Hometown media in international sports

This post comes about because of three factors: 1) I like rugby league, 2) The Internet gives me access to news from the world over, and 3) I attended a seminar on words that cause bias in news stories at the SPJ convention in Las Vegas.

Right now in the sport of rugby league there is an international tournament going on called the Tri-Nations. As the name implies, it is a matchup of the three world powers in the game: Australia (called the Kangaroos), New Zealand (call the Kiwis) and Great Britain (called the Lions).

In case you're curious, the US national doormat--er, I mean team is called the Tomahawks.

In a match between New Zealand and Great Britain on Nov. 13, Great Britain's Paul Deacon was injured on a tackle by New Zealand's Nigel Vagana. Here's what caused this injury to garner such serious attention, this coming from a story on the site of the Australian-based National Rugby League:

The lower part of Deacon's face collapsed when he was caught by Vagana's forearm in Sunday morning's 38-12 British victory, with the injury at one stage described as life threatening after displaced bones burst blood vessels at the back of his throat.

Deacon suffered breathing difficulties due to blood pooling in his throat and was treated in the changing room for two hours by team doctor Chris Brookes before being transferred to hospital, where he underwent surgery to repair fractures to the central plate of his face.

Hope you weren't eating when you read that.

Vagana was put "on report" by the referee, which means he was referred to a judiciary board for a possible suspension. The judiciary decided to suspend Vagana for one game.

So, how was it reported in the New Zealand and British media? Let's look at the words. Here's New Zealand media:

Kiwis stand-off Nigel Vagana has been slapped with a one-week ban following a high tackle in last weekend's Tri Nations rugby league test against Great Britain.

The ban will see Vagana miss the Kiwis test against France on Saturday (NZ time), but he will be available if New Zealand reach the final on November 26.

Now, here's British media:

New Zealand stand-off Nigel Vagana has been handed a one-match ban for the tackle that left Great Britain scrum-half Paul Deacon with horrific facial injuries.

The 30-year-old Cronulla Sharks player was found guilty of a careless high tackle when he appeared in front of a specially-convened disciplinary panel at the Rugby Football League headquarters in Leeds.

Vagana was cited for a high tackle after his swinging arm hit Paul Deacon.

Notice a difference in word choice?

The New Zealand story simply called the play a "high tackle" and later described what Deacon's injuries were.

British media called Deacon's injuries "horrific" and used the term "careless high tackle" (which is an actually more accurate than the New Zealand story, because carless is a term for a type of illegal hit in rugby). It also made note that the juridiciary was "specially-convened." These words convey a lot of emotion that could turn into backlash against Vagana.

I see this as a little big of national favortism. Not that I'm excusing American media from this--I'm sure if an international sporting incident came up with the U.S. involved, there would likely be a bit of favortism in the word choice there, too.

It's just really interesting to note word choice in the press. Especially since the Internet allows you to see word choice from across the globe.

So, why am I in school again?

The question of "what is actually journalism" may never be answered, particuarly with the rise of the blogsphere.

But let me throw another wrinkle in there.

I've mentioned before in at least one of my blogs the variety site Cockeyed. I first read it for the "How Much Is Inside?" series, which operate much like photo album meets boredom meets third-grade science fair. What also added interest is the location of most of the site's activity (Sacramento) and a Butte County mention in "How Much Blood Is Inside a Human?"

Then there's also the "Pranks" series, where such jokes as replacing signs at Java City and McDonalds create laughs.

In short, I like Cockeyed. It's one of the main inspriations for my new site, hamstercult.com.

But, when doing a news search on the site and its operator, Rob Cockerham, he was being noted for a series of pages he put together on those "Work from Home!" signs that you see plastered all over telephone polls and fences and bulletion boards. He traced a bulk of them to the Herbalife company, which touts health products, but critics say is run in a pyramid or Ponzi scheme format, which is a extremly high risk investments that gains returns by getting money from subsequent investors.

It was this story on Cockerham that really caught my eye, because, in reference to his Herbalife pages, there were among the feedbacks comments, this:

Herbalife never used “ephedrine”, but did stop using “ephedra” in its products. Sounds like Rob could use a (at least one)lesson in journalism.

And this:

I think you’re wrong, Dave. Herbalife made a big deal out of its new product: “Ephedrine-Free Green.”

Rob’s journalism looks fine to me.

And this:

I wonder where this Cockerham gets all the money to “slam” people about their home-based businesses. It takes some money to post all over google — I wonder if he is reporting his annual income? It would be nice for someone to write an article about him and his “journalism” — I find it insulting! The website that he has constructed just shows what kind of crap this guy is involved in.

Wow, journalism? Can the same guy known for throwing a screwball into Safeway's Club Card system now all of a sudden, become a journalist?

So, after looking up, down and all around Google, I couldn't find anywhere that Cockerham actually called his actions against Herbalife journalism.

But other people did here. And here.

Just because Cockerham doesn't describe his actions as journalism, does that necessarily mean its not?

In inverse, can you necessarily say that everybody who claims to be a journalists is actually a journalist, and not just a lame-ass, smack-talking piece of crap writer who can only rely on trying to better his own pathetic work by ripping on other publications? (primary example)

There's never been a license to be a journalist (which, don't get me wrong, is a good thing.) But these definitions of journalism are kind of lame.

Here's what I know: I just invested the last four and a half years of my life and a boatload of cash to learn how to be a good journalist. Not just a journalist, but a good one. I wanted to learn the best way to interview, how to write a lead, writing in inverted pyramid and hourglass form. I wanted to discover the secret, almost Jedi-like art of copy editing. (the Yoda of the A.P. Stylebook I'm not.)

Was it all for nothing? Was that time and those thousands of bucks spent for nothing?

Back to the original question: Can Cockerham, while not considering himself a journalist, while not trying to pass himself off as a journalist, be doing good journalism? Can a piece on the policies and actions of Herbalife be considered good journalism when not taking space on the New York Times or USA Today's site, but a site that also features the details of a secret plot that placed fake Atkins menus at TGI Friday's?

Guess it's up to everybody to decide for themselves on that one.