Where’s Michael Vick?

by Paul Giacobbe

As many traditional media organizations are learning, the news consumer is no longer content to wait for the morning newspaper to hit the porch, or for the evening television news. Blogs, tweets and text messages have made anyone with even modest technological abilities a “reporter” and a news cycle is measured no longer in days or hours, but in minutes.

Recently an NBC10 sports reporter, citing a Miami Herald online column (which appears to itself have been influenced by a sports blog), reported that former Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick was practicing with the Patriots that day.  The information was wrong, and more reliable sources had been reporting throughout the day that Vick was at a bankruptcy hearing in Virginia.  Late in the day, and before the NBC10 report aired, the Patriots confirmed that Vick was not with the team.

Roger from Tiverton emailed his concerns about the report:

I am both appalled and disappointed in WJAR for allowing . . . a completely unsubstantiated report on this evening’s newscast regarding disgraced former Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick allegedly working out with the New England Patriots.

(Your reporter) quoted a blog posted by the Miami Herald as the source for his sensationalism; yet, throughout the day, credible news sources (such as the Associated Press) were reporting (and posting photos) that Vick was actually at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Virginia, not Foxboro. In fact, at 5:22 PM - a full hour before (the) report – the New England Patriots issued a statement confirming that Vick WAS NOT in New England in response to the uncorroborated rumors flying around.

It appears that (the) “reporting” consisted of nothing but parroting the rants of some out-of-town ‘blog’ nor did (the reporter) even bother to contact the primary source (New England Patriots) for confirmation. Just a cursory glance at the newswire photos should have convinced (the reporter) that thes ‘breaking news’ story needed a much more thorough vetting before broadcasting it.

At the end of the report the reporter indicated that Vick’s presence in Foxboro was “a rumor,” but I don’t think that helped. There’s a difference, I think, between attributing to a blog or online source a rumor that, for example, Vick and his agent were in discussions with the Patriots, or that the Patriots were interested in Vick.  In this case, however, the report was that Vick was actually at the Patriots’ workout, despite the availability of credible evidence that Vick was NOT there,  and that evidence seemed substantiated by a number of online sources prior to the airing of the 6 p.m. report.  There was no indication that the reporter had made an attempt to contact the Patriots to check the Miami Herald story.

Viewers remember where they heard a story, not where it originated.  A news organization risks damaging its credibility by attributing a story to a blog, or another group’s website, without making some effort to confirm.  It’s not enough to attribute a story to someone else, especially another news organization, especially when the ability to verify was just 30 miles away.

NBC10 provides this space, but the opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe.