Is There A Change in The Wind?

We all know about “Fake News,” but the question is when is a story not a story?

This is a question that is currently being debated in the UK following the findings in the court case between singer  Sir Cliff Richard and the BBC.

These findings could have far reaching effects and may well see people in the media become a little more circumspect to tweet or pre-empt stories that they believe are about to break, in order to appear “in the know.”

If we look back over the past 30 years there used to be an unwritten line between sports stars and those who covered the games that was rarely crossed. What happened on tour stayed on tour. In many cases, with long tours the journalists would in fact be out with the players. Friendships were formed, but most important of all there was trust.

Then a new breed of newspaper owner emerged. Profit became the key focus. To make a profit you needed circulation, and the best way to increase circulation was to carry stories that no one else was running. To be the first with the scoop.

These “new kids on the block” came into the picture and stepped across the longstanding line, rightly or wrongly; as some would say the previous relationships were a little too cosy. Suddenly reports of conversations, comments and the behaviour of players started to be reported. The trust that had been there was almost completely eroded. If one paper ran a story then the editors at the others wanted to know why their man had failed to know about this event. The editor sometimes failed to realise that by not running a trifling story their man was more likely to get the bigger more substantial scoop down the track, simply because he still was trusted.

Not surprising many of those new kids on the block did not hang around too long. Why? Because no one ended up talking to them, colleagues, coaches or athletes.

It used to be that the media pretty much across the board would go to training sessions and mingle with the players in various sports. Again, there was a trust between the club, the players and the media. That too has changed, with many players at many clubs now told that they must not talk to anyone in the media unless through an official request. Then when they do talk their comments are predictable, scripted and trite.

A paranoia exists that the players will say something they shouldn’t. Yet if you look at the successful teams around the world in a variety of sports those where there is trust and respect are the ones where there are very few leaks. The reason for this is that in a well oiled team everyone has everyone else’s back covered.

Now the media have to compete with social media. So too do the clubs. More likely than not they will find that one of there own has caused them an issue via social media rather than by talking to a journalist. Players have the perfect tool in which to not only promote themselves but also to instigate a situation at their club via social media. Is it therefor not surprising that many sporting teams have a complete social media ban during major tournaments? The Great Britain Hockey team had it in Rio and won Gold. They have put the same rule in place during the upcoming Women’s Hockey World Cup.

Some football teams have also made players hand in their mobile phone when they arrive at the ground on a match day so that their focus is wholly and solely on the game coming up.

Sadly, because of the precarious nature of their jobs there are more than a few in the media who will happily “break” a story that has been given to them by a player’s agent or manager. The story is often created to try and force a change of club, or a new contract. Those who start the ball rolling are then rewarded when the outcome their story was meant to precipitate actually happens.

If it is not just the players or the media breaking news there are now hundreds of fans who want to be the ones to break the news of some new signing, a rift within the club, or some minor scandal. We live in a society where people love rumour and innuendo.

Sadly some editors now expect their journalists to be across all of these “sources” and to get to the bottom of the real story. Yet the majority prove to be nothing, unsubstantiated.

Sadly this urge to be able to be across these “sources” and believing that quoting someone’s Twitter feed is news has seen good men and women, great sports journalists pushed out the door. Men and women who knew what a story was, knew how to tell a story that would tug at the heartstrings, that would pull the fans in. Writers who were masters of their craft. Some have survived, but sadly they are few and far between as the reporting becomes more and more formulaic and lacking in colour, information and description or simply speculative.

Whereas there was an unwritten code of behaviour amongst all, now there appears to be more of an everyman for himself attitude. The pensmen of yesteryear would never have been seen in the press box wearing the colours of their team or nation as the new generation brazenly do. They would never have been seen at a press conference with a shirt asking for it to be signed. If they had wanted something signed it would have been done discreetly away from work.

Many of the new breed appear to forget what their role is, that they are there primarily to cover the event and describe and report what happens for those who cannot be there, to give us information we would otherwise not have access to. To tell a story. To describe how a goal was scored or a batsman was dismissed.

The findings in the court case in Britain open a huge can of worms. They mean that speculative stories will need to be run with a great deal more caution, and only run when facts back up that speculation.  That may well be a good outcome.

If it means that media outlets start to demand higher standards once again, then that can only benefit all. The last thirty years we have seen players names and reputations dragged through the mud often unnecessarily with no apology, simply because it sold a paper; However in some cases players have brought the attention on themselves and deserved the scrutiny. These pieces have increased circulation, which has meant that they in turn attracted more advertisers.

There is an undercurrent of feeling that the public no longer want to read such stories. They want to read articles with substance. Pieces well researched and well written.

Some of the pieces that filled supplements that papers had committed to print during the world cup were quite simply embarrassing; Honestly what relevance was there to the fact served up that when England played Croatia in the semi final it was the same date as the World Cup started in 1966?

It will be interesting to see if there is a change in tack from those in charge. Whether editors will take the bold step of changing the way their outlet operates now, before change is forced upon them. One cannot help thinking that in the long term it will be for the best, as in a few cases the coverage could not stoop any lower.