Show respect, gain respect? Not so

New York Times reporter and Newhouse alum Pete Thamel writes today about how some universities are monitoring their athletes’ use of social media — and the constitutional questions raised by that practice.

His story is a thorough look at a fresh issue, coming on the weekend of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Final Four. Some universities have hired companies to watch for any violations of NCAA rules or any inappropriate material that would embarrass the school. Other universities rely on the athletes to “friend” a coach or school administrator or to share usernames and passwords. It’s all in the story — check it out.

The reason I am writing about it here is because one word in one quote caught my attention. It is attributed to Kevin DeShazo, described as founder of Fieldhouse Media, a company that does online monitoring but does not access private information. As the story states, “… he is opposed to monitoring Facebook and forcing athletes to download applications or give access to password-protected content.”

Here is his thinking:

“To be forced to give you access, passwords or let them be friends with you on Facebook — I get why coaches feel like it’s necessary, but there has to be some level of respect and trust with these kids.”

“Respect” is the one word. It is something we have written about before, and it is worth repeating.

• You can’t teach respect
• You can’t monitor respect
• You can’t enforce respect

Respect is something that must come from within a person. It must develop from having a sense of others, not only self. People with honorable intentions think that by showing respect, they will gain respect. It’s not going to happen — not unless everyone has that same sense “of respect for respect.”

Why the gloomy outlook? Because just yesterday, this need for respect came to my attention in a simple, yet profound, way as I walked from the building where I teach to the garage where I park my car. I was walking along the newly constructed “Connective Corridor,” which officially opens this spring and links the Syracuse University campus with the Syracuse community.

Construction had been ongoing, through a mild winter here in Syracuse, and it is finally finished. There are new sidewalks and a bike path, trees and plants waiting to bloom. Brick pavers line the corridor between the sidewalk and the street. Lovely. Except … for … the multitude of cigarette butts that were tossed, then probably rolled, and then found a resting place in just about every seam between every brick of the lovely Connective Corridor.

No respect. How heart-wrenching to see all of that hard work marred by disrespectful, thoughtless and sloppy people. Individually, it’s one butt. Collectively, it’s a mess.

Whether we are talking about social media and athletes or citizens and a community, respect is what will make the difference. One indiscretion might embarrass one university. But, collectively, social media missteps can end up making a mess of our multimedia world.

Emilie Davis

Humans and technology just have to mix

So it has come to this.

Department stores and specialty shops — even those traditionally known for their customer service, such as Nordstrom — are adding iPads and apps for customers. The idea is that customers can help themselves by comparison shopping and researching online instead of asking questions of real people in the store.

Who wouldn’t like this option? No more waiting in line. No more figuring out if you can trust the answer of the person who is paid to sell you something. No more time spent walking from store to store when your fingers on a touch screen can do it for you.

But what is — or could be — lost is best addressed by Sherry Turkle, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is quoted in a New York Times story, “Retailers Add Gadgets for Shoppers at Ease with Technology.”

“With technology replacing human interaction, she said, ‘you’ve taken out a lot of the richness, the messiness and the demandingness of actually having to deal with people.’ ”

The author of “Alone Together” has a point. It is one that won’t be lost on journalists, whose job it is to ask questions.

The natural order for reporters:

— Ask “what’s the story?” at the outset of a story assignment or a story idea

— Ask “what’s the background?” when researching the story and then finding out what’s already been written, published and posted

— Ask “who are the best sources?” when setting out to contact experts and others at the outset of interviewing

— Ask “what do I want to know and need to know?” when preparing for an interview

— Ask question after question in those interviews, to create conversations with real people

The natural order for editors:

— Ask “what’s the story?” at the outset of editing to ensure the first few graphs address this question

— Ask “how do we know this?” to ensure that information in the story is substantiated

— Ask “why are you telling me this now?” to ensure that the story has a solid nut graph

— Ask “is this possible?” of any information that seems like it could be incorrect

— Ask question after question of the reporter, in the spirit of having an actual conversation with a real person

Reporters and editors can and do conduct research, and they do it using technology. They do this every time they check the spelling of a word, a grammar point, a style question or a content issue. But they don’t merely rely on technology. They deal with real people — inside and outside the newsroom.

Shoppers enamored of technology would do well to remember that the gadgets can get them information quickly, and they have a purpose. But real people still have a place in the conversation, and it would be a great loss to society, as we know it, if those interactions were to go away.

How can you trust a website?

Just this week, we discussed in class how an editor can trust a website, along with a dual discussion about how many ways people can be tricked.

Here is a fresh example from today’s syracuse.com, under the headline, “If you buy tickets online, beware copycat sites.”

As the story explains, tickets for shows at the local Landmark Theatre are being sold on a website at $79 to $554 vs. the legitimate cost of $41 and $67 at the box office or, for an additional $5, online.

How can this be?

The official site is: landmarktheatre.org

The copycat site is: landmark.theatre.org

The insertion of a period makes the difference.

The New York State Attorney General’s Office has been contacted, and you can check out the end of The Post-Standard story, which includes tips for how to buy tickets safely on the Web.

Here are some cautions of our own, also found in “Think Like an Editor,” to help you take care with the Web:

• Primary sources. When you find news and information posted on a website that was not generated by that site, go to the primary source. Make it easy for readers by including hyperlinks to those sources. Realize that some sites allow users to add to, delete or otherwise change entries.
• Reliable sources. Use one of the online domain searches, such as Network Solutions to find out to whom a domain is registered. Check out a website’s “About Us.”
• Attribution. Whatever news or information you use from a website, you must attribute the information to that source. Be sure you check it out before you pass it along.
• Skepticism. Trust your instincts. Beware of what is “too good to be true.” Check more than one source. Don’t be romanced by a “great site.”
• Reader contributions. Material that is generated by readers must be treated carefully before it is posted to the Web. Is it true? Fair? Balanced? Libelous? Is the person sending you a contribution really that person? Is it someone pretending to be someone else as a joke?
• Photos. Be sure you credit the photographer when you use the Web as a platform to deliver photos. Do the same with any photos you accept from readers.
• Videos. Hoaxes and gimmicks can make incredible video stories, so editors must be especially vigilant to prevent them from being posted as news — or posted at all.
• Blogs. As a journalist, take care when you write blog posts, particularly for a personal blog on your own time. Know your news organization’s policy. Beware of fake bloggers.

Lastly, remember the adage: “When in doubt, leave it out.” But before you go to that extreme, take the time to check it out.

Emilie Davis

Paterno’s death: Another Twitter lesson

UPDATE: The email ostensibly sent to student athletes at Penn State did not exist, as we find out in this overview by Brian Stelter in today’s New York Times. It’s a question we asked below. It’s a question editors should ask routinely: Did we see this ourselves or just hear about it?

EARLIER: We debated a bit before weighing in on the wave of premature reports that Penn State’s Joe Paterno had died.

The lesson seemed obvious, so we first thought there was no need to add our voice. But a piece by Poynter helped to change our mind.

The background: The Onward State student news organization at Penn State, which has gained a lot of notice for the way it leverages social media to beat the “old school” Daily Collegian, tweeted that Paterno was dead. Forty-five minutes later, it retracted the report, but not before a number of major news organizations, including cbssports.com and The Huffington Post, accepted Onward’s tweet as fact, tweeting the death themselves — often without attribution — and linking to their own pre-written obituaries.

Poynter, the venerable media watchdog and resource, was part of the crowd misreporting the story.

Later, however, Poynter pieced together a chronology of the error, which is worth the read just to see how things fell apart.

Onward State Managing Editor Devon Edwards already has resigned over the error, saying that Onward had been confident its sources were correct. But in a statement, he didn’t explain that. Onward’s tweet cited as its source an email that had been sent to Penn State players. Still not clear: Did Onward see the email? Was it shared by a player? Was there never an email? Just someone — “someone” — who said there was?

Poynter, in its chronology, quotes The Associated Press director of Media Relations, Paul Colford, from an email to Poynter: “At no time did AP report or imply Paterno’s death on any platform. AP was relying upon actual reporting. Just like with the aftermath of the [Gabrielle] Giffords shooting.”

Read the Poynter chronology. It’s a worthwhile piece for an inventory of Lessons Learned.

Did John King act alone or alert peers?

The Republican presidential debate Thursday night in South Carolina brought up a basic principle in interviewing: Don’t start with the hard question, or the bombshell question.

In his first question of the evening, John King, the CNN political reporter and moderator of the debate, asked Newt Gingrich about ABC reports that he’d asked his second wife, Marianne, for an open marriage. She declined, and they divorced; Gingrich then married Callista Bisek, who is now his third wife. Gingrich went off on King and the “liberal media” and earned a standing ovation, which became a big part of the debate story.

The question behind the question: Did King’s colleagues know he was starting this way? Did they discuss it? Was there any debate?

Paul Fahri’s piece in The Washington Post suggests that King acted alone. Fahri wrote:

In post-debate comments, King seemed to have few regrets. “I understood that if I asked the question, he was not going to be happy with it, and he was going to turn on me. Knew that coming in,” he said during an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper immediately afterward. (King was unavailable for an interview Friday.) “This is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It was my judgment, my decision and mine alone. If we’re going to deal with it, let’s deal with it upfront, let’s not try to sneak it into the middle of the debate somewhere.”

King later spoke with Politico, and again did not indicate he’d clued in anyone else on his strategy: “My old AP training is, you deal with the lead of the day upfront first,” Politico reported King as saying. “I respect anybody who disagrees, but we made our decision.”

The behind-the-scenes conversations that did or did not happen are worth mulling, perhaps as much so as the dust-up itself, and may be part of Sunday’s TV morning show analysis of the Saturday vote in South Carolina.

When you have a big decision to make, it’s a good idea to include others and benefit from the wisdom of your peers. We know this is a cornerstone of ethics, as well. Your decisions affect everyone at your news organization, and the brand itself. But sometimes we hesitate to include others, fearing our “great idea” or what we want to do will be nixed.

That surely is a poor strategy, too.

Whether you agree with what King did or not — and there will always be disagreement — the process is what matters here as much as the decision itself.

Interestingly, King broke a second “rule” moments later in the debate questioning. He blamed ABC  for making an issue of Gingrich’s marriages. Redirecting the blame is just a poor strategy, journalism or not. Fahri ends his piece by quoting W. Joseph Campbell of American University:

“King seemed taken off guard. He looked a little sickened. And he did himself no favors by lamely pointing out that it wasn’t CNN but another network that dug out the Gingrich-infidelity story. That allowed Gingrich to pounce again.”

One thing to consider when you want to start with the hardest question: Start with your colleagues first.

SOPA: Stop, read and learn

Twitter is on fire today with “Stop SOPA”! Well, at least 99% of the people I follow agree with that sentiment, so that’s what I’m seeing.

But I wonder how many really have taken a look at SOPA, and its sister bill, PIPA. Today is an opportunity, if not an obligation, to settle in and do some reading and self-educating about these two pieces of legislation before the House and Senate that are being proposed to regulate online piracy (primarily movies and songs).

Do you — really — know what you’re “stopping”?

The New York Times, my go-to daily, has a good piece today, but there are plenty of others. As you “shop,” consider the backgrounders and updates and not just the screeds for and against, though you can learn from some of this indignation as well.

You may or may not choose to sign the Google petition.

What’s more important: Make today the day you begin to get a handle on some details of this debate if you really haven’t done that yet.

Information is power. So go get some today, and lend a knowledgeable voice to all the noise that is out there. It’s not just where you stand on an issue that counts. It’s whether you speak with some hard-earned authority.