So, as a friend of beleaguered Boston Herald writer John Tomase, I’ve been wrestling with how I might address the topic without coming off as too biased on John’s behalf. Seth Mnookin spared me the trouble with his excellent post on the subject today:
But the vitriol and derision being directed at Tomase is over-the-top. (And getting angry at him or at the Herald is a bad way to displace frustration/anger over the Pats slightly-less-than-perfect season.) He had what he thought was a big story, and he thought he had made the limitations of his story clear in the piece itself. The allegations contained therein logically followed from what was already known. And nobody he interviewed would say, flat out, that the piece was wrong.
This was, more or less, going to be my main point. The calls for Tomase’s firing – there’s even a Facebook group dedicated to it – don’t make much sense to me. Is he accused of malfeasance here? No one seems to be making a credible accusation along those lines. He got a scoop that appeared legitimate, and ran with it. One would assume that at least one Herald editor knows about Tomase’s source(s), and was sufficiently satisfied with the sourcing to green-light the story.
Is he accused of frequent mistakes along these lines – viz, running a story without giving the target(s) enough time to respond? To my knowledge, this is the first time John’s been charged with this kind or, in fact, any kind of journalistic error. So what is the justification for calling for Tomase to lose his job? Doesn’t some of the responsibility lie with the editors, as Seth says, to rein the writers in?
It would seem to me that more blame should lie on the editors than on Tomase–or, at least, comparable blame. That said, journalism is a hard profession–harder than ever, in fact, with so many competing outlets to break a big story–and it stands to reason that, from time to time, a mistake will be made, regardless of the quality of journalists and editors. What is less usual is a newspaper and reporter admitting such a large mistake so directly and in such a forthright manner.
In my opinion, he doesn’t remotely deserve to get fired. Clearly, this should serve as a reminder of the necessity of thorough fact-checking, and the Boston Herald should do what it takes to make sure the reminder sticks.
In my opinion, he doesn’t remotely deserve to get fired. Clearly, this should serve as a reminder of the necessity of thorough fact-checking, and the Boston Herald should do what it takes to make sure the reminder sticks.
I think the bitterness Patriots fans feel is understandable. Sports franchises have some of the most loyal fan bases. The product is generally inelastic–Patriots tickets can cost $500 for nosebleeds and the season ticket wait list will still be thousands of people deep. So to get a story like that wrong, one can only expect the firestorm.
Whether or not he should be fired, I’m indifferent. He took a chance, like he admits, and missed. But unless it was a malicious attempt, hard to prove, he should keep a job. He should not be working on the Patriots, though. He’s burned too many bridges to continue as the Patriots beat writer.
I’ve never understood calling for someone to be fired from their job for making a mistake. As a professional in a field where making any kind of mistake can doom your career for good, it’s disconcerting to see this. We’ve all made mistakes. It comes with the territory. And as Mike points out, unless there is malicious intent (and I don’t believe for a moment that there is…), there is no reason to call for his head.
My first thought was the same point Keith made toward the end of his post. It’s standard operating procedure for editors to approve stories based on the validity of the sources provided by the writer, but because Tomase’s name is on it, he is receiving the brunt of the blame.
It’s inevitable in journalism that some sources are going to provide inaccurate information. Only when a pattern develops should someone’s job be at risk, and as Keith pointed out, that isn’t the case here.
I don’t believe in the “death penalty” for this type of thing, but the seriousness of the accusation and the ensuing flap make it almost inconceivable that Tomase can continue to be a beat writer in Boston.
Then again, Shaughnessy’s still around…
Jed: I don’t see that argument. If he still has sources, he can still be a beat writer. And if covering the Patriots isn’t possible because his sources have dried up, then he could easily return to covering the Red Sox (which he did for the Eagle-Tribune before moving to the Herald) or switch to another team.
Incidentally, I scanned your last few posts on the matter. Two thoughts: One, you can’t refer to another writer’s work as “high-schoolish” and then finish the same post with “Ugh. Who says this kid has talent?”
Two, you seem to be arguing that without a first-hand source, the story wasn’t viable. I would argue that you can push a story with sufficient second-hand sourcing, if the stories all line up and point to the same person/conclusion. In an event where only one or two people have first-hand knowledge of something and both have strong disincentives to reveal it, refusing to run with second-hand sourcing would mean the story is never told at all. So my question to you is this: At what point are you comfortable with second-hand sourcing?
Keith, I appreciate your even-handedness considering you say you’re a friend of John’s. I’m sure it’s not an easy time, to put it mildly.
But if you’re a beat sportswriter, aren’t some of your most important sources the players and management of the team? Don’t you think his access is severely compromised now, not just to the Patriots, but any other team?
Boston’s a small town, and sports has eclipsed politics as the number one news subject with the success of the Patriots and Red Soz since the turn of the century.
Ballplayers aren’t famous for their interest in the fine points of journalistic procedure, but they generally are known not to enjoy being called cheaters.
Personally, I don’t think the guy should be fired outright for the mistake, I don’t believe he did it with malice, and I haven’t been all over him for it, I’ve been more interested in the reaction. I just find it hard to believe he can continue to be viable in the locker room.
I wrote my opinion that I found his explanation (in its execution) high-schoolish and his bit about the pit in his stomach clumsy. His piece came off like a kid who gets caught drinking. I’m not writing deadly-serious analysis pieces to begin with.
As for second-hand sourcing, nobody should ever be comfortable with it. When do you go with it? “When you think you’re going to get scooped” is not the correct answer.
When you think you’re going to get scooped is when you’re in danger of convincing yourself that you have it nailed down.
Actually, I could see Tomase being fired. CBS fired Dan Rather after his report was proven to be inaccurate. Personally I think he is screwed. No player or employee of any team will reveal anything to him.
Keith,
You asked ay what point are you comfortable with second-hand sourcing?
Is that wht we have here? Second hand to me would mean your source knows someone who saw the tape. The way I read the article, Johns’ sources heard that there was a tape. That sounds like the sources’ source hasn’t seen a tape either. Just another guy that heard a rumor as well.
Similar to, I heard there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. Hey, I heard that too, it must be true. Print it!
I may ne way off base due to my exactly zero in journalism experience, just my two cents.
enjoy your work.
thanks
Bob: In Rather’s case, there was an implication of malice aforethought, or just flat-out bias. That’s not in play here.
Michael: I’m speculating on John’s sources to some degree, since I don’t know who they are. But if one was a Patriots’ insider or exec who said, “Bill told me he had Matt tape the walkthrough,” but never saw the tape, that’s a secondhand source, but a very good one. You’re depicting secondhand sources as guys just passing along innuendo. My question is where the line lies between those two.
Jed: I’m still looking for responses on when second-hand sourcing is appropriate. I don’t know the answer, but that’s also not my sphere.
I do think that you and Bob are both mistaken in assuming that Tomase will be unable to find sources with other teams. Sources he’s already developed will remain so, especially since he took the bullet rather than throwing his sources under the bus or exposing them. And I don’t see why it would carry over to other sports – they’re separate universes, or at least MLB is its own.
This might be one we disagree on. I think he will naturally have a harder time trusting anybody, and people will have a harder time trusting him. That includes both players he covers, and the people who read his stories.