Guest Blogger: The Mitch Albom Affair

UPDATED

Jim Bettinger, a former San Jose Mercury News colleague who now runs one of the most prestigious journalism fellowship programs, the Knight Fellowships at Stanford, is properly disturbed by the Mitch Albom situation. The star Detroit Free Press columnist and best-selling author (also a former colleague) wrote a column describing two former college basketball players' attendance at a game that they did not, in fact, attend; he was writing for publication several days later. (Update: According to this Chicago Tribune story, Albom has been suspended.)

Jim notes this account and points to the Romenesko site for more related links on the affair.

I'm personally conflicted by this situation, partly because I worked at the Free Press for almost six years, and knew -- and admired -- Mitch while I was there. But it's difficult to argue with Jim Bettinger's assessment -- in particular, that whatever Mitch did wrong here, it was grossly compounded by the negligence of his editors.

Jim writes:

There's a quality about it that says something profoundly disturbing about the newspaper business, more so than Jayson Blair or Jack Kelley or any of the others.

It is this: An accomplished newspaper writer at a serious metropolitan newspaper, along with some number of editors at that newspaper, and some number of editors at other newspaper websites, published and posted a piece of journalism that they knew (or should have known) was misleading, in that it represented to the reader that Albom was at the game and wrote what he had seen there.

Albom's quasi-apology says the fact that Cleaves and Richardson didn't go to the game "was hardly the thrust of the column," but any reasonable reading of the column is that it was the thrust: I, Mitch Albom, was at the game, and seeing these two NBA players there was a telling moment. If Cleaves and Richardson had shown up, this still would have been misleading.

The editors who, on Friday, read and put in the paper a column that began, "In the audience Saturday were..." should have realized this was misleading. So should the newspaper website editors who posted the column on Friday (Googling courtesy of Michael David Smith). That so many people in "gatekeeper" positions could have participated in this suggests two explanations, not mutually exclusive.

One is that these editors have such a heavy workload that they do not have time to really read everything that they put in the paper. In the case of those who posted the Albom column on their websites, I think that's a real possibility. To the extent that this is a factor, it's a concrete demonstration of how the reductions in editorial staff for economic reasons can affect quality.

The other explanation is that we tolerate a certain degree of misleading readers in the name of a livelier, more readable, more compelling account of events. I think we always knew this. But it has rarely been shown to me so starkly: That a columnist would write on Friday a story recounting without any qualification what was going to happen the next day, and that so many editors would put their initials on it, suggests that it's part of our operating system.

It's hard to think of a stance that is more disrespectful to readers - "We're going to publish something that we know is misleading (or that we don't care if it's misleading) because it reads better that way" - and we'd all be fools to think that readers don't learn this.

Comments

[Jozef Imrich]

Bob Steele said it well:

A journalist failed. Editors failed. A system of quality control failed.

This was professional malpractice...

Google: Second Thoughts

[not a Yank]

And some wonder why the credibility of journalists ranks right up there with Congressmen and the UN.

[Pat Burns]

Albom is a terrific writer, who is the true "superstar" for the paper. He hosts a daily radio show, writes bestsellers, appears on ESPN... which doesn't leave a lot of time for actual reporting. My suspicion is that editor's probably give him a pass on a lot of things because he's a "franchise" player. But when you get spread so thin, it's easy to cut corners. I'll bet there are many other similar factual errors in past columns.

[rick gregory]

Pat,

This isn't simply a factual error, it's lying. You can soften the blow by using words like misleading, but lying is what this was. It doesn't matter if Albom is a franchise player, in fact, it's worse given that franchise players become the models for those on the way up. If Albom is spread too thin, the solution is simple - drop some things. But let's not excuse Mitch because he's a superstar and writes cute books.

[Jim M]

So much for calling it "news". This isn't supposed to be "Hearst vs. Pulitzer" at the turn of the 20th century. But it is, except for one minor detail. When those guys did their thing at the turn of the century, they actually pushed for policies that helped the little guy even at their own expense -- can you even imagine any media baron doing that now?

[Eric H]

It's ironic that while the integrity of bloggers as journalists is being hotly disputed, famous print journalists obviate the discussion by glibly sacrificing their own credibility.

[Ran Talbott]

"which doesn't leave a lot of time for actual reporting."

Then he shouldn't be cashing a paycheck given to him for work he's not doing. If that's really the problem, then Albom is no better than a Florida contractor who slaps some drywall over fungus-infested framing because the volume of hurricane-related business keeps him "too busy" to do jobs the way he promised his customers he would.

It would be different if the explanation had been, say, "I pre-wrote the story, because I knew I'd be hard up against a tight deadline. But my wife was in a car crash Saturday, and I was with her in the ICU, so I wasn't able to revise the story the way I planned to do if events didn't turn out as anticipated".

Instead, what we're hearing is "In order to save a few bucks by spreading out its press load, the Free Press decided to set the deadline for the story ahead of when the actual events took place, and I went along with them".

"I'll bet there are many other similar factual errors in past columns."

You realize, of course, that what you're saying is that you believe he's a crook, who's participated in an ongoing conspiracy with the Free Press to defraud the public by claiming to present "news" at a speed that can compete with electronic media, while actually printing "whatever news-like stuff is ready to go at press time".

[AF]

"editors have such a heavy workload that they do not have time to really read everything that they put in the paper...[snip]...To the extent that this is a factor, it's a concrete demonstration of how the reductions in editorial staff for economic reasons can affect quality."

VERY good point, one not mentioned often.

[Pat Burns]

I wasn't trying to excuse Albom. What he did was completely wrong. The point I was trying to make (apparently very badly) is that I'll bet this isn't the first time something "made-up" has made it into his column. I think the editors give him a free pass because of who he is, and what he means to the paper. Now, they're dealing with the results.

[Paul H]

When we say "editors" let's be more specific.
From my experience as a copy editor on the sports copy desk at The Detroit News from 1990-95, I know that copy editors on the rim express concerns and point out things in copy that shouldn't get in the paper on a regular basis. But many times when dealing with certain columnists or writers (and Mitch Albom would be the ultimate example), they are basically told to shut up, make sure everything is spelled correctly and put a headline on it.
So when we say editors, let's be careful.
I'm sure that the Free Press copy editors learned long ago that questioning Mitch's copy would only get them grief. Now if you're talking abut the editor of the newspaper, managing editor, editors of departments and other editors in a supervisory role, that's a different story.
But just saying "Editor" casts too wide a net and implicates too many people who probably aren't at fault.

[hels]

The readers were robbed of the real story of what happened in the stands at the game. I've never understood the go blue or go green mindset; now, thanks to Mitch, I know why. It's just as I suspected - nothing happens; it's all a fairy tale! Too bad - that the two players DIDN'T show - truth - now there's a story I could relate to. The Detroit Free Press is getting a lot of letters to the editor saying don't take away their sweet Mitch. Their competitor, The Detroit News, is telling readers a little about the syndicate and the ethical issues.

[Joe Falls]

This is a tempest in a teapot. Why don't you bloggers go get some fresh air and move on from the Albom trashing? He made a mistake. It didn't profit him in any way to write something that wasn't true. He had no intention to decieve the readers (unlike Jayson Blair). He has apologized and has certainly learned a valuable lesson. Time to find another fish to fry, boys.

[Donald Brock]

We used to have way of treating bullies when I was a kid. Everyone has a holier than thou opinion about Mitch Albom's error. It was not a made up story. He was duped by two basketball players and has already paid the price in many ways. He didn't manufacture a story or plagerize. He is one of the most talented writers in sports or general journalism. People like Peter johnson are envious and should make sure they keep their day job or hope they graduate from their journalism internship. It's time for the world to find something real to write about.

[Donald Brock]

Now this a real reporting tragedy! Will Isikoff get the same suspension by Newsweek that Albom received. Will his work be reviewed in detail, article by article for ten years, by Newsweek? I don't think anyone died because of Albom's mistaken reliance on two basketball players who deceived him. Where is justice?

[Donald Brock]

The great sellout of the American people by McClain.
Sen. McClain has all our respect for his dedicated military career. However, he does not get a free pass when he is guilty of robbery in daylight. He has stolen my vote. He and his six Republican cohorts have stolen the vote of the American people.
The will of the Amerucan people has been spoken. Their vote must be restored by Krist and the leaders of the Republican party.
The Democrats have won a temporary victory. They will be back in the trenches with a fullblown filibuster when the vote for UN representative and the next candidate for supreme court is presented.
But McCain's mutiny will forever remain tainting any hope that he has for a presidential run.

[Morrie]

You want to know what I think about Mr. Albom?

He is CRAP!
http://mitchalbomisaterriblewriter.blogspot.com

[Donald Brock]

Poor Morrie. Where did you learn did envious bitterness? Basic 101 suggests that expletives should be used with a specific meaning and not be merely an expression of hate. Perhaps you should return after you have passed yor internship. Make sure you keep your day job making hatchets. After you have written 5000 published articles and have been voted sports writer of the years eight or nine years please come back.
What did Albom ever do to you to raise such hate?

[SkilledAversion]

Thanks, Donald, for bringing up a very valid point with your remarks to Morrie. You're absolutely right: criticizing someone whose accomplishments are different than your own is completely inappropriate. For example, I often disagree with the decisions our elected officials make, but I stop myself before voicing my concerns because, hey, I never got elected to any public office. Or when my girlfriend makes me watch another movie by Kevin Costner and I hate it, I have to remind myself that until I've made a ton of movies myself (and won an Academy Award), my criticisms are totally inappropriate.

I'm being sarcastic, of course. I visited http://mitchalbomisaterriblewriter.blogspot.com and it gave me a good chuckle. It's well written and funny even though-- gasp!-- its creator hasn't "written 5000 published articles and have been voted sports writer of the years eight or nine years".