Daulerio vs. ESPN

Text - Permalink

Daulerio vs. ESPN

In his initial posting on the topic, Mr. Daulerio suggested less-than-scrupulous concern for the accuracy of the rumors he repeated: “Chances are, at this point, there’s some truth to them,” he wrote. “We’ll just throw ’em out there” and wait for the reactions. But in the interview, he said he adhered to the same standard of proof as any traditional news organization, repeating only those things told to him by multiple sources with close knowledge of the subject.

This is the paragraph that’ll get glossed over. Gawker likes to suggest that it shamelessly rumormongers, but it doesn’t in any traditional sense. And “multiple sources with close knowledge of the subject” is pretty traditional sourcing.

There’s another question, re: whether Deadspin should be publishing information about the sex lives of ESPN employees, especially if they aren’t public figures. But the Times seems more interested in the fact that AJ is a blogger taking on a sports news network.

Nonetheless, having been lied to by lying PR people who lie on a number of occasions, I understand AJ’s reaction. I think they should be publicly outed every time they do it. (For the opposite of this principle, see GossipCop, which happily—and either knowingly or stupidly—regurgitates publicist lies, perpetuating the problem.)

Deadspin Opens Gates of ESPN Sex Rumors [NYT]