This is a very long post about journalism and how journalists interact with coaches. If that doesn't interest you, and I'd certainly understand why, I strongly suggest you skip this one.
Dabo Swinney can be very annoying.
He's preachy, he's hacky (BYOG?), he so desperately wants to be an underdog with an overdog team and, yeah, you know where he played college ball.
Swinney kinda/sorta lashed out at the media the other day and, hey, everyone loves when a coach lashes out at the media. Why? Because the stereotypical reporter is a stooge; a fat dude who didn't play sports, doesn't understand Xs and Os and always is searching for a scandal where (often) none exists. I get it. It's been a tough 13 years for The Media starting with Jayson Blair's nonsense and leading to this clickbait-y world we live in today.
Swinney's team was accused by South Carolina of using racial slurs during their game a few days back. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. That's not why I'm here.
That accusation made headlines for obvious reasons. Many reporters couldn't wait to write those stories because they'll elicit clicks. You know that and I know that. A simple Google search of "clemson racism south carolina" pulled a whole bunch of stories like this one and this one and this one and this one. There are many more.
This angered Swinney. He doesn't like these accusations. They make Clemson look bad. They also make Swinney himself look bad because he's real big into promoting his Christian beliefs. That's a big part of how Clemson's football program markets himself -- and hurling racial slurs doesn't seem in keeping with the way Jesus would expect his followers to behave.
So Swinney lashed out. Without specifically refuting the claims, which is notable, he ridiculed The Media for sensationalizing the story. There was a lot of b.s. in this rant, a lot of nonsense aimed solely at making himself look tough and virtuous, but there also was some truth in there.
Here is the rant itself:
This portion of the rant intrigues me most:
He is correct about one thing: The media didn't operate like this 10 years ago. Or 20 years ago. Or 50 years ago.
Coaches and reporters used to have an understanding. They have their jobs, we have ours. Sometimes you click on a personal level for whatever reason, but you generally had open lines of communication even if you didn't have a close relationship with 'em. In the 1990s, I could call Tommy Tuberville and he'd answer. Same for Don Dunn, Joe Pannunzio, Noel Mazzone, Will Muschamp, Hugh Nall, Jay Boulware, Trooper Taylor. We had those lines of communication.
These days? Not really.
Football has changed so much during the past five years in ways that aren't visible on the outside. There is so much salary on the line now for these coaches. So much money. Hell, the assistants now make more than Tuberville earned his first season at Auburn. The increased money and the increased pressure yield increased paranoia. Believe me, football coaches had plenty of paranoia well before this. They didn't need a second (or third) helping.
This isn't a shot at Auburn. Yes, Malzahn is unusually off-putting with all but a few reporters (George Schroeder of SI and Chris Low of ESPN.com being two) and that affects things here. Some of Malzahn's assistants, however, don't share his pointed skepticism of reporters. Those lines of communication provide critical perspective. They have kept inaccuracies off the pages of AuburnSports.com many times indeed.
Yet this is a national phenomenon. Coaches no longer view reporters as counterparts; we're the bad guys. We're the people who focus on the negative and, in a very simplified view, weaken their ability to keep making millions from coaching football players.
Escalating salaries created additional paranoia. Clickbait hastened the split between reporters and coaches. There is unprecedented emphasis in the journalism world on more, more, more. More stories. More quickly. More pictures. More video.
That's merely a reflection of American society as a whole. Most of us are attached to devices for at least 12 hours per day, me included. So there's a market for More. People want More.
More is money.
Yet More, at least in the journalism world, is problematic. The desire to provide More leads people to make bad decisions about what to write, how to write it, how much time is spent on verification. We used to spend hours, days, weeks on that last part. Now? It's down to zero in many cases.
Zero time spent verifying something. It happens. And I think it happened in this case involving Clemson. Did Clemson use racial slurs? Hey, a USC player said they did! That's good enough for a headline, right? Write it up, slap a salacious headline on that puppy and watch the clicks roll in. What if there were no racial slurs or what if it was one knucklehead saying one thing to one USC player?
We'll sort that out later -- for another round of clicks!
This thirst for drama -- real or imagined -- is getting worse on the journalism end. The money is getting bigger on the coaching end. The paranoia is growing. The interpersonal chasm between coach and reporter is widening. This will end badly. Very badly.
It's a battle I fight everyday. @BryanMatthews and @Jeffrey Lee as well. We're lucky because we don't feel a ton of pressure to write sensationalized stuff. We rely on your monthly or annual subscription to keep us employed rather than advertisers paying us per click. That seems like a subtle difference, but it has major ramifications on how we operate here.
We are grateful for that support because it allows us to do our jobs better.
Back to Swinney: I don't like where this whole thing is headed. He's right about the lack of accountability. He's right about the tendency to sensationalize. He's right about the lack of communication, though he has the power to change that. He can leave open the lines of communication. He can take the time to discern credible, professional journalists from the hacks whose only allegiance is to clicks. And he can reward those credible, professional journalists with access when needed.
That kind of access keeps inaccuracies from seeing the light of day. It severely limits misinformation. I see that as a good thing. That may not be a universal opinion.
I doubt you think about this at all. It doesn't really affect you and it's not visible to the general public.
I think about this a lot. Daily, I'd say. Some of it is just a 44-year-old guy yearning for The Way It Used To Be, but some of it is genuine fear of what journalism is becoming. Of what revenue-generating sports are becoming.
The pendulum has to swing the other way soon. We've got to move toward credibility. They've got to move toward trust. We must somehow re-establish the symbiosis.
Thank you for reading.
Dabo Swinney can be very annoying.
He's preachy, he's hacky (BYOG?), he so desperately wants to be an underdog with an overdog team and, yeah, you know where he played college ball.
Swinney kinda/sorta lashed out at the media the other day and, hey, everyone loves when a coach lashes out at the media. Why? Because the stereotypical reporter is a stooge; a fat dude who didn't play sports, doesn't understand Xs and Os and always is searching for a scandal where (often) none exists. I get it. It's been a tough 13 years for The Media starting with Jayson Blair's nonsense and leading to this clickbait-y world we live in today.
Swinney's team was accused by South Carolina of using racial slurs during their game a few days back. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. That's not why I'm here.
That accusation made headlines for obvious reasons. Many reporters couldn't wait to write those stories because they'll elicit clicks. You know that and I know that. A simple Google search of "clemson racism south carolina" pulled a whole bunch of stories like this one and this one and this one and this one. There are many more.
This angered Swinney. He doesn't like these accusations. They make Clemson look bad. They also make Swinney himself look bad because he's real big into promoting his Christian beliefs. That's a big part of how Clemson's football program markets himself -- and hurling racial slurs doesn't seem in keeping with the way Jesus would expect his followers to behave.
So Swinney lashed out. Without specifically refuting the claims, which is notable, he ridiculed The Media for sensationalizing the story. There was a lot of b.s. in this rant, a lot of nonsense aimed solely at making himself look tough and virtuous, but there also was some truth in there.
Here is the rant itself:
This portion of the rant intrigues me most:
He is correct about one thing: The media didn't operate like this 10 years ago. Or 20 years ago. Or 50 years ago.
Coaches and reporters used to have an understanding. They have their jobs, we have ours. Sometimes you click on a personal level for whatever reason, but you generally had open lines of communication even if you didn't have a close relationship with 'em. In the 1990s, I could call Tommy Tuberville and he'd answer. Same for Don Dunn, Joe Pannunzio, Noel Mazzone, Will Muschamp, Hugh Nall, Jay Boulware, Trooper Taylor. We had those lines of communication.
These days? Not really.
Football has changed so much during the past five years in ways that aren't visible on the outside. There is so much salary on the line now for these coaches. So much money. Hell, the assistants now make more than Tuberville earned his first season at Auburn. The increased money and the increased pressure yield increased paranoia. Believe me, football coaches had plenty of paranoia well before this. They didn't need a second (or third) helping.
This isn't a shot at Auburn. Yes, Malzahn is unusually off-putting with all but a few reporters (George Schroeder of SI and Chris Low of ESPN.com being two) and that affects things here. Some of Malzahn's assistants, however, don't share his pointed skepticism of reporters. Those lines of communication provide critical perspective. They have kept inaccuracies off the pages of AuburnSports.com many times indeed.
Yet this is a national phenomenon. Coaches no longer view reporters as counterparts; we're the bad guys. We're the people who focus on the negative and, in a very simplified view, weaken their ability to keep making millions from coaching football players.
Escalating salaries created additional paranoia. Clickbait hastened the split between reporters and coaches. There is unprecedented emphasis in the journalism world on more, more, more. More stories. More quickly. More pictures. More video.
That's merely a reflection of American society as a whole. Most of us are attached to devices for at least 12 hours per day, me included. So there's a market for More. People want More.
More is money.
Yet More, at least in the journalism world, is problematic. The desire to provide More leads people to make bad decisions about what to write, how to write it, how much time is spent on verification. We used to spend hours, days, weeks on that last part. Now? It's down to zero in many cases.
Zero time spent verifying something. It happens. And I think it happened in this case involving Clemson. Did Clemson use racial slurs? Hey, a USC player said they did! That's good enough for a headline, right? Write it up, slap a salacious headline on that puppy and watch the clicks roll in. What if there were no racial slurs or what if it was one knucklehead saying one thing to one USC player?
We'll sort that out later -- for another round of clicks!
This thirst for drama -- real or imagined -- is getting worse on the journalism end. The money is getting bigger on the coaching end. The paranoia is growing. The interpersonal chasm between coach and reporter is widening. This will end badly. Very badly.
It's a battle I fight everyday. @BryanMatthews and @Jeffrey Lee as well. We're lucky because we don't feel a ton of pressure to write sensationalized stuff. We rely on your monthly or annual subscription to keep us employed rather than advertisers paying us per click. That seems like a subtle difference, but it has major ramifications on how we operate here.
We are grateful for that support because it allows us to do our jobs better.
Back to Swinney: I don't like where this whole thing is headed. He's right about the lack of accountability. He's right about the tendency to sensationalize. He's right about the lack of communication, though he has the power to change that. He can leave open the lines of communication. He can take the time to discern credible, professional journalists from the hacks whose only allegiance is to clicks. And he can reward those credible, professional journalists with access when needed.
That kind of access keeps inaccuracies from seeing the light of day. It severely limits misinformation. I see that as a good thing. That may not be a universal opinion.
I doubt you think about this at all. It doesn't really affect you and it's not visible to the general public.
I think about this a lot. Daily, I'd say. Some of it is just a 44-year-old guy yearning for The Way It Used To Be, but some of it is genuine fear of what journalism is becoming. Of what revenue-generating sports are becoming.
The pendulum has to swing the other way soon. We've got to move toward credibility. They've got to move toward trust. We must somehow re-establish the symbiosis.
Thank you for reading.
Last edited:
