Why you can't trust the MSM

by Telemachus on Feb 8, 2008 9:42 AM PST Comment 17 comments

As you know, for the past few weeks, I've been putting together post-game video packages following Bruin basketball games. Interesting thing about the stats for last night's game. The espn stats for the game lists Josh Shipp with six points scored. However, last night, as I was putting the video package together, I had Shipp with eight points. I went back to the game footage and double checked my notes against espn's play-by-play page for the game. While play-by-play matched my notes for Shipp's first three baskets, the error was at the 7:18 mark in the second half. espn listed the following: "Kevin Love made Two Point Layup." In actuality, Josh Shipp scored a layup on a lob from Love as you can clearly see in the following.

This was Shipp's fourth basket and was part of the WSU video package showing each of Shipp's four baskets.

I noticed this error last night, but figured it would be corrected by this morning. However, as of this writing, the espn site is still incorrect. The boxscore from the DailyNews repeats the error. And Diane Pucin of the LA Times specifically repeats the inaccuracy in her story today.

Josh Shipp scored only six points, but his layup on a feed from Love started UCLA's crucial 8-0 run
Ironically the very score she mentions is the one given to Love in the stats. Even UCLA's website which posts the "Official Basketball Box Score" is incorrect. So Shipp's key basket never officially happened!

Okay, this is no big conspiracy or politcal theater, and is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. I just point this out to show how lazy the MSM can be; how inaccuracies so easily creep in to the reporting and are simply repeated along, with no checking of the primary information sources; how even clear objective information is mis-reported or not challenged. It will be interesting to see how long it will take to correct the stats, or if they ever will be corrected.

No matter. You got it correct here.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Another Example

One article I saw said love was 6-11 and his defender gave up an inch. Watching the game you could clearly see that wasn't the case.

Just comical to get both heights wrong; its like they mixed em up.

by kidro2001 on Feb 8, 2008 9:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

that lob

was beautiful. Shipp's defender was fronting and Love just tossed it perfectly to Josh. One thing that seemed a little strange was the arc on that pass; I thought at first that it might be a turnover if the WSU defenders helped quickly and tried to double Josh with the amount of time it seemed to hang up in the air, but in the end it was a perfect pass.

by ucladj89 on Feb 8, 2008 10:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Happens a lot actually

I remember when I was covering the football game at Stanford, the box score and play by play gave our last touchdown to the wrong person (I forgot who they said and who the real person was.) I had to double check my footage to see who it was.

by JoshuCLa on Feb 8, 2008 10:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Mistakes abound..

Wasn't there a sportscaster once who, as he was calling a long touchdown run, realized he had misidentified the ball carrier and corrected the mistake at the last possible moment:

"..Smith breaks free at the 30..he's still on his feet at the 40..he's at the 50..the 40..the 30..the 20..the 10..the 5..and he laterals to Jones who scores!"

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Feb 8, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

box score tracking

I don't think it's MSM media's fault that box score is wrong. Don't all media gets the box score from the "in-house" official stat-tracker? In which case, it's probably some Wazzu students who messed up (probably got too flustered by the beat-down to write down the correct stat!).

Anyhow, I salute you Telemachus for your great memory and effort to "correct" the stat.

by HK Bruin on Feb 8, 2008 10:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree that the MSM

is simply reporting what the official scorer reports. And after nearly ten years of following my daughter's basketball team, I know that official scorers get things wrong. However, the MSM's job is to report the truth, not simply to report the "official" story.

Anyways, no big deal, just wanted to have a little fun with the MSM, especially since they generally seem to have a dim view of the blogosphere.

previously known as Grok451

by Telemachus on Feb 8, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily

There is an official scorer at games (I'm mostly familiar with baseball games) who sits in the press box and posts the big "H" or "E-6" on the scoreboard. There are about a zillion other people who are scoring also, and each of those people depends on the official scorer and tries to make sure that their box score ends up the same as the official scorer. There have been times when things were changed by the official scorer after the game (generally some explanation from the player.) The unofficial scorers might not know that the official scorer changed something.

But if the official scorer gets something wrong and no one points it out, it ends up being etched in stone. There are usually enough people with parallel score cards near the official scorer that things get straightened out before the concrete sets.

Football is different in a fairly big way. The official scorer gives out quarterly stats, and the unofficial guys use that. (Unless there's a gaffe, in which case the unofficial guy goes and pleads his case.)

But the short answer to your question is except for the distribution of quarterly stats in football, generally there are parallel score cards happening, and you hope to get them to be the same by the time the game is over. And when the game is over, the official scorer makes himself scarce really fast.

by Fox 71 on Feb 8, 2008 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Howland caught it

Today's article from Pucin quotes Howland as having noticed the scoring error after reviewing the game film.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/ucla/la-sp-uclahoops9feb09,0,7873886.story

by bruinhoo on Feb 9, 2008 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rather interesting

That would imply espn doesn't depend upon the official scorer, at least for their play-by-play summary, which credits Shipp correctly at 18:52 in the 2nd half with the basket Howland refers to as in error in the official stats. Shipp's other baskets were two jumpers, plus the layup from Love at the 2nd half 7:18 mark, which espn incorrectly credits as a two point layup by Love. I mean, Love isn't that good to lob to himself for a layup, right? =)

Anyways, this just tickles my inner anal-ness.

previously known as Grok451

by Telemachus on Feb 9, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm assuming

this also means Love only got 14 points?

by melliott2 on Feb 8, 2008 12:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

according to the Zapruder film

Love wasn't at the grassy knoll, so he didn't score those two extra points. =)

Yeah, according to my notes and the video, he scored 14: Two jumpers, 3 layups and 4 freethrows.

previously known as Grok451

by Telemachus on Feb 8, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you thought that was bad

You should read the AP recap of the game. It was all about their foul trouble.

"After the teams were deadlocked at 26 at halftime, they stayed within four of each other until midway through the second half. Then Washington State's big men, Robbie Cowgill and Baynes, got in foul trouble with 9 minutes left. That's when the Bruins began a Love-fest."

Yep, that was it. We wouldn't have won if their guys didn't get into foul trouble.

by BruinsRule on Feb 8, 2008 4:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think you're reaching here

there's nothing wrong with this and I don't think they're saying we won because we got in foul trouble.

We were in a close game and when they got in foul trouble was when our run began. We recognized this and started feeding Love. I don't see where what they said is wrong. It was close. Yup. They got in foul trouble. Yup. We started feeding Love. Yup. We pulled away. Yup.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 8, 2008 5:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Misquotes

Talk about errors, it's funny how reporters will mess up quotes, and it's usually the wrong quote that gets propogated throughout the blogsphere.

For example, after the Bruins beat Oregon up in Eugene, here's a quote from Ben Howland as reported by Diane Pucin of the LA Times:

"This was the best win I've ever been part of in my 27 years in this business," UCLA Coach Ben Howland said.

Robert Kuwada, OC Register:

"That was one of the best wins I've ever been a part of in 27 years in this business..."

Brian Dohn, LA Daily News:

"That was one of the best wins I've ever been a part of in 27 years in
the business," Howland said.

David Woods, Daily Bruin:

"That was one of the best wins I've ever been a part of in 27 years in this business," coach Ben Howland said.

Jeff Eisnberg, Press-Enterprise:

"That was one of the best wins I've been a part of in 27 years in the business," Howland said.

John Hunt, The Oregonian:

"That was one of the best wins I've ever been a part of in 27 years in the business," UCLA coach Ben Howland said.

Only Pucin reported that Howland said it was his best win, but every other reporter reported that he said it was "one of his best" wins (a very different meaning), so I'm inclined to think that she got it wrong. Somehow, though, every follow-up story seemed to latch on to Pucin's version of the quote. Don't reporters use tape recorders (or, maybe MP3 voice recorders) so they make sure they get the quote right?

by CrouchingBruin on Feb 8, 2008 5:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, they do use recorders

I know for a fact the LA Times requires reporters to use a recorder.

I'm not defending Pucin here (there's no excuse to get a quote wrong) -- but this happens all the time. If you compared every quote like this, you'll find a bunch of cases like this. Some reporters don't pay as much attention in transcribing quotes as they should.

by gilbert on Feb 8, 2008 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I may have mentioned

that I was quoted twice in a trade publication. Each time I was quoted inaccurately (by the same reporter.) Each time I called the reporter and complained that the quotes were not accurate and made them embarrassing, albeit only slightly. Each time I asked that the reporter print a clarification. Each time I got a lengthy apology, a promise to fix the quote, and a promise that it would never happen again.

After the second one, it did not happen again. I wouldn't take calls from the reporter. Unfortunately, I needed the trade paper, so I couldn't cancel my subscription. I made sure, however, that I didn't assume any quotes from anyone were accurate.

But that was then. It shouldn't be too tough for reporters (all of whom are sticking a microphone in Coach Howland's face, not a pad and a pen) to get the quotes right.

Now I know why all the reporters in town are trOJans, or seem to be. The journalism business has been totally dumbed down, and now trOJans who would ordinarly be hanging around one of dad's businesses are hired as reporters by one of dad's newspapers. In my opinion, that is as good an explanation as any for the almost constitutional inability to be accurate by these people.

by Fox 71 on Feb 8, 2008 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs