Murray Chass rips Jayson Stark (albeit not by name)

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 8:34 PM CDT

Grumpy Old Man Murray Chass, writing from his non-blog, takes Jayson Stark to task for a practice he claims is common with writers throughout the sportswriting industry:

It is a popular game with baseball writers. It is an easy game to play. All it requires is a telephone; the number of calls is up to the writer/player. An Internet column I came across last week epitomized the practice.

He says he's not going to i.d. the offending writer:

I won’t identify the column, the Web site or the writer because if I did, I would be singling out someone for an industry-wide practice, and that might not be fair. Suffice it to say, however, that the columnist is not a rookie and the Web site for which he writes is not an obscure site. In other words, this is not a piece by someone who doesn’t know any better writing for a site you would stumble across only by accident.

So how do we know that Chass is talking about Stark? Well, because he quotes a passage from the column which exactly matches this September 3 piece by Stark. And the sources identified by Chass, "in order of their appearance," Chass specifies, match up with Stark's column.

Easy enough to figure out.

So either Chass is unfamiliar enough with the interwebs not to realize that one could i.d. the story in question with about 20 seconds worth of effort and a functioning search engine, or he wished to (or didn't care if he did) expose Stark while pretending he wasn't really calling him out personally.

Stark's critical piece on Minaya probably got Chass's attention because Chass covered Minaya and the Mets while he was writing for the New York Times, before going to his current non-blog. And Chass is one of the few writers who has defended Minaya for Minaya's recent public scolding of reporter Adam Rubin during the Tony Bernazard firing press conference.

Is it reasonable to wonder how tight Chass and Minaya are, and whether Chass's swipe at Stark is less about journalistic ethics and more about his displeasure with Minaya getting ripped?

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Murray....

such an old man’s name.

(Wife) "So what do you want to watch on the T.V.? UFC or porn?"
(Husband) "Hmm... well, porn, I guess."

by mtex on Sep 10, 2009 8:56 PM CDT reply actions

Adam is bored

lol.

Hank is 7 runs below a zombie replacement at first base. Do you realize how terrible that is? Zombie’s can’t think, they’re slow, and they’re often ejected from the game for eating opposing baserunners’ brains. - Ben quantifies Hank Blalock

by LSJ on Sep 10, 2009 8:57 PM CDT reply actions

No shit

Let’s bitch about shitty writers writing (quel shock!) shitty stories.

by bhudson on Sep 11, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions

I agree with the article

I think there are a lot of things wrong with sports journalism these days. His point about how writers never seek positive comments is a good one. I was talking with a friend the other day about how much different it was in the 1950’s when the NY press would cover for off-the-field mistakes made by Mantle, Ford, Martin, etc. The press doesn’t have that kind of relationship with the players anymore. They’re just looking for the money quote.

You can pass this article off as defending Minaya, but I think it also speaks directly to the TO/Witten situation that Ed Werder contrived last year.

by Tex34 on Sep 10, 2009 9:10 PM CDT reply actions

I don't see that there...

…was anything wrong with Stark’s piece.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions

So you're OK with...

…absolving writers of ANY accountability. If that’s the accepted practice, what’s to stop any writer from using phantom sources to support a contrived story?

by Tex34 on Sep 10, 2009 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Huh?

How did you get that from what I wrote?

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions

How would I not?

You suggest that Stark’s piece is OK, which means you’re OK with a story built on a stream of anonymous sources. Anonymous sources = no writer accountability. Writers are naturally held in check by having to quote their sources correctly, otherwise the source will come out an deny it, damaging the writers credibility and his chance of interviewing that source ever again. If all the sources are anonymous, then the writer has no check and balance and can make up any story he wants. Journalism 101 man.

by Tex34 on Sep 10, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions

So if a writer uses an anonymous source...

…he has no accountability and might as well be making things up?

That makes no sense to me. That’s not “Journalism 101.”

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 9:41 PM CDT up reply actions

How does that not make sense?

You gotta have that check and balance. Why do you think writers have historically been mostly truthful? Furthermore, as Chass says, the source has no incentive to speak truthfully if his name isn’t being used, and if the writer doesn’t even know who he is then he can’t verify the source’s claims. Google “journalism ethics anonymous sources,” I’m not breaking new ground here.

And by the way, one anonymous source is pushing it. Using a dozen anonymous sources to convey corroboration is simply unethical.

by Tex34 on Sep 10, 2009 9:54 PM CDT up reply actions

So Stark is unethical?

Give me a break.

Your position is that virtually every sportswriter is unethical, since just about every one of them will cite anonymous sources when writing a story.

I subscribe to Fortune. Every issue has multiple articles that uses anonymous sources.

The idea that Stark, when writing an in-depth piece about the problems with the Mets and the way they are viewed by others around the league, shouldn’t have used any sources at all — because clearly, no one was going to go on the record — is crap.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Wow.

Retarded.

by brettgardner on Sep 10, 2009 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions

Woodward and Bernstein

They violated Journalism 101 with Deep Throat?

John Perrotto violates Journalism 101 every time he does an “On The Beat” column, when he offers quotes from scouts about various players?

All the stuff Kevin Goldstein writes about what scouts say about various prospects, that’s violating Journalism 101?

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions

depthroat

don’t forget that the paper agonized over that and required some corroboration. You can’t corroborate the opinion of an anonymous source. It is just an anonymous opinion. No big deal, but the opinions weren’t very valid either.

by wobatus on Sep 10, 2009 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Not true

The editors at reputable publications want to know who the source is before the publication will run a story like that.

Jayson Stark can’t simply make up a bunch of quotes, attribute them to anonymous sources, and run with it.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions

And talking about the Mets

or any other baseball team is hardly equivalent to an expose directly related to the president.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Sep 11, 2009 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions

oh well

The bigger thing to me is that the opinions don’t seem especially profound or powerful. But wtfdik.

Like I said in my original post, it is no big deal.

by wobatus on Sep 12, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions

Different scenarios

Deepthroat: What wobatus said, plus you’re talking about a whistleblower taking a huge risk, not someone just airing dirty laundry.

Citing scouts: Most often they give the good with the bad. The issue with guys like Stark/Werder is creating a 100% negative story based solely on derogatory quotes from anonymous sources.

by Tex34 on Sep 10, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't understand why you keep talking about Ed Werder

Other than you’re mad that stories about what a douchebag Terrell Owens is leaked. I guess it is Werder’s fault Jerry had to cut him this offseason.

Stark writes a story that the Mets are a mess. He cites various anonymous sources saying that the Mets are a mess. I don’t see the problem, nor do I see that there’s an obligation for him to go dig someone up who will anonymously say they aren’t so bad.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Also

I never have quite gotten the demonization of Ed Werder over what happened with Terrell Owens last year.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Remind me what that was again?

Was that the one where he said teammates had said he was bad or something and Witten was the supposed source?

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Sep 10, 2009 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions

You don't understand why...

…a reporter would want to needle players who have a history of saying/doing dumb things into saying/doing another dumb thing? Or you just don’t think that Ed Werder did it?

Maybe it’s unfair to demonize Werder for doing something that most reporters (especially of the ESPN variety) do, but he’s probably just the best at it so he catches the most flack.

If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.

by GhettoBear04 on Sep 10, 2009 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions

These days?

Sports journalism has always been a bastion for lazy, drunken halfwits to make up stories and turn them in. Back in any good old days you want to talk about there are cases of the journalists not even showing up at the events they were covering and just mailing in a story.

"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland

by DJCahill on Sep 11, 2009 5:01 AM CDT up reply actions

Sounds like Randy Galloway

"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg

by rentz on Sep 11, 2009 7:06 AM CDT up reply actions

Yep

Galloway is your fairly traditional old school sports journalist.

by DJCahill on Sep 11, 2009 8:08 AM CDT up reply actions

Interesting.

But I really hate off nights.

Sometimes you just want to sit back and watch somebody throw 100. - Jeff Passan on Neftali Feliz

by Ryin A on Sep 10, 2009 9:24 PM CDT reply actions

Couldn't you also say....

Is it reasonable to wonder how tight Newberg and JD are and whether Jamey’s continued swipes at Galloway is less about journalistic ethics and more about his displeasure with JD gettng ripped?

Just sayin’.

"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."

"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"

by Josey Wales on Sep 10, 2009 9:40 PM CDT reply actions

Sure

If one was so inclined.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 10, 2009 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions

If you actually believed Jamey was a real journalist, sure...

but he’s just a fan. I’m not sure Jamey is held to any sort of journalistic ethics standards.

He is what he is.

by cstorm15 on Sep 10, 2009 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Murray Chase, like Jamey

doesn’t work for a newspaper these days so he’s no longer a “journalist.”

Like Jamey, he has his own blog and has a very friendly relationship with the GM of the local team.

When he sees his buddy take a hit, he lashes out at the offending journalist.

"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."

"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"

by Josey Wales on Sep 10, 2009 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions

One small problem

Galloway is a tool that does nothing but lash out at people and write terrible columns.

Stark is an interesting writer that, as far as I’m aware, isn’t out trying to tear people down.

by Josh Lile on Sep 11, 2009 1:16 AM CDT up reply actions

Yeah, and I think Jamey's anger with Galloway is not so much that his friend gets ripped

Its that Galloway continually rips the Rangers and everyone associated with them when he very clearly has no idea what he’s talking about, nor has he for at least a decade.

I feel the same way as Jamey. When a sports franchise that you absolutely love is subjected to what are basically drunken rants by an idiot columnist, and those rants get published in a prominent newspaper, it gets tiresome and you get angry. Thankfully Jamey has a forum where he can combat some of that stupidity.

"Feldman and Feliz and and pray for…infectious disease?"--TheJeezus on Sep 9, 2009 1:01 PM PDT

by WestTxAg06 on Sep 11, 2009 6:32 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

The problem with those thoughts, Aggie

is that Galloway has written several highly complimentary columns on the Rangers this year (including one today).

I could be wrong but I also don’t remember any venom from Jamey towards Galloway when John Hart was the GM (and Galloway was very tough with Hart).

My recollection is that Jamey became unhinged with Galloway when he (justifiably) went after his good friend JD.

"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."

"Ranger players, especially veterans, weren’t surprised that Daniels couldn’t find a deal"

by Josey Wales on Sep 11, 2009 9:19 AM CDT up reply actions

Murray Chase is a former journalist and journalism is his only profession

Jamey is a lawyer who started writing about the Rangers farm system on the side. He’s never relied on journalism to make money, and as far as I know, he has no formal training outside of going to college. Yet, for some stupid reason, you make Jamey out to be a full-time journalist who also somehow speaks on behalf of JD in a professional capacity. Yes, Jamey is a homer, but that’s just because he’s a fan. He is not obligated to be impartial, and he is certainly not obligate to replicate the insane rantings that you subject this blog to on a daily basis.

If Jamey is a journalist, then this guy is a journalist.

by cstorm15 on Sep 11, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions

Speaking of, has The Newberg run him out of LSB and Rangers blogging altogether?

After their last little spat, Fin has gone AWOL.

"Feldman and Feliz and and pray for…infectious disease?"--TheJeezus on Sep 9, 2009 1:01 PM PDT

by WestTxAg06 on Sep 11, 2009 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions

yes, it is stark

and we kinda dug into him here for all his anonymous scout type sources. Murray read Sam’s article!

by wobatus on Sep 10, 2009 9:45 PM CDT reply actions

Big jump to assume that this is more about Chass/Minaya than it is about crappy sportswriting

Read here for a takedown of Stark.

Good work by Chass. This is the strongest point:

Perhaps the most important question is this: Is there a way for the writer to write the column he wants to write without using all of those anonymous quotes? There is. The writer can ask the same people the same questions and use their responses to form a consensus assessment, which he can report without resorting to a string of quotes from one anonymous executive/official/scout after another. Or the writer can exercise some creativity and use the comments to form his own opinion and write that.

by James Kannengieser on Sep 11, 2009 8:26 AM CDT reply actions