For some people, when a newspaper (or magazine or other media outlet) runs a story that disagrees with their opinions it’s evidence of bias on the part of the reporter, the news organization, or both. Rather than look at the information in the story and think about it, the knee-jerk reaction is, “Well, they’re clearly biased about [whatever topic, person, idea one happens to feel strongly about].”
Often, that’s not the case. At times the information dug up by the reporter leads to certain inescapable conclusions. On controversial stories those conclusions may upset the people on the one or the other side (and sometimes, both sides). But let’s be honest: The people most upset about an article would be singing the reporter’s praises had the article supported their opinions.
Oftentimes, on controversial subjects, reporters phrase things carefully, so that they don’t draw conclusions that the facts may not fully support. Whenever you see phrases like “this infomation suggests that so-and-so may have done such and such” or “the case may be in jeopardy due this or that” the reporter is telling you something might have happened, but there’s not enough information to prove it. By including the information, the reporter is telling you it’s worth considering when forming an opinion, not that it’s a solid fact supporting or refuting a particular position.
To take a recent example, Michael Hiltzik’s lead in this recent story is:
The French laboratory that produced incriminating doping results against Tour de France champion Floyd Landis may have [emphasis added here and below] allowed improper access to the American cyclist’s urine samples, lab documents show — one of a number of errors that could jeopardize the case against Landis.
Hiltzik isn’t saying they did allow improper access, he says that according to the lab documents he’s reviewed, it’s possible. And if there was improper access, he’s saying it could put the case in jeopardy, not that it does. He goes on to note that the same kind of error (technicians working on both the A and B samples in violation of international standards) caused the dismissal of the Landaluze case. Then, he identifies the lab technicians involved:
It was not clear in the records whether the technicians — Esther Cerpolini and Cynthia Mongongu of Laboratorie National Depistage du Dopage — played roles significant enough in both tests to disqualify the findings. Landis attorneys have asked arbitrators to let them question the technicians.
Hiltzik is not saying that the roles played by the two technicians will be enough to disqualify the B sample’s findings. Only that Landis’ attorneys are seeking to find out what roles Cerpolini and Mongongu played in the B sample tests. It may be a situation like the Landaluze case — in which case USADA, WADA and the AFLD would be on shaky ground — or it may not. Until the technicians are interviewed, the extent of their involvement won’t be known, nor will its impact on Landis’ case.
The article goes on to point out other problems or potential problems with the case. Hiltzik also reports on the squabble over whether USADA can have B samples from Landis’ other tests during the 2006 Tour tested, even though the initial tests came out negative. Hiltzik presents both USADA’s rationale and Landis’ response, providing a balanced view of the issue.
For those who have been following the Landis case in excruciating detail, much of what Michael Hiltzik reports probably sounds familiar. Over in various forums, many of the issues raised by Hiltzik have been dissected and people have reached their own conclusions. If you’re one of the people who’s made up your mind about Floyd Landis’ guilt or innocence, Hiltzik’s article probably won’t change your mind.
But we have to remember that most of the public — even diehard sports fans — aren’t following the story as closely as we are. Hiltzik’s article is meant to reach a larger audience and give them an idea of the issues and stakes involved in the case. In that respect, he succeeds very well. Was this article (or his previous articles) the definitive word on the Landis case? No, not at all. It will be quite some time before the definitive story is told, especially because we won’t know the outcome until sometime after May 14th.
Postscript
It’s not every day that you get a chance to interact with reporters and ask them about their work and their insights into the stories they cover. Over the weekend, Hiltzik logged on to the Daily Peloton Forums to let people know he will be holding a chat session on Tuesday, March 6th. So if you have questions for the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter about his coverage of the Landis case, the session runs from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m. Pacific Time on the LA Times Chat Board. To access the chat, go here and then click the Sports Chat link. Workload permitting, I’ll be there.
