The Thursday edition of NASCAR Now was on-the-air. Tim Cowlishaw was along to offer his views of Indy and the upcoming Chase for the Championship. The outstanding video piece seen earlier on ESPN was replayed showing Richard Childress and his thoughts on a wide variety of subjects from the passing of Dale Earnhardt Sr. to the current state of NASCAR. The scenery from his Montana ranch was beautiful.
Among all the news and notes read by host Ryan Burr, one big item was missing. On Wednesday's show ESPN.com NASCAR writer David Newton had led the program by stating that, according to his sources, Ryan Newman had agreed to drive for the new Stewart-Haas Racing team. This column will detail our reaction to this type of journalism.
Later that same night, this column appeared written by Ryan's wife Krissie on her personal blog. Here are the quotes that relate to Newton and ESPN:
"There have been some recent articles posted that reporters have put out that sound factual. However, Ryan has not verbally agreed to anything and is still working on his 2009 and future plans."
"This has been a week of controversy. I don't know how those celebs in LA handle all the false information and attention the media puts out there. Don't even get me started on Rusty Wallace!"
"We had an appearance for Watkins Glen Race Track in NY and then we came to PA to spend a little time with my family before the race weekend craziness. Which is now going to be more insane thanks to an ill-informed reporter from ESPN. Sorry, if you can't tell I was a little ticked."
So, we have the wife of the driver stating that David Newton was wrong and Rusty Wallace has her upset. If the topic at-hand was a racing incident, that would be one thing. What Krissie Newman is upset about is ESPN's constant push to have "breaking NASCAR news" and exclusive NASCAR stories when they really do not. She says they lied about her own husband.
Her post comes on the heels of Martin Truex Jr. blowing-up in a profanity-laced reaction to Newton saying on national TV and ESPN.com that Truex was staying at DEI because "sources" told him that a deal had been done. Word is that report sent Truex directly to a verbal face-off with DEI executive Max Siegel.
The simple question is, what is going on here? NASCAR Now has been on-a-roll since February with Allen Bestwick leading the Monday roundtable shows and Nicole Manske handling interviews like a seasoned pro. Somehow, Ryan Burr seems to be in the host position when these types of rumor and innuendo stories come to the air. These two were no exception.
Burr grilled Newton on Wednesday about the validity of the Newman story and even showed a videotape of Newman seeming to contradict the Newton report. This sudden internal tension was very strange on a TV series that has been outstanding for the last six months. What has changed?
After all the fuss of a lead story on Wednesday, somehow the direct denial by Newman's own wife of that very issue did not even cause a blip on the NASCAR Now radar on Thursday.
Unlike other sports, ESPN is finding that it cannot manufacture and manipulate the news about NASCAR to serve the network's own agenda. The relationships between the long-time members of the NASCAR press corp and the key figures in the sport run deeper than David Newton or Rusty Wallace will ever experience. If Newton's stories are not verified in the mainstream NASCAR media, that should throw-up a red flag.
ESPN's other NASCAR reporters Marty Smith, Angelique Chengelis and the recently-added Ed Hinton have been very quiet on these two topics. Silent might be a better word.
Maybe they remember the anger and ultimately the national news stories of last season. It was Tony Stewart who led the way on this topic. "Every time we've got to deal with somebody from ESPN it's a sharp knife trying to dig for dirt," he said. "Do we always have to leave with a dagger in our back from ESPN? Here is the original story from the NASCAR.com website.
It would have been nice if Burr acknowledged the Krissie Newman statement, but the issue is much bigger. Knowing when to report a story and when to back-off is ultimately the responsibility of the editors at ESPN.com and the producers at NASCAR Now.
Perhaps, a well-place phone call or two would help to get some perspective on the information that Newton and others sometimes bring to the plate using "anonymous sources" in the NASCAR garage.
It should be interesting to see how the ESPN reporters are greeted in Pocono and how the network executives decide to handle this growing problem for the remainder of the season.
The Daly Planet welcomes comments from readers. Simply click on the COMMENTS button below and follow the easy instructions. The rules for posting are located on the right side of the main page. Thanks for taking the time to stop by.
67 comments:
Just curious--you say:
Unlike other sports, ESPN is finding that it cannot manufacture and manipulate the news about NASCAR to serve the network's own agenda.
In which sports has it manipulated and manufactured news? Are rumors denied more in NASCAR than other sports?
JD- More bipolar? Could you comment more on how ESPN.com, the ESPN studio reporters, and the ESPN field reporters and announcers are "coordinated" (to the extent they are?) and how they operate out in the field. Thank you.
In defense of ESPN it's not like they're reporting on a high profile driver's divorce or drinking problems or other tabloid stuff. They're speculating on which multi-millionaire is going to give a bunch of dollars to someone who's merely a millionaire. A little perspective might be in order here.
I find it interesting that Newman's wife is the one who blew her top here. And furthermore, I find it interesting that Newman hasn't exactly come out and denied it. He just keeps saying, "Nothing has been finalized." Or "We're working on my 2009 situation." Sounds like Newton may be right and Newman and his wife are ticked because they wanted to have a quiet weekend.
You may not like anonymous sources, but unfortunately they're the nature of the beast. A lot of times, someone from a team will call a reporter and agree to give information but knows he/she will get in a ton of trouble for leaking information. So they agree to be an anonymous source. Look at the Manny Ramirez situation today. It was originally reported that the deal was made final by a reporter from SI.com who cited a high ranking Red Sox official. No name. Sure he didn't say "anonymous source," but he might as well have. Sure enough, an hour later, the deal was final.
I guess I'm just trying to say that while these unnamed sources aren't ideal, sometimes they're a necessary evil. It sounds like in Newman's case, he just doesn't want to deal with the attention, and now his wife is mad because she can't go on vacation and shop for a $500 Prada bag without being bothered.
Just because Ryan Newman's wife denies the story in some blog doesn't mean its not true. The "silence" of Ed Hinton, Marty Smith, or David Poole also means nothing. Isn't it possible that Newton just beat these guys to the story with a source they don't have? I'll take David Newton any day over a guy like Marty Smith who is way too chummy with drivers like his best friend Jimmie Johnson.
Nascar and its drivers need to be able to handle reporting that comes from outside the "old boys network." Until then we'll just get the same crap we saw out of Jimmy Spencer last week.
anon 12:04am: your comment about " . . .and now his wife is mad because she can't go on vacation and shop for a $500 Prada bag without being bothered." is uncalled for and snarky from where i sit. and what is YOUR source for that speculation of why krissie newman is upset? also, newman also was quoted as being most unhappy with newton's reporting last week; his wife's blog is subsequent to ryan's own comments.
anonymous sources are a reality of reporting but there are standards for when and why and how they should be used. both sides in the equation use anonimity to further their own agendas and impact public perception. sure, newman could be playing coy with his word choice and a decision has been reached. and certainly someone from dei could have leaked information to newton about truex's contract status. but here's the problem for me: there is NO statement from newton that says "ryan newman denies the report" or "martin truex states that the information i have been given is not accurate." in other words, as a reader/listener to his words, i have no way of knowing what he did to confirm the story beyond taking at face value what he was told by his source.
you note the manny ramirez situation today and say " It was originally reported that the deal was made final by a reporter from SI.com who cited a high ranking Red Sox official. No name." true, but the key phrase there is "high ranking red sox official." that means to me that there is, indeed, such a person who did, in fact, tell the SI reporter what was happening AND that an editor at SI knows who that person is by name. we have no such wording from newton on either story. we just have "sources" and that could be someone well-placed with specific information all the way down to garage scuttlebutt. hell, i haven't even seen a legitimate piece of reporting on the alleged truex/speigel blow-up over the newton story! all just "sources."
there is a way to utilize an anonymous source and it's not just a matter of agreeing to not name someone when reporting what they've told a reporter. in the news (not sports) reporting business, an anonymous source is used when there is no other way to get the information reported AND the information is believed to be credible BECAUSE the editor has been told who the source is by name. anonymous sources have a real place but there are also real controls over their use.
Anon 11:19 pm, you must be asleep. The most obvious current example is the hysteria ESPN is generating over Brett Favre and the Packers. Just watch Skip Bayless any weekday morning (if you can stand it), or the motor-mouths on Around the Horn.
When they start going live all day with SportsCenter it probably will get even worse. Move over Fox News.
Anon 11:19PM,
Do you have cable TV?
JD
bevo,
So, you are saying the content of the lie changes the lie?
We have talked about this before. What pressure is there for ESPN or David Newton to say these things before they are announced?
NASCAR did just fine on the news front before the network returned to the sport and while they were gone they could have cared less about Ryan Newman or Martin Truex Jr.
This is a big problem that has been talked about in the media for years with ESPN. When they want to make up a story, they seem to just do it because there is nothing to stop them.
If a guy's wife says he has not signed anything, why is that not good enough for you?
JD
I'm skeptical of anonymous sources on principle. They inherently lack credibility.
People don't leak information without some kind of reason. They either do it to advance some kind of agenda of their own OR they do it for the power trip.
In either case, why should someone who is betraying their boss's trust by making the organization's secrets public be trusted to tell the truth? If the leaker was an honest man he wouldn't be betraying his employer by talking in the first place.
I don't care if its Nascar or National Security, when I see the words "sources say" I get out an entire shaker of salt.
IMO, its a crying shame that the once honorable profession of journalism has fallen to the point that supposedly respectable reporters can no longer tell the difference between gossip and news.
The "silence" of Ed Hinton, Marty Smith, or David Poole also means nothing. Isn't it possible that Newton just beat these guys to the story with a source they don't have?
No, because once such a story is out there, it gets picked up by everyone else...IF it is accurate.
The problem here is, unidentified sources are a legit newsgathering resource, but taking rumors overheard in the garage (or at lunch, or wherever) and attirbuting them to "sources who declined to be identified" is not acceptable and leads to these stories--some of which are simply wrong--being published.
ESPN needs to udnerstand that if they burn the viewers enough with these bogus stories, eventually, we're going to stop believing them.
I can't recall the details,but wasn't there another issue with ESPN this last spring where a rumor started by a comment from a low level track PR person that said major changes to one of the early season tracks (Fontana???,Vegas???)were in the offing. As it was being knocked down during the weekend,it got reported as 'breaking news' Monday or Tuesday.Turned out to be totally groundless.
I occasionally have to contribute news stories for the website I work for. I would be very embarrassed if something I reported turned out to be false, so I'm surprised ESPN is just shrugging this off.
Unconfirmed reports from anonymous sources have their place in journalism, but to treat them as fact is silly. There are a million blogs and small websites that are filled with them.
ESPN has chosen to treat rumors as fact for years and that's their choice. Their fear of getting scooped by other sources overrides the need to do due diligence on their stories. So be it.
I'll take news from Poole, Mulhern, Dutton, Jenson or even Jenna Fryer seriously. ESPN is wrong or late too often to be credible.
If David Newton or Rusty Wallace report that the sky is blue, I'm checkin' with NOAA first.
When I hear "unnamed sources" and ESPN in the same statement, I just ignore what ever drivel comes after. ESPN has no creditability with this viewer. They have been known to "manufacture" so called breaking news from unnamed sources too many times in the past that has turned out to be totally bogus.
Don't forget, ESPN is owned by Disney. An ENTERTAINMENT company.
The old saying 'be careful what you wish for' would seem to apply here. Why should NASCAR be treated any differently than any other sport? And why should they react with more indignation? I'm not saying I think it's good reporting, mind you--I'd like to see people wait until they have an actual confirmation, if they don't, then don't go with it. I can only assume they're all trying to be the first one to report that they decide to go with it, irresponsibly. We'd have to admit, though, a lot of the time they are right, and the rumors turn out true. And sometimes they report what *other* news outlets have already said and name that source. Again, at that point they may feel the 'cat is out of the bag' and they might as well report it. I don't agree, but I think that's just how they're thinking.
I have the same feeling as 3KillerBs--that this info is--correctly or incorrectly--*deliberately* leaked. It could even be from someone outside the team trying to improve their own bargaining power. But again, that doesn't mean it needs to be reported.
But I don't get why NASCAR would be less tolerant than other sports--I think the other sports have simply come to accept it (ie, they've given up, lol.) Once in a while you get a person who'll issue and immediate and personal denial....but most of the time, it's just an agent with the standard no comment sort of thing. I don't think NASCAR is somehow unlike the others. It's just the same--I guess my standard would be that ESPN should improve ALL its 'rumor' reporting, not just NASCAR's. Personally, as others have said, I just take it with a grain of salt and wait for the real truth.
I think the problem here is that Newton/ESPN wants to treat this info like it in the absolute truth and they had it before anyone else. Could it be correct...yes... could it screw up negotiations for drivers (and I don't just mean Newman)and sponsors...yes. For the person who thinks Newton got the truth before Marty, Ed Hinton, and other are you serious? As far as Chrissy goes;it was a blog, and she is allowed to say what she wants just like JD. She waitresses/buses tables at a friends restaurant during Pocono weekends and gives the tips to charity she is going to have to deal with the DN comments and Rusty's stupidity the entire time and undeservedly so. As far as I am concerned she has every right to be annoyed this was suppose to be a fun going home weekend for her and now look.
I think ESPN wants to be Jayski but they can't. A network news agency is expected to have more credibility, and responsibility to verify facts before reporting them, than an internet site.
If David Newton or Rusty Wallace report that the sky is blue, I'm checkin' with NOAA first. From earl06
Like the sentence. thanks.
I thought R.Burr did the right thing calling out D.Newton. I thought it brought balance to the conversation. If this was on a Monday, would we have this conversation?
Face it folks , NASCAR " behind the scenes " just isn't all that interesting . So when the editor wants a report , particularly a daily report or blog , then drama and stories have to be invented or someone will lose their job . And aside from Mrs. Newman , no one else cares about these silly ginned up rumors .
As JD has stated on here before, instead of ESPN manufacturing breaking news from unnamed sources and trying to drum up interest midweek, why don't they focus on the various Nascar feeder series' instead? The Whelen Modifieds, Camping World series, etc. Hell, even ARCA, ASA or Hooters Pro cup. Wed and Thurs would be great days to focus on some of these series, tracks, teams and drivers. That way they wouldn't have to try to create news on what is normally a dead news day.
JD
I'm with you on your post at 5:03am!!
(Are you up milking cows?)
The truth is that it is Hype manufactured and promulgated for the sake of Hype. Nothingmore.
Not unlike the ravenous cable"news" channels in this country, which are hosted by pretty faced "readers" and not journalists. When a crisis eventuates, these poster boys and girls prove unable to construct a single, intelligent, probing question. Instead we get " Jill, is there any report on how many survivors are dead?" Ugh
In the NASCAR/ESPN case, its a chap attempting to prove that he is more "clued in" than anyone else-when, in fact, it appears that what he's saying is "I know a guy, who knows a guy, who overheard a guy tell another guy that......" What rubbish.
Bray Kroter
I was expecting this to be about the tire fiasco! LOL Boy was I wrong! Anyway, let's face it, rumor and innuendo make up a good portion of the "news" these days. Why should NASCAR and ESPN be any different?
However, if the driver in question -- Newman or Truex, says it isn't so, I don't have any reason to believe some reporter's info over what they say. Rusty was out of line with his comments about Newman -- he let his personal feelings get in the way, big time, just like he does on the race broadcasts -- Rusty still hates Jeff Gordon and it shows every time he talks about him. I don't blame the guys for getting mad at ESPN -- Stewart had it right last year.
All you have to do is read "Jayski" in the morning, because NASCAR Now says the same exact things and puts it on TV in the evenings!!!
WHAT? ESPN manufacturing and/or manipulating sports news? Shocking!!! And look at that - they just reported Brett Favre had a cheeseburger for lunch today!
The NFL, NBA & MLB is split between many cities and most players don't know each other, so ESPN can say pretty much what they want about them, but in NASCAR, most drivers and team members know each other and a lot of each others business, so when ESPN tries to tell their lies & hype, they get called out!!!
What did he have on that cheeseburger?
I bet ESPN hyped it up to a DOUBLE-cheesebuger!!!
This just in from ESPN, it was a TRIPLE-cheeseburger!!!
JD,
Don't mistake my comment, back with the Stewart situation we had a very good discussion about this concept. I'm old school in that using sources should only be a last resort with a story that is so important the public must be alerted to it. Needless to say NASCAR driver news does not rise to that standard.
So, you are saying the content of the lie changes the lie?
I haven't seen any evidence so far that the "report" is a lie. We won't know how accurate it is until an announcement is made.
On a larger philosophical point, which I don't think we want to get into here, yes content does matter.
I don't want to come off as an apologist for ESPN, I think my comments this season and especially last year on their coverage show that I'm anything but. Remember the big dust-up with the posters from Bristol who were trying to pose as viewers last year? I miss the days of the old ESPN when the sport was what mattered and not all the other side stuff. Unfortunately if NASCAR wants even more mainstream acceptance then the drivers have to view themselves like players in the NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB and realize that their contract status is open to speculation. It goes with the territory these days.
Who says that Newman and Wife arent the ones telling the truth. I think its bit hypocritical for you JD to write an article about this topic when you dont know all the facts from either side.
While I agree that the Favre thing has gotten out of hand, I believe a lot of the mis-reporting is certain people leaking 'misinformation' intentionally. I doubt very much ESPN is just making it up for fun. In many ways, I think the rumors are doing their job.
But I don't buy that players don't know each other in other sports or that they're spread out. There are plenty of rumors, particularly trades and firings, *during* a season (ex, the Manny Ramierez thing) where guys are seeing each other *every* day...and you can't tell me they don't hear about it from their coworkers, their agents, their families...we've heard where coaches/GM's have talked to teams to dispel the rumors, etc, so we know they do, and it's no more disruptive to their teams than it would be in NASCAR. I know JD's blog is NASCAR, I just disagree that there's a distinction between it and stick and ball sports on this issue. It's all bad. And yes, Wednesdays would be a perfect day to spend time on other series. I think most of us would like to see that.
Anon 1:55PM,
So, a reporter says one thing and a driver's wife says he is wrong.
Not only that, she says her husband is still making up his mind and specifically what the reporter said is wrong.
Your comment is that she is lying?
JD
If find it very hard to believe you all hate ESPN this much. In all the of the remarks bashing ESPN and David Newton did anyone mention that Lee Spencer from FOXsports.com wrote the same article about Newman? JD, You've really done a great job of clouding the facts for your readers. Way to look at both side of a story. Nice fair and balanced approach. You should take lesson from yourself and stop trying to hype things up more than what they are. You know just as well as anyone reaqding this blog that the Newman deal is done, so why write the garbage that you do. I'm going to start calling your blog The Daly Hype or how about Planet Hype. Sounds catchy huh?
The Hype squasher
This forum is for TV coverage and not print material.
Anon said “In which sports has it (ESPN) manipulated and manufactured news?”
I strongly suggest your read the most recent column (July 14, 2008) by By Le Anne Schreiber ESPN Ombudsman.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3485712
In the column she sites the lack of an official guidebook of journalistic policy as perhaps one of the reasons ESPN seems to have so many issues related to journalistic ethics. Ms. Schreiber makes her case stating:
“Several incidents over the past few weeks suggest that ESPN is exposing itself to an unnecessary amount of public embarrassment and internal dissension by its lack of an official guidebook to ESPN's values, standards and practices. Such documents are commonplace at most newspapers and many networks, but ESPN operates without an over-arching guide, which too often strands its employees in a trial-and-error wilderness where standards are discovered by the accidental violation of them.”
The article also contains comments from the ESPN Director of News who appears to not be in favor of universal journalistic standards within his news operation. "In the past, we have discussed the notion of putting some guidelines for commentary on paper," said Vince Doria, ESPN's senior vice president and director of news, "but, for a variety of reasons, have decided against it.”
At least the manager of ESPN Radio appears to be open to actually having a written journalistic policy. “Mo Davenport, senior VP and general manager of ESPN Radio, echoed Doria. ‘There is not a formal written policy for what would appear to be common sense," Davenport said. "But the question of whether there should be is worth raising again.’"
Should you care to go through the archive of Le Anne Schreiber’s ombudsman columns you will read about examples of manipulated and manufactured ESPN news.
anon 5:46 PM: THANK YOU! while that was a depressingly revealing link, i appreciate you bringing it to this discussion. i knew espn was lacking in journalistic standards; now we know why: "In the past, we have discussed the notion of putting some guidelines for commentary on paper," said Vince Doria, ESPN's senior vice president and director of news, "but, for a variety of reasons, have decided against it.”
to quote casablanca: "shocking, just shocking."
Does it matter? That's just an excuse you are no different than Daly. look at the facts. How is this different? It still was reported. Does Spencer get a pass because she's not on tv? Oops. She is, she does tv for the around the track show on Fox Sports Net. check your facts
I believe the problem is credibility. Reporting information obtained from anonymous sources has a place and is a fact of life- but then the reporter is taking responsibility for the credibility of what he is reporting. Marty Smith and Angelique C., in my view, have a great deal of credibility, and Newton much, much less. I would not have had a problem with what Newton reported IF he had expressed it as a rumor, or as uncorroborated, or with some appropriate description of the source, such as someone involved in the negotiations. Newton seems willing to report as news what he obtains from his sources, whereas those with what would appear to be better connections (such as Marty S. or Davis Poole) are unwilling to report the same alleged news. In my opinion Lee Spencer is not a good example of credibility since just before the Chicago race started she wrote on FOXSports.com that Yeley had been caught by NASCAR with "two pseudo water bottles filled with 15 lbs of lead" and penalized therefor. Her article was later pulled and revised, and she has yet to issue a correction or apology for the erroneous report she posted.
...and as a result of that story, I know people who still believe the "15 lbs of lead" is what happened, because it was printed and never corrected.
Senor Hype,
If you had taken a moment to go back and read some columns about ESPN from this season you would see a slew of praise for this very TV series.
NASCAR Now has been the biggest positive change in the ESPN NASCAR line-up since last season.
Nothing you can say or try to intimate will change the issue at-hand. Why is ESPN suddenly putting their reporters under the gun for "hype" stories that we are not seeing in the mainstream press?
This has nothing to do with Newman or Truex or Newton or any other specific thing. These names are merely illustrations of the overall issue.
Suddenly, there has been a change in the direction of this progam and I am simply asking why?
JD
Anon 10:33AM,
"I think ESPN wants to be Jayski and they can't."
So far, that may be a top nominee for "Comment of the Year."
JD
Hype, Hype, and more hype. Please name the instances that you are talking about. To me it seems like you have a problem with David Newton. You did not jump on Angelique when she said Army was going to Bill Davis! Has that happened yet? I don't think so.
Hype-ster,
Are you new to this blog? You seem to be a little off-kilter.
There are over a thousand posts from the last 19 months detailing the activities of the NASCAR TV partners from the beginning of the new NASCAR TV contract.
We have seen some fantastic and some hilarious happenings on TV. This issue of somehow these mysterious "scoops" appearing suddenly on ESPN just in time for "NASCAR Now" is one of the most amusing.
From adding high-banks at Fontana to ESPN trying to somehow be first in silly season signings, we have seen this "need to lead" shoot "NASCAR Now" in the foot many times since that series came on the air.
Last year, it was all just part of the chaos of Doug Banks, Erik Kuselias and the endlessly laughable hype machine.
The problem is that this season "NASCAR Now" has become one of the best NASCAR TV series anywhere.
All of a sudden, we have two angry drivers and one angry wife, two denials and no mainstream media stories confirming either of these "NASCAR Now" exclusives.
How much writing on the wall do you need before you get the message?
JD
Ok. Now you've change my name three times. Why are we getting into name calling? I just asked you two simple question... Which you neglected to answer both. I'm not new to your blog nor am I new to NASCAR. We are not talking about last year, we are talking this year. As for two angry drivers, I only see one, Martin Truex. Ryan Newman has not been angry at all. It's his wife that was upset. Please find me a quote where Newman was upset and I will shut up! Also please answer my question that you skipped over before. Do you have something against Newton and why did you not run Angelique 's name through the mudd when she was wrong about the Army sponsorship?
Dr. Hype,
That would have been Wednesday's "NASCAR Now" video clip where Newman was none too pleased about the fact his supposed decision was already released. Try thinking TV here...TV blog.
You seem to be missing the point...again. This could be Newton or Terry Blount or any other reporter who ESPN2 puts in this position.
What is the urgency to suddenly, after six months of almost totally rock-solid reporting, become the "hype machine" of 2007?
As one reader put it in his comments, "ESPN wants to be Jayski but can't."
This silly season stuff has been around for a long time. "NASCAR Now" is just having the same tough time dealing with it as they did last year when drivers got so mad it was national news.
How about some TV feature reporting on the stories behind the thousands of people in the sport? How about some regional coverage? This "invent a scoop for Wednesday's show" is getting old...fast.
JD
It would only seem reasonable that ESPN should have at least reported that Newman's wife had said that he had not finalized his deal for 2009, or, if available, played a clip of Newman responding to a question about his plans when he was at Watkins Glen. No reference to Newton's assertion would have been needed. If nothing else, that would seem to be common courtesy.
I asked for the quote. Still have not got it. You dance very well. Dance right around the subject we are talking about. Also I ask for answers to my questions
Angelique and Newton, Why have you not answered? You seemed to be focused on ESPN and the way they do things. I remember last year when Your good friend Dave Moody came on the Radio and announced Dale jr and Martin Truex were teaming up and going to have a cup team at JR Motorsports. WRONG! Why did you not run his name down? I'm Not buying your story. Tell me why you continue to bash one network so hard? If you continue dance around my questions there may be a spot for you on ABC's dancing with stars!
To me, it appears that ESPN's biggest problem is that they're "reporter driven." In some news outlets the assignment desk gets stories and sends reporters out on them. In other news outlets, the reporters "pitch" stories and then the producers/exec producers decide whether or not to go with it.
NASCAR, unlike baseball, football, and basketball, is a sport that the editorial types(producers/writers/exec producers) are unfamiliar with. So the editorial types lean on the reporters for information and stories. So when David Newton calls into a production meeting with a story, it's easy to convince them. I imagine when their football or baseball reporters come with stories, it's discussed a lot more. But unfortunately, the people in Bristol are very green when it comes to NASCAR, so I imagine they're easily convinced to run with stuff.
Hypenator,
No quotes on here, this is a TV blog. Google and go watch the footage.
Angeligue and Moody have nothing to do with this story, you are just working hard to deflect the issue away from your good friend David Newton.
You have never dealt with the issue at-hand in your comments, only tried to point blame back at me. That is so lame.
What are you thoughts on how ESPN has suddenly began to pressure these reporters to generate "scoops" and force them to report stories before they are ready to be told?
Have you seen other ESPN shows? This is a problem across the board for the network that "NASCAR Now" is suddenly being pushed into.
Allen Bestwick has almost single-handedly restored the credibility that ESPN lost last season in this sport and now it is being eroded by these meaningless and ridiculous phony news stories.
What are your personal thoughts on the subject? By the way, never met Dave Moody or Angelique Chengelis in my life on the planet earth.
JD
TDP reader just emailed this to me:
Yahoo Sports!: Contrary to published reports, the Ryan Newman saga continues on.
"It's safe to say to all of you guys that I'm in discussions for what's best for my career," Newman said Friday at Pocono Raceway, site of Sunday's Sunoco Red Cross Pennsylvania 500. "I'm closer to making a decision, but the report" – ESPN.com reported that Newman has verbally agreed to drive for Tony Stewart next season – "wasn't exactly accurate."
Hype-a-rama-reno....anything else I can do for you?
JD
Anon 10:31PM,
I appreciate your persistence. The source for Newton's story or any others is not the topic of this story or make sense on this TV blog.
Perhaps, there are other NASCAR related Internet sites that might benefit from your knowledge of the situation.
Thanks,
JD
My thoughts on the subject have been made. You only give certain people a fair shake. With you some people get a pass and some don't. Angelique and Moody have everything to do with this. Are they not motorsports media? Are they out there reporting stories??? Of course they are and I have heard Moody say plenty of time "My sources tell me"
As for my view on what ESPN is doing to "force their reporters to report something that is not ready to be reported" Just read that again. If any reporter in any form of media waited around for a story to be reported what use would they be. Their job is go out and get the story, not wait around for it to come knocking on their door.
Since you know... When is a good time report a story?
Oh. By the how can you say you have never met Dave Moody when you have been on his Sirius Radio showe numerous times. Dare I quote "Let's welcome in our good friend from the Daly Palnet, John Daly" Is that not you? It must be your eveil twin. Oh. you mean you've never met him in person? Now we are talking semantics. You do that well.
Dr. Hype,
Dave and I contacted each other by email several years ago. He is based in New England and I live in South Florida. Never met him.
Thousands of people come here and disagree, agree and discuss a wide variety of NASCAR TV topics.
Some come here and make it all about me. I appreciate you finally taking the time to let us know your views on this subject.
Sometimes, when I push those that feel stongly on certain subjects, we get some very good content and opinion. You obviously have things you feel strongly about on this topic.
I had lots of email from other NASCAR media folks who said they do not understand why ESPN tries to pretend they have scoops and breaking news all the time when teams generally release things in a coordinated way.
There are hundreds of teams and thousands of people in this sport. Maybe if "NASCAR Now" left the silly season stuff to Jayski, a website ESPN owns but refuses to acknowledge on the air, they could focus on more meaningful issues in the sport and industry.
Thanks for posting your comments.
JD
Fianally! We agree on something. I don't disagree with you about ESPN over using the breaking news angle. That does annoy me. I have seen that happen plenty of times and the news is not breaking, its been around all-day. In this case no one is giving the story with Newman a chance to grow. it's not hype, he is reporting on something that has a the strong possiblity of being true. It gives your readers and bloggers like you something to talk about. All I'm saying is give it a shot.
Good day
thanks, anon 5:46, for being the only one who answered my question without a smart-aleck remark. I wasn't denying that it was so; I happen to agree. I simply was questioning the fact that the 'assumption' was made that ESPN does that in other sports without any support or examples. Your link is an excellent one. I would also say I appreciate reading JD's remarks that his focus was on the *change* on NN rather than just the existence of the 'rumor' segments. But NASCAR always says it wants to be like the big boys in coverage--I guess they have it now.
anon 11:19
Did anyone read Kathleen Parker's column today about "Journagossip?"
Her thesis applies perfectly to the current ESPN on TV discussion, although she was talking tabloid v. major press.
Journagossip is such a great description.
tracy,
Thanks for the heads-up on that story. It was a good read.
JD
In case anyone is still looking at the comments for this post:
there is a great article/blog by Monte Dutton about this very topic. It is posted on Jayski's, (who else?), Stories/Columns page under NASCAR This Week. I am not linking it here because the rules of this site require prior approval.
Monte speaks directly to this particular issue.
Rich,
Monte is a fav and his article is great. You can link him here anytime if his story/column is on the topic we are discussing.
Thanks for checking.
JD
Your article about ESPN and their 'breaking news' reports are EXACTLY why I no longer watch ANY of their coverage. If fans want this kind of reporting, all they have to do is buy the Star or National Enquirer at the newstand.
ESPN has repeatedly failed to acknowledge the amount of intelligence and loyalty that NASCAR fans have. They have continuously failed to treat our drivers, their teams and the fans with respect. Shame on them.
Anonymous said...
Just curious--you say:
Unlike other sports, ESPN is finding that it cannot manufacture and manipulate the news about NASCAR to serve the network's own agenda.
In which sports has it manipulated and manufactured news? Are rumors denied more in NASCAR than other sports?
July 31, 2008 11:19 PM
Have you been in a coma the past 3 weeks with the Brett Favre saga?
As these reporters (Newton, Smith) get farther away from nascar.com and into the real world, it is beginning to show their actual knowledge about racing and reporting. They think everything is still track smack and really would not know a story if it ran them over. It is a shame that we are subject to this low class reporting because they were all that was left. We deserve better! ESPN was good.............
Post a Comment