On Rumors, Reporting, and Making a Story Move

Hey, did you hear? Dan Snyder's buying the Washington Times?!

Effectively, that's how DCRTV.com - a site I read at least a few times per week - started a rumor like wildfire that the financially maligned Washington Times was up for sale. It kind of starts sooner than that, but in the spirit of this piece, I'll just skip to the juicy part of the story.

The Washington Post chronicled yesterday how that rumor, reported and acknowledged as "reliable speculation", sent major outlets into a tizzy. Huffington Post, the ultimate purveyors of the Ctrl+C Menality, ran with the story. Neither did any real follow-up reporting, but other news organizations then stepped in and took over from there. They found out the rumor wasn't true, but that another buyer might be out there.

That's a roundabout Cliff's Notes version. Here's the Twitter version: @drctv reports rumor. @huffpost spreads it. News sites debunk, tell true story. All done publicly.

(98 characters. Pretty good.)

The timing of the barnburning rumor and its spread coincides pretty well with something golf-ish and reporting-ish. And, hence why after the jump, I'll make my case for the value of making the public aware of informed speculation.

Get ready for a little inside baseball here. So if you don't care about this kind of thing, I'll catch you next post.

Sometimes, I find myself in an odd position. I have sources in golf and a decent Rolodex, but by no means do I have the same resources or always get the same level of confidence for news that is starting to happen.

Once it (whatever it is) happens, I get the news release like everyone else - but that's after everyone is ready to divulge. The goal for the intrepid reporter often times is to get the information before that point. 

I try to do this on a host of stories. I get tips, hints, and can read the tea leaves when things are about to happen. All of those things tend to cause me to act by rummaging around to find a proper source to confirm what I've heard with either bulletproof certainty or at least a tacit admission that someone told two friends, who told two friends. (Always better to get it from the initial friend.)

Sometimes, that leaves me with a strong inclination that I have the scoop. More often than not, if I'm less than 99% of the way there, I can't report it as fact. That'd be unethical for me to say something is true without stone cold proof. This is where the familiar "sources say" can come into play. It's really good for sharing information that may or may not happen. It's also an equally good way of covering one's ass when they want to make a prediction that something will happen, but in the event that it doesn't, the source can be blamed.

I cite "sources", too. Everyone does it. Or "(name of outlet here) has learned" is an equally good, but more definitive sounding line. More often than not, the information is good. There's no CYA involved. It's the pre-official pronouncement.

Recently, this topic prompted a discussion with a colleague (?) recently about how using such reporting tactics can be construed as spreading rumors, or even being unethical. If someone hears something on the range of a Tour event, then turns around and tells me what they heard, is that fair game?

In my opinion, yes, it is - but only in the proper framing and regarding an appropriate story.

If there are big blinking lights around the explanation that what is being noted is pure speculation, based on unfounded reporting, then half of the Rumor Test (if the SCOTUS had such a thing) would be fulfilled.

The other half is key, though. The real line is drawn when it comes to the subject matter. Speculating on the future of a sponsorship deal is completely fair game. (Buried lede alert.) If the PGA Tour is voting to enact a 1-in-5 rule, whereby players would have to pick to play one or two events in which they hadn't played in the last five years, that's perfectly fine.

In those cases, the reporting of speculation can fuel a response to move the story forward to the truth. Even if the end result is not exactly what was reported - and not rumored, there is a clear difference between informed speculation and rumors - the issue may be brought to light because of that initial poking and prodding.

The problem comes in when the topic is inflammatory and potential defamatory. I wouldn't report a rumor that Steve Williams punched someone in the nose at a bar. Why? Because that's potentially criminal and, without proof, should have no bearing on his professional life. Reporting that would cause an undeserved backlash. But if a dozen guys on Tour are wondering if there's a change on a huge bag, it could be game. Some secrets are shared precisely because they should or will get out eventually. Some never see the light of day.

All of this is to say that judgment is important. This is nothing new to reporters, so this is more just for my own benefit and to say that I (and many other blogger-types) do have judgment. It's knowing if a source is reputable. It comes from backchecking as best can be done. Ultimately, making something public that is neither verified fact nor clear opinion is a tough call. Golfweek's Forecaddie has done a successful job of straddling this line well over the years.

Libelous it can't be. Wild guessing it never should be. A personal affront? No way. But if framed properly and presented with respect to sources, topics, and readers, then I feel reporting on rumblings and grumblings - the name of a baseball column by respected reporter Jayson Stark - is reasonable.