UPDATE, 7 p.m.: After a day of confusion, I just learned that this so-called "news story" originally ran as a blog post, but was printed on Page 2 of the newspaper and labeled as a blog post. That, of course, changes most of this post--we believe that newspaper bloggers should be held to similar standards online as they would in print, but the fact that this story was not, indeed, a hard news story makes us retract our statement that the story was "snarky, inappropriate and backhanded." Instead, it reads more like a column, which is exactly what we suggested in the first place. Still, I'm going to keep the post up, because I think there are some interesting points hidden behind the confusion; treat it more like a hypothetical. (And if this has taught us anything, perhaps it's that The N&O should do a better job of differentiating between news stories and blog posts online. Or maybe we're just being overly nitpicky at the end of the week.)
Duke head coach Mike Krzyzewski is not shy about criticizing the local media--based on historical precedent, that group very much includes The Chronicle--and after Duke's 79-67 win over Davidson Wednesday, Krzyzewski called out local newspapers for not printing a story about Duke rising to No. 2 in the polls and implied that North Carolina receives more favorable coverage.
"I don't even think it was mentioned in the newspapers here, that we were No. 2 in the polls," said Krzyzewski, who came armed with obscure statistics about his team, giving credence to the idea that his rant was planned. "Fact, I know it wasn't mentioned, so I guess nobody really cares. It's interesting, always interesting to me in 29 years here, the subtleties of the local press is funny in some respects.... When this group makes No. 2, it's a new group, they should be celebrated for doing something good. I'm sorry that doesn't happen very much. It's sad."
On Friday, The (Raleigh) News & Observer took up Krzyzewski's advice by responding in a story entitled "Coach K alerts media." (The N&O's blog, ACC Now, posted a video clip of the press conference, which subsequently stoked fiery discussions about the topic.)
Unfortunately, the tone of the article struck us as entirely too snarky, inappropriate and backhanded for a news story. The lede and surly nut graph of the story:
Duke is the No. 2 men's basketball team in the country. You may have read that on ACC Now but not in print (the polls run on the Scoreboard).Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski would like everyone to note that the Blue Devils are No. 2 in the coaches and AP polls in the first full week of January.
Krzyzewski may be frustrated when journalists try to be coaches, because that's exactly what they're not. To their credit, the best reporters know they're not coaches and simply ask questions to do their job: that is, gather information. Krzyzewski is a master of the man-to-man defense, but a stalwart reporter can soak up a lot of strategy by watching Duke's defense and asking players and coaches about the X's and O's behind it. That doesn't mean he's qualified to be a coach; it's just an example of a reporter doing his job of presenting information to readers.
In the same regard, though, Krzyzewski demeans beat reporters when he tells them what should be a story and what shouldn't, because Krzyzewski is not a journalist. The fact that the Blue Devils are the new No. 2 team in the country does not merit a story, just as no newspaper would print a story if Duke moved down to No. 10. Polls run in the agate section (that's the part of the newspaper with the statistics in the small print), and rankings are used for clarification in game previews and game stories. Isn't it usually Krzyzewski who reminds reporters that statistics and rankings don't matter, that numbers are for the media to worry about and for players to ignore?
In that same sense, though, The N&O must understand that it is also Krzyzewski's job to protect his players. Perhaps he felt that the team warranted more positive coverage, or the narrative assigned to this year's team was too negative to correlate with reality or maybe he felt disrespected after North Carolina lost and Duke continues to win. Condescension is grating for beat reporters. Krzyzewski and the beat reporters that cover him actually have something in common: Especially now, there are as many media critics--and not in the David Carr sense of the word--as there are Duke haters. It's in vogue to discredit the media; just ask Sarah Palin (ba-dum-ching-tcha!). If the N&O felt particularly abused by Krzyzewski's statement, then it could have commissioned Caulton Tudor or one of its sports columnists to express his opinion in a column. A news story dripping with such obvious contempt does nothing to settle the situation, and, if anything, only widens the divide between reporter and subject.
Newspapers are not obligated to allow Krzyzewski to openly criticize their reporters, just as Krzyzewski is more than within his right to defend himself, his program and, most important, his players, whenever he deems it necessary. He's certainly done it before. There's a difference between privately airing complaints and doing so in newsprint, though, especially when it's not handled in the proper way. Like it or not, the rules of journalism ethics hold newspapers to higher standards than college basketball coaches. Newspapers cannot ignore ethics for the sake of petty retribution.
In the story, the N&O referred to Krzyzewski as "passive-aggressive."
We couldn't help but think that perhaps a newspaper beholden to laws of fairness and balance should hesitate before using such a loaded descriptor.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.