or if you can't tell us, why can't you tell us? I'd be happy to learn that aspect of journalism ethics, and might even find it more interesting.
I guess I shouldn't have phrased it "Bob and Carol et.al. told me so." But if, say, Pedro's agent planted the story in the first place, couldn't you just go ahead and say so without mentioning who your unnamed sources are that he first planted it with?
What is the journalistic ethos with regard to that? And why is that ethos then the way it is? I am curious.
You don't out your sources, period. You might lose some trust in them, but you don't publicly punish them because they were wrong. You don't know that they were lying. Especially in cases like this, when rumors are swirling like crazy. John probably shouldn't have run with it, as he says here, but it happens.
Outing sources -- for any reason -- makes it less likely that people will be willing to share information with you in the future.
I didn't suggest John "publicly punish (someone) for being wrong". But that the original liar should be publicly identified.
If journalistic ethics condones intentional lying, then that aspect of journalistic ethics is unethical. And no, I don't at all see how protecting intentional liars is necessary or even helpful to encouraging honest people to slip you information.
At a certain point, if you feel you're simply being used as a conduit for deliberate misinformation, you have a responsibility to out your so-called source to stop the flow of that misinformation.
I'm not at all suggesting that's the case here, but "never out your source" as an inviolate rule is, at least among the Beltway crowd, one of the main contributors to the decline of journalism as a trusted institution.
This is what I'm thinking of, just phrased much better than I did. Is 'protect even intentionally dishonest sources' actually part of journalism ethics? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious if it is so.
We'd love for reporters to always be right, but a healthy apology when you're wrong is almost just as good.
FWIW, John, I personally don't come to BP looking for the latest scoop. I come for subject matter expertise. BP should be careful not to get too far away from it's core competency.
Agreed. It's one thing to interview a person to gain insight into processes or procedures, to investigate if front offices are using statistical analysis or get opinions on medical procedures, but there are enough rumor mills where I don't need to go to BP for that. What I do like going to BP for is for an analysis about what those rumors might mean.
Scooping isn't BP's game. It's become painfully obvious between this and Will's history of bad calls. I come for the in-depth analysis, not this. My two cents, stick to what made BP what it is today.
As some who formerly worked in the media it always troubled me when stories that were incorrect were not later corrected unless outside pressure was brought to bear on our company. So I'm quite pleased to see a reporter, on his own initiative, make the admission that he got it wrong. It happens. Way to be stand up about it.
This post is getting a negative rating? I mean, maybe "despicable" was too strong a word, but criticizing Ms. Roberts seems pretty freaking justified from where I'm sitting
Here's my problem with the whole thing. This decision was almost universally lauded and a low-risk maneuver by a team unlikely to go .500. Why didn't Ed Wade read the same responses and just sign Pedro to make the story true.
I think the Astros need two or three more SP to compete, since they've got Roy Oswalt and a whole lotta nothing.
Mike Hampton: 4.05 ERA but continually injured
Wandy Rodriquez: 37-40, 4.79 ERA in 111 Games
Brandon Backe: 5.09 ERA in 140 games Brian Moehler: 4.73 ERA in 283 games Russ Ortiz: 4.42 ERA in 282 games
Your points would probably be better used to argue AGAINST the Pedro signing, rather than for it. If we assume Pedro won't pitch for less than $5.5m, he's definitely not "low-risk:"
Pedro's current asking price would make him the Astros' 6th most expensive player, and their 2nd most expensive pitcher. The fact that they are unlikely to go .500 means that Pedro's money would go directly down the crapper. All they've been doing with their aging-stars-and-scrubs strategy has been screwing up their Minor League system. Best to just let nature run its course. They could wind up with the top draft pick next year.
Corrections are simply part of the sports writers life. Everyone has been, or will be, burned at some point in their career. But it is always refreshing to see timely corrections such as this one. And no apologies are in order, except for the spelling of 'apolozige' :)
It's sort of amazing to me. BP displays more accountability in trying to break stories than most other outlets. Yet memories seem very long here, and some people very pernickety about it all - despite apologies and explanations of how the media business works in cases like this.
Plus I get tired of the "real reporter" thing that underlies the comments. What's a real reporter these days, anyway?
As Jon put it earlier, scooping isn't really BP's thing. And besides, I can get my scooping elsewhere. What I can't get elsewhere is BP's type of analysis. It'd be like asking a bus driver to drive a race car on the theory that there are a lot of accidents on a race track and bus drivers tend to drive safely. In other words, all things being equal, does BP have a capacity for getting "breaking news" faster than other organizations, and if so, does it make that much of a difference if people come here for the analysis?
Maybe if BP was more fantasy-oriented like a rotoworld or even a Yahoo Sports, breaking news might be more important.. but I'd prefer they spend my subscription dollars on the unique kinds of analysis they provide.
Just as we thought- John Perrotto don't need no stinkin' Public Editor. Nevertheless, I join those who have applauded you- you did the Right Thing. Doing the Right Thing ain't so common as to be undeserving of applause. As for your source, I believe it was Canning, a British PM in the early 19th century, who defined a Diplomat as "an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country." You encountered a Diplomat. We all do. Public burning of the Diplomat hardly appropriate. Guy's just doing his job.
As a flight instructor of mine once said- "There are two kinds of pilots: those who have landed with the wheels up, and those who are going to land with the wheels up. There are no other kinds of pilots." Regards,
Doesn't Will Carol need to do about 10,000 of these apologies for all that Will's Mill BS he was allowed to throw around until you guys pulled the plug on him?
43 comments have been left for this post.
Your sources were misinformed. That happens.
As a reporter your job is to report what you learn, and you did. It's not your fault someone lied to you.
This is just like the Pete Rose story Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg broke some years ago. Because they broke it, it didn't happen, and they took a lot of flak for it. But that doesn't mean they weren't doing their jobs (and doing them well).